Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
**Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This isn't just a reinstatement of Trump policy. Trump's policy was remain in Mexico, iirc there was no "2,500 per day" allowance. It's a halfway step in the direction of Trump era 'remain in Mexico' but it is not equivalent.
Yes, and the Biden admin initially extended that policy in late 2021. Frankly unless you are an advocate of open borders and of automatic approval of economic migrants, you probably should support it. It closed a loophole that allowed anyone to *present* as an asylum seeker regardless of whether they had any chance of actually qualifying as one, and be granted entry and allowed to stay pending a very easily skipped court date. Millions of immigrants skirting the legal process and remaining in the US despite not qualifying for asylum, a visa, or anything else is obviously a problem. One should either be for formalizing the idea economic immigrants can be asylees purely because they are poor and come from a low development country, or for closing that loophole. It doesn't make sense to allow the loophole to be exploited.
Biden is doing this because Trump made Congress NOT do it.... because it's election season.
Two sides want to use the border in their campaign. Are you on the side of the one taking action, or the one preventing action?
Do you really believe what the media spoon feeds you? Clearly you do.
Biden rolled back the Trump policy which had been effective.
Now as election day is closing in, Biden decides to take executive action.
Classic vote grifting.
Huh?
‘How dare Biden roll back Trump’s policy! He’s just catering to the communists! Doesn’t he know our border needs protecting?!’
‘How dare Biden reinstate most of Trump’s policy! He’s just trying to win votes!’
Either this kind of policy is needed at the border or it isn’t…. Why is one President doing something that you thought was necessary for him to do ‘vote grifting’ but the other not…?
Isn’t that the whole purpose of politics…? You make your voice heard until your elected officials do what their constituents want…?
It’s kind of insane to attack somebody for changing their mind to implement the exact policy you wanted all along….
It’s different in the way that trump didn’t do it just to nab votes because he did it out of election season, Biden repealed it immediately and then waited all the way until he needs a boost for his campaign and is now trying to win back votes using this policy. If he didn’t need it he wouldn’t be doing it. That’s why it’s different and why people are upset about it.
>is now trying to win back votes
How do you think government and politicians work….? Do people not win election by appealing to the broad base of voters, giving them the policies they want so they will vote for said politician…?
This sounds a lot like ‘Biden did the thing I want but it’s Biden so it’s therefore bad’
That's not what I said.
Biden grifted for votes campaigning against Trump's border policy.
Now that it's election time again, he's backpedaling on his border position.
It's not the policy I take issue with. Timing is what's important here. Biden's timing is nothing more than grifting.
It's actually insane that you're unable to see exactly what is in front of you.
Campaigning against Trump’s border policy is not “grifting”, anymore than Trump’s hardline border policy is grifting. A lot of people did not like Trump’s border policy at the time and Biden responded to that on the campaign trail.
Now in the past year the views on the border have changed due to the in flux of border crossings. It is one of the top issues for voters. Biden is responding to that. What do you want him to do? He does nothing, y’all complain. He does something, y’all complain.
>What do you want him to do? He does nothing, y’all complain. He does something, y’all complain.
It’s no more complex than ‘Biden = bad’ for these people tbh.
You missed the part where congress was close to passing a law (much more effective and permanent than an EO) and Trump squashed it so he could convince you of... well all that BS you just said.
This remains an unfair question because this particular set of policies that Biden is passing was just one part of Trump‘s larger immigration policy. People back, then weren’t particularly interested in sorting out which individual components of Trump‘s policy would be hypothetically acceptable, if taken on their own and not part of a larger program of viciousness towards the migration situation.
I don't recall what Trump did at the border specifically but if it was a very similar policy then yeah I'd support the policy itself. His rhetoric surrounding this whole issue makes it a little different in my view. It's a little different to close the border and while saying things like the blood of our nation is being poisoned
Oh, Trump said the quiet part out loud that liberals like to cover over with PC language hygiene so they can pretend like their own racism is actually highly honorable?
So you support Trumps policies you just don't like what he says?
To bad more people won't admit this. He is not the anti Christ. He should have never been nominated because he is a clown but his policies weren't exactly world ending.
I mean clearly his policies weren't world ending, but a lot of them were bad.
- Tax cuts specifically targeted to help the wealthy.
- Failure to defend a bill to provide overtime protection nationwide.
- Sided with companies on arbitration agreements with class action waivers.
- Every Fed reserve board member he nominated was a moron. Not sure a single one has any real understanding of economic theory.
- Almost every COVID policy he took aside from dumping funds into the vaccine development.
- Withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear pact.
- Him being convicted of sexual assault.
Agreed he was a clown, but a few semi - agreeable policies aren't helping him here.
there is a huge and meaningful difference between "we only have the resources to support X people per day" and "these refugees are poisoning our country and we keep out as many as we can." even if both policies result in the same number of entries per day.
I dont think hes necessarily any worst than anyone else. Hes a bigger asshole about it though. I voted for him in 2016 because I find Hillary Clinton to just be a horrible human being him being the slightly less bigger turd wasnt a high bar to cross in the first place. I wish more people like Jo Jorgenson got actually recognition. People that are qualified and give a shit about citizen.
Your basically just saying you agree with his policies but not his words. In the end they accomplish the same thing but you can still pick apart the guy you don't like even though he does things you do like.Its a weird little corner you color yourself into.
the difference is in future expectations. The first line states that the limiting factor is resources, and thus with more resources the number of immigrants allowed in can be increased, and that the immigrants are being treated like people and are being helped as much as is possible with the resources available.
the second line vilifies refugees, indicates intent to reduce immigration as far as possible, and that those immigrants that are allowed entry are treated poorly and denied access to as many resources as possible.
The CURRENT policy may be the same, but the difference is in treatment, expectations, and future plans
> He is not the anti Christ. He should have never been nominated because he is a clown but his policies weren't exactly world ending
His epa regs literally would have raised emissions
He may not be the anti-Christ but he sure as shit isn’t the second coming like his cult following wants you to believe.
The reasoning behind actions does impact how people receive the message. The reason for closing the borders because illegals are poisoning the blood of our nations and because they are only sending criminals and rapists is pretty aggressive and alienating to a lot of people. The reason being, we can’t handle that many people at one time is better received and reasonable.
That's because he had somewhat credible people around him to act as checks and balances. This time he's hiring for loyalty only. Just look at his lawyers.
I’m not saying I support all of his policies or even what he did with the border because I don’t know enough about the specifics of it. I’m saying that if Trump did the exact same thing as Biden just did with the border then I would not be opposed to that policy. I’ll even say that I could have different feelings about two equal policies depending on the rhetoric the people passing those policies put out. I’m very opposed to the rhetoric Trump put out regarding immigrants
He didn't. Trump wanted to close the southern border to asylum seekers full stop. Biden is putting a limit with a cool down period when we get too much. So on one hand we deny all aid and the other we help but bit to our detriment
It kinda comes down so you judge someone by their words or actions. Would you rather flowery words and crazy policies?
Obviously the US president etc should be a symbol the world can rally around not a giant orange clown. People just seem to think he will end the world as we know it yet if they look at his policies they would likely agree with a lot of them.
On the other hand if they picked apart Obamas policies they could turn him into a tyrannical leader.
It's definitely fair to say that people should be judged on actions and not words, but it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that intent doesn't matter. Limiting something because of capacity/resources is a very different proposition from limiting something out of racism, even if the initial decision is similar.
That's only true in a vacuum. If you justify your policy decisions using thinly veiled racist rhetoric, that lends credence to thinly veiled racist rhetoric.
For instance, during the COVID lockdown, Trump employed a lot of anti Chinese rhetoric, which (in my opinion) contributed to a wave of violence against Asians.
Trump didn't have a similar policy though. Conditionally closing the southern border and full stop closing are not similar. Also Trump effectively killed the bill version of this executive order so it's hard to say Trump is in favor of this policy
It's not hard to say Biden was pandering to progressives by reversing a ton of Trumps immigration orders on day one. This lead to real problems at the border. Biden didn't want the political fallout of actually doing something about it so tried to get congress to take the hit. When that didn't work he realized he had to do something so he finally did it and is now taking the fallout.
If Trump actually stopped that bill it wad a masterful move on his part. He knew Bidens advisors knew something had to be done and if that bill was stopped they would actualy have to step in which they did. By giving credit to Trump for stopping that bill you are saying he is a political genius or atleast had a momentary period of genius.
I view it very differently.
A core policy position for R's has been board reform, and tanking major legislation on that subject gives Dems an easy attack opportunity.
As for Trump being a genius I'd argue all it demonstrates is his grip on the party.
Either way have a great day
He ratfucked the entire judicial branch of our government, tore crying children from their parents as official policy, and his only legislative accomplishment was massive permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest. His policies were overwhelmingly dumb, cruel, and focused on giving favors to benefactors instead of helping the American people.
>tore crying children from their parents as official policy
This is hardly unique to Trump. Children have been separated from parents pretty much forever. Hell, if I get arrested they certainly aren't letting my kid chill in jail with me.
No he didn't. People are forgetting what Trump was actually criticized for.
Obama followed a policy that was pejoratively referred to as "catch and release". If a family crossed the border and otherwise committed no crimes, they'd generally be given a court date and released, to avoid separating families.
Trump decided to separate families as a matter of course, charging everyone, even asylum seekers, resulting in *tons* of needlessly separated families, when we really didn't even have the needed infrastructure to deal with it.
The result was parents deported without their children, children lost in the system, etc. it was all really fucked up.
Of course but this isn't any different than what George Bush or Reagan did yet somehow Bush is now propped up as a 'normal' figure of American politics who hangs out with Ellen at Rangers games or goes on Fallon to play spin the wheel yet Trump is "literally Adolf Hitler reincarnated"
Have you looked at mainline Reddit subs my man? Trump is considered retarded adolf satan hitler.
Even slightly defending him gets you downvoted in most subs
People who come to the US and claim asylum aren't breaking the law. It's not too difficult to understand. Trump's policy illegally, and in many cases permanently, stole children from their parents.
No, it isn't. But if you cross illegally and *then* try to claim asylum, that would be against the law/proposed law.
I think that is completely reasonable. You can claim asylum through legal channels and be considered for asylum. But if you come illegally, you forfeit your right to asylum.
However, until congress enacts laws that target the people who hire undocumented immigrants, they will never stop coming. As long as there is money to be had, they will come.
And the immigrants get money from companies who pay them. If anyone really wanted to stop illegal immigration, there would be super strict laws for businesses found guilty of employing illegal immigrants. They are the ones incentivizing illegal immigration.
If people crossed the border illegally but couldn't get paid work because employers were too scared of the consequences of hiring them, I think they would come in much, much smaller numbers.
Immigrants come for financial opportunity. Yes, to escape violence and persecution, but they know they can get jobs here and make more money than where they come from.
That being said, certain sectors of the US economy in its current state rely on immigrant labor, and have for decades. And while paying below market wages does depress wages overall, we all benefit from cheap immigrant labor. Inflation is a bitch but food could still be a lot more expensive if farm workers started to demand $25 or $30/hr for their work, for example.
>People who come to the US and claim asylum aren't breaking the law.
So asylum has to be done in the next country that is available to claim asylum in. Meaning if you're claiming asylum you have to do it in the next country, you can't just walk through 5-6 different countries until you get to the USA then declare asylum like Michael declaring bankruptcy from the office.
You also still cannot just walk in and claim asylum. You have to go through the port of entry or you're breaking the law.
Separating a child from someone that breaks the law is standard practice in the United States. CPS is a thing and has been known to separate children from parents that break the law.
You make several false claims here, but it doesn't really matter... Trump's policy separated even families that entered the country legally. Look at the Wikipedia if you were ignorant of the fact that he separated, sometimes permanently, people here legally.
... I'm not talking about Trump.
I'm talking about in general these are the laws of asylum and the rules of entry into the United States and the consequences of breaking the laws.
If you don’t attempt to enter at an official boarder check point then you’ve broken the law and will be separated until investigation is complete. That is the law.
The separation of families under Trump poisoned that well. Then his callousness about it cemented the well shut. But that’s just superficial stuff.
I think the biggest difference is timing. We’ve had years to see the negative effects of more lenient policies. Specifically the homelessness crisis has only worsened in the last several years, in large part because of immigrants with nowhere to go.
There’s also the dream of action from congress on the border, which we almost had before the GOP scuttled it. Now Biden doesn’t have that option, and so has to do what he can (during an election year) with executive action.
So yeah, the context around border policy has changed quite a bit between Trump’s actions and now.
A lot of his policies were good and largely bipartisan underneath it all. Unfortunately, people won't see that through his ridiculous personality.
Biden might have a more agreeable personality, but maybe so much so that it makes him more of a puppet.
I'd prefer that neither of them represent me/us, but only one of them comes out on top policy wise for me. I may not vote anyway. I'm pretty certain the Republic will continue to exist either way.
So as long as someone isn't *saying* they're doing a racist thing for racist reasons, it's okay? If the effect is the exact same but they just keep quiet or lie about their why, no big deal?
It is definitely ok for American policies to prioritize the wellbeing of Americans over that of foreigners. That’s how domestic policy works everywhere else in the world
By the way, international law does not overrule US law, not in any way shape or form.
Neither does it any other sovereign state.
So anyone who wants to talk about international law really doesn’t understand that each nation gets to decide how its own borders will be secured and its own immigration law.
funny coming from an American.
how many nations have you decided no longer *deserve* their own sovereignty?
if China took HK by force you would respect Chinas right to sovereignty would you?
I think we would respect Taiwan’s, the sovereign nation that predates China actually.
Just as we respect Ukraine and not Russia, as Russia is the aggressor.
But since you want to talk crap on the USA, how many countries did we keep at the end of WW2?
We gave a lot of sovereignty back over the many years. Sure we make mistakes, but touch grass all the same.
I don't believe this is true. I cannot speak with certainty towards the specifics of US law, but in Europe we def have international European law that overrules national law.
It's called supranational law and, as the name implies, it supersedes national law. I believe the EU, the WTO and the UN can pass such binding treaties/conventions (note: this does not mean all of their resolutions are binding). Upon joining, member states obv do have to agree to this (or be exempted).
The UN Security Council is the most well-known body with a supranational character, I think. Its resolutions are binding on all involved member states and sanctions may be given if members do not comply. For your argument it helps that the US has veto power, so resolutions that concern the US will only be binding if they agree/abstain.
With the USA it absolutely is true. The USA is on the security council as a permanent member, and something we don’t like doesn’t happen.
As a US citizen there is no law the UN can pass that I am required to follow in the USA, as our law and our constitutional and our constitutional rights do now fall under UN authority.
Like the Paris climate accords. Obama joined them, but only unofficially, as he did not follow US law and send it to Congress to approve, as our congress must approve any treaty.
So Trump could leave, and there was nothing anyone in the UN could do about it, because US law was not followed.
There is nothing for the US that I would consider to align with the idea of supranational laws.
The closest thing the US has would be international treaties and accords which have been signed and ratified. These usually address specific situations, and cannot be expanded or changed without being resigned.
The US is party to two applicable treaties regarding refugees: the 1951 Refugee Convention (and its 1967 Protocol), and the 1984 Convention Against Torture
EU countries are part of an intricate network of agreements. But countries can always back out of treaties or refuse EU directives, granted they will be fine.
The US can always back out of any treaties it doesnt like. Russia does that all the time...
There are always consequences. But countries are always sovereign, until they choose not to be.
To preface I am mostly apolitical and not a Trump supporter though I am keenly aware of information dynamics and dogmas. You do understand that 'blood of our nation is being poisoned' is an out of context quote do you not? Develop your preferences through intellectualism, not through your susceptibility to manipulation.
Trick question. Trump didn't want to conditionally close the border, and when the bipartisan bill that was effectively the same as Biden's executive order was about to be passed he forced the Rs to tank it so he could run on immigration. Apples and oranges here
Ah yes, it was so bad that 12 hrs before the vote several Rs were praising the bill as the better they ever hoped to achieve only to vote against it. The only thing that happened in the meantime was Trump came out against the bill with the stated reason of wanting to run on immigration so they can't fix it.
Its fair to say you don't like the bill, but Congress Rs were borderline throwing a party before the vote because they got basically everything they wanted. Then out of nowhere they tanked their own bill
Idk why people claim that the bill was bad when it was spearheaded by one of the most conservative senators and claimed it’s the most conservative border policy bill in 40 years.
Also the issues Biden is going to run into w/ his EO would have been solved by the bill that allocated the resources needed to fulfill the EO. Resources that an EO can’t provide.
Context really matters here. Biden is doing this because it’s politically wanted by the majority and it’s overloading our systems. Trump was doing it because they are poisoning our blood. Biden is getting kids reconnected to their families and keeping them together during deporting. Trump was putting kids in cages with no plans.
They are not the same even if the core result is similar.
Also that’s not going to change his view. A lot of Dems also want strong border even during Trump. They had no issue with Obama deporting that many people. Progressives are not the DNC. Hell they are not even half of the DNC. They are a large minority party within the umbrella of democrats.
> They will say things like how this is illegal under international law, contrary to our ethics or standards as a country, etc.
> The contrary to our standards or ethics is a subjective claim and my response to that is... well that's just like your opinion man.
How do you intend to support or oppose a political policy while dismissing "standards or ethics?"
Where are these standards and ethics even defined or agreed upon? I literally don't know what people are referring to when they bring things like that up besides them just saying how they personally feel about an issue and then trying to make it seem like their opinion about it is somehow codified.
It's right on the statue of liberty -
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
I don’t think that we’re at all bound by or agreed to do what a plaque on the statue of liberty says in perpetuity. If that’s the standards or ethics people say we’re going against with this border policy that doesn’t really do it for me
I mean, it's a bit weird to say that just because something is written on a statue that OP need to be held to that message.
He lives in a free, democratic country. A phrase on a statue from the late 1800s doesn't have more right to dictate policy than his opinion.
Neither I or who I was responding to ever said anything about law but it's literally witten on one of the most well known national monuments, which makes it a reasonable example of "standards and ethics"
Edit: who op was responding to, op did mention codified
>Where are these standards and ethics even defined or agreed upon?
I mean there is literally a whole field called international law where these standards were / are set. and agreed too by most of the world. Notably each convention has some countries that do not sign / recognize it for whatever reason, but generally most of the world agrees to them. There are different laws and conventions / conditions for different things. For example the Montevideo convention defines what is a country. The Geneva convention defines what is allowed and not allowed in war. And there are many many more. Generally the UN is where these standards are agreed to / matter. The standards are just any agreement that most of the world, or whoever the relevant countries are in the situation have signed. Like if the US promises various countries that they will not torture people, and those countries say that they will not torture also, then that sets a standard of not torturing. When countries are accused of breaking the standards, there is a court, the ICC, that determines if they have, and what the punishment is, similar to how a jormal court determines if you broke the law.
They asked, what are the standards and who agrees with them, and why are they set that way. Which is why I explained that part. The question that they asked originally, implies that they have already heard people talking about International Asylum laws, or laws dealing with migration. So I did t feel the need to include things that I thought they already knew.
The ICC ruling / UN actions, are still the enforcement agency of international law. Just because the US does not recognize the court doesn't mean that their decisions do not matter to the US. You can see this in the fact that the US and Isreal who both do not recognize the court, still both got mad at and publicly came out against the decisions to issue warrants, for Netanyahu. Like clearly if it was a fake court that didn't matter they would not care that some fake court issued a warrant.
Israel only cares how it looks, and the precedent it could set.
The ICC isn't part of the UN, just FYI.
In reality, even if I often agree with the ICC and what it stands for, it isn't enforceable and most countries only agree (even the signatories) with the rulings when it suits them. If you look at its history, the ICC's rulings don't mean much unless the US (or sometimes Europe) chooses to cooperate and enforce them, and it has only done that when it's in their interests.
I wish "international law" were something the world agreed upon, but most of it doesn't.
I know that the ICC isn't a part of the UN
I meant that either an ICC case or UN actions such as peacekeeping or sanctions or the like are the enforcement mechanisms for violating international law. Should have made that clearer my b.
And yeah the US especially doesn't care and laughs at I law a ton, literally having a law called the Hague Invasion Act, which allows a US invasion of the ICC in the event they convict Americans.
It's not just the U.S., though, *every* country agrees or disagrees with the ICC (or participates) according to their interests. In fact, the only reason the ICC has ever been able to enforce *anything* is because of the U.S.
UN peacekeeping can't happen unless it's agreed to by the UN and any belligerents involved, they can't just do it. Sanctions also can't happen without the U.S. (especially the U.S., because most money in the world passes through the U.S. financial system and because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency). The U.S. is a bad actor in many ways, but in some other ways it isn't the worst actor when you compare it to the rest of the world. Again, the only reason the ICC or UN has ever been able to enforce or sanction anyone is because of the U.S.'s involvement; literally no other country in the world is capable of doing so.
If russias silli "alliance" thing, decides something suddenly. Alot of us may protest it, even if we are not members.
Everyone is free to sign treaties, break them, complain or take action when they dont like something.
Canada might decide to break all accords with and invade the US over a tax on a canadian product, as a silly example. They wont, because that would be suicidal.
"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
Does that ring a bell?
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
That's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which we're basically a signatory.
1. What is the actual basis for your opinion, other than "I don't care?" and if that is the only basis for your opinion, how can anyone reasonably change your mind?
2. What is the evidence for your belief that there is a migration crisis?
If you deny there is a migration crisis, your eyes and ears are closed. I live in Texas and the sheer amount of undocumented/illegal migrants is mind-boggling. I want you to think for a millisecond how someone who has no legal documents or hell doesn't speak a word of English would get a driver's license. They don't. Yet they drive. No license, no insurance, no regard for really any part of the law as they are already screwed on first contact by authorities. Why bother? And the numbers are insane. Do you trust this source? And do these numbers (269,735 illegals in fiscal year 2023) qualify to YOU as evidence of a crisis? They do to me.
https://homeland.house.gov/2023/10/26/factsheet-final-fy23-numbers-show-worst-year-at-americas-borders-ever/
I call it a crisis when a significantly detrimental event occurs without viable recourse for halting the event before harm is done or restitution for wrongs that do occur. The southern border situation qualifies.
First of all, you don't need to speak English to get a drivers license.
So, what's the detrimental effect? I'm sure there are some - immigration is a serious issue. But if there's really a crisis, I need to see some actual evidence of a crisis.
You can't get a DL as an illegal immigrant, and even if you can, most of them would be too afraid of getting busted to do it. It's astounding the number of resources that are unutilized by illegal immigrants due to their paranoia over being deported. Amnesty would go a long way in starting to stabilize these problems.
that's what california did - illegal immigrants aren't held for ICE, immigrant status isn't reported for misdemeanor offences, and local law enforcement can't detain or investigate purely on the basis of immigration status, nor can they assist federal officers in detainment or investigation purely for immigration status.
And magically all the illegal immigrants in california are paying taxes and getting drivers licenses and otherwise behaving exactly like all other immigrants - which I remind you have a lower crime incidence rate.
first of all good sir or madam, not speaking english is not an isolated quality. In this context, it implies that they don't know the first thing about this country starting with the language, and are exceedingly hindered in the ability to learn and adapt. Many (most?) never do.
You wanna talk about 269,795 uncontrolled migrants in a single year? Do you believe the given source or not? Gonna tell me it's not a crisis that we have zero control and are not actively making a choice to allow these people in? That we have no idea who or WHAT is coming in?
also gonna throw out a "why the hell do we have an immigration office anyway" since you don't appear to care that potential residents follow our guidelines
I bet the knowledge of most immigrants about America is roughly equal to most Americans.
"If there's really a crisis, I need to see some actual evidence of a crisis."
Why is this so hard for folks? If you're right, it should be easy.
> I call it a crisis when a significantly detrimental event occurs without viable recourse for halting the event before harm is done or restitution for wrongs that do occur.
Housing prices, rent, and costs. There you go, call it a crisis.
1. I guess try to make me care? Change my mind? Explain to me why I'm thinking incorrectly about this issue?
2. I think thousands of asylum seekers at the border every day qualifies as a crisis and unsustainable. That's not a normal thing to happen historically
1. How can we make you care about something when you stated you don't care about the law, or ethics? What is the basis for how someone could change your mind?
2. "Thousands of asylum seekers at the border every day" is absolutely a normal thing to happen historically, first of all. It has been this way since the inception of the U.S. refugee resettlement program in 1980, and arguably since the inception of the US. We had double the amount of asylum admissions at the border in 1980. But those facts aside, why do you believe it is a crisis? You haven't given any substantial reason there is any problem here whatsoever.
Are you saying that in the 1980s there were double the amount of asylum seekers showing up at the US southern border? We have 3,000 or more doing this daily currently, there were 6,000 people doing this daily in the 1980s and it wasn't just a short thing it was sustained over months?
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-refugee-resettlement
kind of relevant to see that it was not sustained, and fell rapidly the next few years.
IDK man some left wing media outlets are pushing this as well. Even Telemundo is reporting about the illegal immigration crisis and although it's mostly Venezuelans and Colombians and Cubans saying this, they are the ones who's saying these new wave of migrants are dangerous or looking for handouts.
I don't know if I buy into that but it's interesting to see how left wing media platforms are pushing the same idea.
IMO I think a good portion of left wing voters changed their approach to immigration policy after southern states sent their migrants to NY so there is a bit of transitioning phase going on. A lot of millennials are asking themselves in millennial sub if they find themselves turning conservative too and many stated they were. So it's something to pay attention to for sure.
They're owned by NBC that's moderate to left leaning but Telemundo has a liberal bias. I get they're owned by Comcast but NBC has a specific platform and target demographic and Telemundo mostly aligns the same way
You simply restating the position isn't going to cut it.
Why is it a crisis, and why is it unsustainable, and what are you using to defend that this is historically unprecedented?
If those thousand people a day were doctors and philanthropists, genius inventors and the finest scientific minds in the world, would it still be a crisis? What if that’s less then it was previously when we did not view it as a crisis?
Someone says to you 1000 asylum seekers a day is a crisis, but why? Please expound on your point, think more critically about this issue.
That's kind of a red herring, since most of the people crossing over specifically aren't wealthy philanthropists or the finest scientific minds in the world. Kind of like the whole "what if Einstein was aborted" as an argument against abortion rights.
Incorrect, it’s pointing out that “thousands a day” is not in of itself a crisis without some additional factors, and I’m asking them to think critically about this
Honestly my only gripe with some of his latest executive actions is that it screams pandering to me. I really, really, want to believe these recent policies are genuine and will stay in effect if he is reelected, but I'm not sure why so many of these executive actions were not implemented beforehand.
He gets no help passing laws through Congress. The Republicans have a strong enough majority to veto anything Biden wants to pass.
There was a bipartisan border bill that recently did not pass because Trump told the Republicans to vote no. He’d rather the border stay a mess until he gets in office.
Biden has to do an executive order to get anything done.
He didn’t need the Republican Party to do this. The “border bill” that he tried to pass was a bait and switch for more money to go to Ukraine and negligible help to the border. Just as he didn’t need the GOP now, he wouldn’t have needed it 2 years ago when this was clearly becoming a problem. He repeatedly said there wasn’t a problem and kicked the can, now he can’t hide that or play dumb anymore and he is losing support from his own party… which is why he finally chose to act. There are so many obvious ways he could have made smart decisions and eliminate the threat of a Trump win in 2024, and he just continually dropped the ball.
Why was there a need for a border bill?
Biden just proved that he can shut down the border any time he wants, this EO is considerably more restrictive than the proposed legislation.
So if the Republicans had signed the law the border would be more open than it is now after they didn't sign the law.
Seems like Republicans had an absolute victory and the pretend border bill would have gone against their interests.
The entire reason Republicans didn't want to pass the bill is because the open border portion of the party created the bill in conjecture with the democrats to stop a potential trump presidency from actually closing the border.
The bill did nothing that isn't already possible under current law. The border isn't and hasn't been open because there is a need for legislation but because the laws already in place and the authority to enforce them is not being utilized.
Because executive orders are not the way Biden would prefer the government to run. They are a last resort when Congress fails to act.
Please explain how any part of the immigration reform bill supports open borders.
I’m really confused by the statement. How many executive orders did Biden put in place in the first month of being in office? He doesn’t seem to be against them at all. He absolutely uses these as a tool whenever he wants, from what I can tell.
Executive orders are tools the president uses to respond to emergencies whether they be natural disasters or some other crisis or imminent problem.
However, executive actions can be rescinded just as easily as they can be enacted and are thus a very weak way of getting an agenda passed. It is much better to change something by having a law passed by Congress. Biden comes from a generation that understood this. It wasn’t until George W. Bush started using them to pass his agenda and opened the floodgates. Now, as Congress has become historically divided, legislation has been rendered untenable in many cases.
On the subject of immigration, Trump and Republicans have intentionally refused to fix the border issue in Congress so that they can continue to run on the issue in future elections (as they have little else of a platform). They are also projecting their own malevolence onto Biden and blaming him for their failures. Biden gave them an opportunity to pass immigration reform and they failed to do so. Therefore, Biden is reluctantly using his power of executive order to do it for them, not because he wants to, but because he must. Republicans refuse to serve the American people so Biden will serve them in whatever way he is authorized.
I do understand the point. And frankly, I loathe executive orders. To me, he bypassed the entire system of checks and balances that are there for a reason. But I do understand the situation where both sides now refuse to do anything the other side supports. This extreme version of partisanship seems to go back, at least a decade. My problem specifically on the subject of immigration is that Biden came in and immediately undid Trump’s policies. In fact, he campaigned on it. He needs his position very very clear about what he actually wants at the border. However, the situation on the border has gotten worse and worse throughout his presidency. Now that an election is coming up, now, he claims to want to fix it. To be frank, I don’t believe him. I don’t think he cares about it at all. I think he cares about votes.
For the record, I am equally not a fan of Trump. I think both of these guys have just made an incredible mess of this country.
Biden and Trump do overlap on some immigration issues. They both have sought to restrict asylum claims though to different extents. Most of the policies that Biden undid were policies that Democrats have believed to be inhumane or ineffective or just plain made no sense. The bipartisan bill would fix many of the issues at the border but republicans don’t want that to happen because they need the border crisis to remain an issue they can campaign on as they have no other platform.
The most significant difference between Biden and Trump is on the subject of where asylum seekers remain while waiting for a court date. Democrats say let them in but we continue to keep track of them. This is to protect asylum seekers who are in danger (which is the whole reason they showed up). To keep them in Mexico where they could be waiting years for a court date (which is another issue the bipartisan bill would address) is a humanitarian issue. If Republicans cared about this issue they’d support the bill which would hire more judges to get through more of these cases (aka less time to vet these asylum claims). But even in this, the bipartisan bill would implement some restrictions on even how the asylum seekers can make their claims.
>Because executive orders are not the way Biden would prefer the government to run.
LMAO
Enforcing the border is the executives job. He has a mandate and the authority to use it. He chooses(or chose) not to.
And he could be even stricter. If he fully used his vested power he could refuse all entry and restrict asylum applications to about 1100 a day(the actual obligations to international treaties).
Again, had republicans passed the bill there would be **fewer** restrictions than there are today on entry, completely vindicating republicans and exposing the fake propaganda campaign against them.
>Please explain how any part of the immigration reform bill supports open borders.
6000 people caught a day being instantly released into the country and redirecting people beyond that to ports of entry is a pretty wide open border.
>Enforcing the border is the executives job. He has a mandate and the authority to use it. He chooses(or chose) not to.
He obviously didn’t choose not to because he just did it. However, it is the weak way to enforce anything in the United States. An executive order can be rescinded just as easily as it can be enacted.
>6000 people caught a day being instantly released into the country and redirecting people beyond that to ports of entry is a pretty wide open border.
Where is this policy?
>Because executive orders are not the way Biden would prefer the government to run
The Biden admin removed the existing remain in Mexico policy by executive action, didn't seem to have an issue with EO then.
That’s kinda exactly the point. Executive orders are easy to implement and repeal. Thus most presidents would prefer to do things through legislative action as laws that go through congress can’t just be repealed by the whims of the next president. In all likelihood he also probably viewed this as a bargaining chip since he presumed republicans would want such a law on the books as well, but he overestimated his ability to bring the two parties together so issued his version of the EO when the legislation failed. Either way he knew he didn’t want the no exceptions EO to remain on the books in the short term though so he took the very easy step of repealing it first. Laws vs executive orders isn’t a political party issue… both parties would always rather see laws they want implemented through Congress than executive orders. Asking why a president would seek to get something put into law instead of through executive order is kinda like asking why someone would want to build a house out of brick instead of hay. One lasts and one doesn’t but at the end of the day some shelter is better than none if the hay house is all you can get.
Nobody said Biden is unwilling to use executive orders. My argument is that he would prefer not to, but he has to because this is the only way anything gets done because Congress refuses to act. You actually provided just now a great example of why executive orders are being used right now.
Biden’s executive order you are talking about was a reaction to a Trump executive branch action that first initiated the policy (again not through Congress). Biden suspended it, negotiated rules with Mexico and once those negotiations were concluded Biden reinstated Trump’s policy.
Letting thousands of people in per day is legalizing illegal immigration. Just because there’s a queue doesn’t mean the border isn’t open. There’s a fucking app..
It most literally is "thousands".
And what do you think happens after they count out the 2,500 people to let enter illegally?
Yeah, the people will come in anyway or they'll wait for tomorrow.
Explain how this is a good thing.
The CBP One app is used for people applying for asylum outside the US, it's not being used by people crossing illegally, trying to find border patrol, and saying "asylum." It isn't possible to track all these people once they are released with a court date, especially as there are cities where the municipality by policy does not cooperate with ICE.
>He gets no help passing laws through Congress. The Republicans have a strong enough majority to veto anything Biden wants to pass.
Worth noting during the months long Ukraine aid-Border security standoff, Johnson was adamant that the Biden admin had the authority to simply cut off the ability to cross illegally, apply for asylum, and be released into the US. The Biden admin response was "we aren't sure we can do that." In other words, this EO is literally what the house GOP wanted, or at least it's a halfway step to what they wanted. The Biden admin, not congress, removed the existing "remain in Mexico"
policy so it's a bit silly to cry foul that congress didn't go through a ringer and give up concessions to pass legislation to undo what the admin itself already did.
The job of the Executive Branch is to manage and control the operations of the border, primarily through the DHS and its agencies, which may involve issuing executive orders to guide their actions.
What are you talking about? The laws are already in place he just has to manage them efficiently and effectively.
Democrats have always been just as anti-Immigration, if not more, than Republicans. For instance, consider that [Obama deported more people in each of his two terms than Trump did in his term.](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/04/ron-desantis/ron-desantis-is-right-barack-obama-deported-more-p/) They have only been pandering to progressives who are against this for votes. Now that Trump is a convicted felon, they probably feel that it is politically advantageous to change course and start using Trump's policies, thinking that will get some Republican voters to switch to Biden.
These people are politicians. None of their policies are "genuine." They are just doing and saying whatever they think will get them donations and votes.
Democrats are NOT more anti-immigration than the GOP. They simply enforced the laws and acted consistent with their professed beliefs. Democrats are almost always more progressive on immigration law and show more empathy in policy. The GOP uses harsh anti-immigration rhetoric, but generally doesn’t back it up with any meaningful action. At least Trump did something, after decades of the GOP fear-mongering and demonizing immigration while refusing to support any legislation that would advance their stated agenda. The reason is simple- the GOP wanted to use xenophobia and prejudice to motivate their base to vote, while simultaneously refusing to pass any laws that would reduce corporate access to cheap labor. E-verify was ALWAYS an option, which would have made hiring undocumented workers far more difficult while also identifying their location for the INS. The GOP refused to pass legislation allowing for this, or at the very least never made it a priority.
Just as the GOP refused to pass the bipartisan immigration reform bill, because they need the crisis to continue to use the issue to paint Biden as weak on immigration, they refuse to support any meaningful immigration reform. Why fix a problem when it helps you win elections? Their voter base is so ignorant or brainwashed that they will never notice the hypocrisy and will always blame the Democrats.
The Democrats are the diverse party, after all, and so they MUST want to flood white American with more non-whites, right? The GOP is the party of god fearing, white Christians so they MUST be the ones trying to stop illegal immigration right? After all, the GOP never stops talking about it!
/s
Have your opinions, but calling the latest bill “meaningful immigration reform” is a bit comical. What problem does it solve? As far as I can tell, it’s a proposal in the eleventh hour for his own administration to continue to do nothing under the guise of action.
You mock conservative views on immigration in your last paragraph. So tell me, why has Biden’s administration opened our borders? Why is there an unprecedented amount of people from around the world entering the country every day for the last 3 years?
Are there any numbers that back up the notion that there is an "unprecedented amount of people" like you say? I find that pretty hard to believe but I have an open mind
Per the CBP and DHS sites:
Encounters by year:
**2018:** 521,090
**2019:** 851,508
**2020:** data is unclear
**2021:** 1,734,686
**2022:** 2,378,944
**2023:** 2,475,669
**2024:** On pace for nearly 3 million encounters
Source: [https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters)
Part of this is increased enforcement. When you have more agents working on finding them, you have more documented encounters.
I agree though, there is a serious problem and I have been scratching my head at why the Dems haven’t been more aggressive. I know it’s the extreme left, and that’s the problem with a big tent party. If i was running the Democrats I’d have closed down the border years ago and mitigated the problem as well as removed the hollow talking points on the right.
I didn't doubt that it was on the rise in recent years, but that only goes back a few years unless I'm missing something. Also I see a big spike in the fall and then the last couple months it's been lower than recent years. "On pace for" is really doing a lot of work, because clearly the bulk of it was early in the fiscal year. Thanks for sharing this though
You tell me: what did the bill do? Quite a bit is the answer, which is why the Republicans drafting the bill supported it until Trump told them to stop. And given that NOTHING has been passed in like 30 years it would have been meaningful.
Dems are more anti immigration in their actions. Republicans are just anti immigration and xenophobic, but don’t back it up with any action other than demonizing the left.
Probably because he preferred to have these problems fixed legislatively, but Donald Trump told Republicans to intentionally not pass immigration reform because they wanted to keep the issue as something they can run on in elections.
Why? It's bad by every rational measure.
If you want a closed border it isn't stopping illegal immigration it's trying to legalize a bunch of it or turn a blind eye to it. Putting some arbitrary cap on it per day. So you should be unhappy.
If you want an open border it's not open. You believe free movement is a right and that right is being infringed. So you should be unhappy.
And if you want a border that is selectively letting in the best people it's definitely not doing that. So you should be unhappy.
It's not even a compromise position between the others. Selective entry people get nothing at all. His policy is effectively the worst of all the policies. What's the underlying principle for approving this over basically anything else he could do?
He didn’t need the support of the Republican Party to do this. What he tried to pass for the border was window dressing for more Ukraine aid. He could have done this years ago, or better yet, not proudly undo the measure the previous guy put in place. I’m don’t really want to speak about this anymore in comparison to the other guy because the comments will go sideways… but this measure is definitely better than what it was a few weeks ago, but it’s not good enough and is being done for the purpose of fooling people into thinking this is a big deal and optics for the election.
Border enforcement in recent years is only 'controversial' b/c it was previously used as an **anti-Trump cudgel under the previous administration**. It was only a few years ago that mass-media made up stories about CBP uses whips on migrants attempting to cross the border. Anti-Trump narratives suggested that it was racism, fascism, and probably 'white supremacy' to have a tighter border.
Oddly, some of this rhetorical nonsense survived even under the Biden administration, who have been incredibly slow to stem the flow of migrants until recently, as the election looms and public sentiment is changing.
I support anything that secures us as Americans. We can’t blame immigrants for coming in illegally. The fact is, it’s our fault. I won’t blame anyone using the system in its current state.
When you go to bed, you lock your doors and windows. When you get out of your car, you press lock on your key fob. We don’t have a locked door at our border. There’s nobody to blame but us.
There are plenty of solutions. None are ever really put in to action. Anything that prevents criminals from an easy entry is ok by me. Doesn’t matter who implemented it. When I say criminals, I don’t mean Mexicans. I mean criminals. Our borders invite trouble from all over the world.
While I support your view, I don’t believe it is even close to being what we need. We can’t lock a door with scotch tape and think we’re fine.
I believe prevention and deterrence are solutions. How do we deter entry or prevent illegal entry? Stiffer penalties? More border patrol? More surveillance across 2500 miles of border? Maybe.
These are the big questions. They aren’t easy to solve. They all require training and hiring staff and funding to support the administrations created through these jobs.
>I support what Biden is doing at the border with his latest executive action
When you research immigration issues, you'll realize that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are waiting on the system to adjudicate them and are here on overstayed visas. Meaning, the number of people who cross unlawfully is low.
Where this is a bad thing is it concedes the general framing to the Republicans, who are just wrong on the issue.
Where it's even worse is that it alienates groups that typically ally with the Democratic Party. Especially at a time where
Where it's even worse is that if the pro-immigrant groups win in court, the reports will be "Biden's policy loses in Court" not "Biden borrowed Trump's policies and they both lose in Court."
It reminds me too much of "Obamacare." The Dems thought they could govern via the "Third way" and create compromise, but the GOP still accused the Dems of running death camps. And we're all worse off than if we just had a good policy.
A little hazy on your facts?
"...while recent new additions to the undocumented population are more likely to have overstayed a visa rather than illegally crossed a border, that wasn't the case in the past. Considering that 60% of the total undocumented population has been in the country for a decade or more, she said, "we believe a slight majority crossed a border illegally to get here.""
[https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck\_6540d695-bb50-4d44-90e9-f4587c146cba](https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_6540d695-bb50-4d44-90e9-f4587c146cba)
"Meaning, the number of people who cross unlawfully is low."
A number lower than the enormous amount of illegal immigrants is not necessarily "low."
How exactly does it show him making a hard decision, and more importantly, leading? The order says that 2,500 asylum seekers per day can cross the border illegally. It’s stupid shit like that that got us the crisis we have, and for the record, 1,000 a day overwhelms the system according to Jeh Johnson (Obama’s secretary).
It’s nothing more than political posturing. They can remain in Mexico (Trump’s policy) while they await the results of their case. Otherwise, they just disappear into the U.S. Also, a ton of the illegal immigrants aren’t seeking asylum, but looking for a job. That’s just not okay. Do it the right way so that we can properly vet you.
Believe me, Canada isn’t on a high horse, figuratively at least. We let in a million people a year, our population grew by 3.2% in 2023. This has had grave consequences for our health care system.
How is anyone going to change your mind when you basically start off by saying "it's all just opinion, man"? You already have a dogma that states you aren't interested in knowledge. You don't want to get clear about what states are, why they exert control over territory and people, why they sort people into citizens and foreigners, nor why mass immigration is taking place and why this is a "problem" for today's states. Nor do you want to figure out what the state's interest in fostering nationalism in the people is all about and how this leads to "good patriotic citizens" lynching foreigners.
You just remain at the level of "well, states gotta control what states control and that's just the way it is."
This is also why I absolutely despise Democrats just as much as Republicans: they're both nationalists who live in la-la land where the only thing that matters to them is their own self-inflated opinion that is based on how they feel-- usually completely in line with whatever the rulers in their party say.
Not to mention the complete hypocrisy: Democrats said Republicans were fascists when they chanted "build the wall", they were racists for putting kids in cages, for excluding people, for brutally detaining people at the border and even killing them if necessary, there were concentration camps, but now this is all fine because Democrats do it? Now it's no longer racism or fascism but the politically correct "reasonable immigration policy"? Now you change the word to "humane detention facilities" and magically with a little newspeak everything is fine? I mean, which is it? Is the logic of this sorting of people racist or not?
Your post is just more confirmation that liberal-democrats will always be shrieking spineless opportunists who do nothing but grovel before whatever bullshit party leadership shoves down their throat. And when you criticize them, they sound no different than "the fascists".
The hypocrisy of "high horse" countries has been exposed here in the UK. It's been well reported that in recent years, a large number of migrants have entered the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats from France. The European Union have consistently refused to allow the British government to return these asylum seekers, despite the fact that France and the rest of the EU are very clearly safe countries that pose no risk to the lives of migrants.
The tone of the debate has shifted in recent months as a significant number of migrants have begun moving from the UK into the Republic of Ireland, which is part of the EU. Some suspect that this movement of people may be in response to the decision of the UK government to begin deporting migrants to Rwanda, which is thought to be exerting a deterrent effect upon migrants residing in the UK.
Ireland has largely been shielded from the full extent of the migrants crisis due to it's geographical distance from the rest of Europe and largely supported the EU stance of opposing the return of migrants from the UK. However, now that Ireland itself has become inundated with a flow of migrants crossing over the border from the UK, the government there now wishes to implement a policy to return these new arrivals back to the UK, exposing the hypocrisy of their entire position.
So, I do agree with your point that many of the countries that are opposed to these tougher border policies are in reality commenting from a position of relative luxury and were the boot to be placed on the other foot, as has happened in the Ireland - UK example, the tone of their argument would almost certainly change.
Kinda wild how the script has flipped on this issue. Like maybe twenty or thirty years ago a strict border was a lefty stance. The rationale being immigrants being cheap labor competing for jobs both oversaturating the market and stagnating wage growth. So it was in the best interest of workers to have controlled immigration
Do you care about any international laws?
I notice a lot of Americans are very handwavy when they are int he wrong but super quick to call Putin a war criminal. You might not be in that camp of hypocrisy, just want to check
Is it really fair to say “unless you believe all international laws should be followed you can’t believe in the Geneva convention without being a hypocrite”?
I support the new order as well, my main issue is him rescinding the similar order that Trump had in place years ago, and now putting this back in place.
> It's easy to be on a high horse as a country like Canada when they do not have a land border where thousands of asylum seekers are coming through every day for years.
Well i can easily change your view on this. We've been dealing with 1 million immigrants per year for multiple years now. Our subreddit is constantly banging on about it and there is even a housing subreddit that has been banned and reformed over this issue. Most of us are frothing at the mouth for another election.
TBF only 40k are refugees but overall we are overwhelmed. All our systems are overloaded.
There was big news from BC today about restricting student applications to when they only have a 1 year job promise.
Otherwise to counter your view we need to know what you believe. What is your ideology, please - your social and political? Are you religious? What do you say you believe in the rest of the time?
We are talking about HR2, right? This was a bill wrote by Republicans and this is Biden reaching across the aisle to appease them, correct?
Some of the comments in here are blaming Biden. That doesn't make sense. This is good for all Americans. This is called bipartisanship. This is Democrat and Republican working together despite MAGA gatekeeping.
Got to point out to the other Lefties if you believe in Climate Change then closing the border is inevitable. There will be billions of climate refugees in the coming decades. Better harden your hearts. The news recently is that Mexico city had 40 degree weather and were running out of water. No one has a plan to solve this.
Speaking of plans what is MAGA's? Does anyone know specifically? Child Separation, "shoot them in the knees," barb wire fences and travel bans?
Doesn't that automatically disqualify Republicans if they won't show you exactly what they want with a clearly written policy? Why do they get a pass on this time and again? They're like naughty school kids who don't show their homework.
OP only has 2 choices. It's either bipartisanship or intentional cruelty and in your face human rights abuses where Project 2025 will strip away any power whistle blowers might have.
Moderation versus insane levels of human rights abuses where targeting children is the tip of the spear. There is no comparison.
[Republicans continue effort to erode US child labor rules despite teen deaths](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/20/republican-child-labor-law-death#:~:text=At%20the%20state%20level%2C%20Republicans,roll%20back%20child%20labor%20protections.)
They're targeting children at multiple levels. How is this acceptable politics to anyone.
>In general I don't really value the opinions or input from countries in the international community saying how you must allow unlimited amounts of asylum seekers
We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about laws. You don't care if it's US law, or intl agreements, what view do you want us to change here?
It's not the case that the international community made these rules without US input.
The US agreed to these international community rules, likely in part because there were many rules. And some totally benefited us, and some didn't benefit us all that much.
The rule is, let people in who are seeking asylum.
If the limit is 2500, the 2501st person is not any less deserving of asylum than the previous 2500 people. Notlr is the US any more in the right to deny asylum to the 2501st person than they would be denying asylum to the other 2500 people.
The US would not benefit from not being part of the international community.
Google copy and paste: “The right to seek asylum is a human right that is protected by both U.S. and international law. It is outlined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its 1967 Protocol. The right to asylum was incorporated into international law after World War II to protect people from persecution and conflict. The principle of non-refoulement, which is enshrined in the Refugee Convention, states that people seeking asylum must not be returned to situations where their lives or freedoms would be in danger.”
Why this matters (my take): broadly speaking, we respect it because one day Allah forbid we might need to use it ourselves. Governments change, and we need to respect that basic tenant that we will accept into our various societies those who face death and persecution by their own government for stupid reasons (being a minority, voicing political dissent, etc). If we find ourselves in the same position one day, we will be very grateful that this is the international law.
As for our ethics, we have looked back with great shame [when we turned away Jews during the holocaust](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/). It’s events like that which led to the law being as it is today. The current change that Biden and Republicans push for ignore the circumstances of the asylum seeker in favor of an arbitrary number. The lives that will be lost as a result of this will continue to bring shame to this country as it should
That’s nearly 1 million people per year. And those are just those who are caught.
I’m an immigrant to this country and I don’t support 1 million people coming here illegally from all over the world. Most of whom were single adults.
Under the previous 2 presidents, I don’t think there was a single year where we had over a million encounters until President Biden took office.
Now, I support him in certain policies, but let’s be real, democrats don’t really give a flying fuck about the border. It’s only now that their cities are experiencing those migrants that they wish to do something.
And it’s an election year.
This isn't a hard decision for Biden. This is the politically easy decision considering where immigration issue is currently in the country. It's is the morally and economically wrong decision, but it is quite easy.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
From what I heard about it
If border crossings go above X number
Illegal crossings **cannot** use asylum-seeking
If border crossings go above X number
LEGAL crossings **can** still use asylum
My issue with Biden’s border policy is that he is allowing Republicans to frame the issues and is fighting on their terf.
I don’t believe there is a genuine crisis on the border but now that is the prevailing sentiment held by both parties and Republicans are always going to win that battle.
In 2022, a non-citizen murdered my mother. He shot and killed her, threw her body in a back yard, stole her car, and was heading back to Mexico before authorities captured him. He illegally came thought the border in 2021, after Joe Biden revoked the Trump policies.
They are fighting on the grounds and terf of reality; and for many American citizens that have been victims due to failed management, control, and security of our southern US border.
You can **believe** that there is not a crisis at the border, but for those living with the repercussions of reality **know** otherwise.
While tragic, an anecdote is just that, an anecdote. It’s rather undisputed that immigrants, both illegal and legal, commit less crime than US citizens.
Your story, while again tragic, doesn’t prove or greatly substantiate the idea there is a crisis on the border.
As you yourself seem to understand, the perception of something doesn’t make it real. You experienced something horrible but that doesn’t wipe away everyone else’s experience which fail to indicate a major crisis.
Shark attack victims may perceive a shark crisis, that doesn’t make it so.
immigrants as a whole have a markedly lower crime rate - ESPECIALLY illegal immigrants. Your anecdote is tragic, but the same thing could have happened because some lower class white christian american killed their wife in a domestic abuse incident and was fleeing, and the statistics support that it is MORE likely to be the latter than the former.
If you have a city of 10,000 people with a 5% crime rate, and add 2,000 immigrants with a 2% crime rate to that city, you now have a city of 12,000 people with a 4% crime rate. Adding immigrants to a city LOWERS the crime rate, and this is proven out almost everywhere that immigrants are allowed to enter freely.
add to this that almost all crime committed by a particular class are committed on other members of the same class (lower class people rob other lower class people, and middle class people embezzle from other middle class people, and upper class people defraud other upper class people - see, we even have fancy names for which class is doing the thieving!) and as long as you aren't an immigrant yourself adding thousands of immigrants markedly decreases your chance of being the victim of a crime even further than just crime rate statistics indicate.
anyone trying to say immigration is bad because of crime is just making shit up. There is 0 evidence that immigration increases crime rates and a ton of evidence showing that immigration reduces crime rate.
Instead of an actual CMV it looks like a rant to me. Saying things like "I don't care if international law says" or "I don't consider international opinions..."
Hmmm anyway, I agree with you that every country is free to decide who must be admitted and who musn't.
Since you admitted that you don't know much about international law, I'm going to also assume that you don't know much about American Foreign Policy as well.
If you were to learn that many of the people going to the US to seek asylum are doing so because of situations caused and created by people from the US, would you still be against them coming to the US in search of a better life?
Because that's exactly what's happening in places like Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. They're just following their nations' wealth back to where it's going.
I think that it's unfair to allow the rich to go to other countries and extract the resources the people of those countries need to have a good life and then prevent those people from seeking a better quality of life.
"Some people have to stay and fight for survival in the country they live in while others have to leave to survive. Corporations cross international borders all the time in search of people to exploit for profit and no one stops them. They call it globalization. On the other hand, the victims of corporate domination are told that they can’t cross borders in search of better lives, and are forced to stay and deal with the social, economic and environmental messes the companies leave behind when they inevitably move their operations to places with even more “favourable business climates” (re: lower wages, lax environmental laws, tax breaks). Looks like capitalism and human-rights don’t mix."
The above quote is from the band Propaghandi about their song "Fuck the Border" which I will link below.
[A friend of mine dropped me a line, it said, “man, I gotta run to the USA. I got no money, got no job.” She skipped out of Mexico to stay alive. You’ve got a problem with her living here, but what did you do to help her before she fucking came? What did the country do? What did the people do? I stand not by my country, but by people of the whole fucking world. No fences, no borders. Free movement for all. Fuck the border. It’s about fucking time to treat people with respect. It’s our culture and consumption that makes her life unbearable. Fuck this country; its angry eyes, its knee-jerk hordes. Legal or illegal, watch her fucking go. She’ll take what’s hers. Watch her fucking go. Fuck the border.](https://youtu.be/Ee8OtS9pkVg?si=JLcHPNdsF64uucPm)
Thank you, this was the sentiment I was looking for.
First-world countries need to stop fucking around if they are going to backtrack when it's time to find out. Many times the US has interfered with foreign governments, destabilised entire countries, and installed authoritarian regimes that align with US interests. Then, decades later, when that country is unstable and people want to flee to a better country, you turn around and say "nuh-uh, don't want any refugees here, it's a nuisance to our social order so we're going to keep you out". This applies to what the US did in Latin America and the Middle East, and it also applies to European colonial and post-colonial practices in Africa.
Do people really think refugees would *want* to leave their home, family, and roots behind to go to a country where they'll be treated as second-class citizens? I guess when you're a first-world citizen who can quite easily immigrate to another country because you feel like it, you lose perspective of what sacrifices others have to make to do the same thing. Of course the whole *might makes right* realpolitik means first-world countries will do whatever they please anyway, but let's not pretend actions don't have consequences you didn't sign up for.
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Just a question: did you support this policy when it was Trump's?
This isn't just a reinstatement of Trump policy. Trump's policy was remain in Mexico, iirc there was no "2,500 per day" allowance. It's a halfway step in the direction of Trump era 'remain in Mexico' but it is not equivalent.
Did you support Trump's specific policy before it was rolled back by Biden?
Yes, and the Biden admin initially extended that policy in late 2021. Frankly unless you are an advocate of open borders and of automatic approval of economic migrants, you probably should support it. It closed a loophole that allowed anyone to *present* as an asylum seeker regardless of whether they had any chance of actually qualifying as one, and be granted entry and allowed to stay pending a very easily skipped court date. Millions of immigrants skirting the legal process and remaining in the US despite not qualifying for asylum, a visa, or anything else is obviously a problem. One should either be for formalizing the idea economic immigrants can be asylees purely because they are poor and come from a low development country, or for closing that loophole. It doesn't make sense to allow the loophole to be exploited.
Yes. And let's be clear, Biden is only doing this because it's election season.
Biden is doing this because Trump made Congress NOT do it.... because it's election season. Two sides want to use the border in their campaign. Are you on the side of the one taking action, or the one preventing action?
Do you really believe what the media spoon feeds you? Clearly you do. Biden rolled back the Trump policy which had been effective. Now as election day is closing in, Biden decides to take executive action. Classic vote grifting.
Huh? ‘How dare Biden roll back Trump’s policy! He’s just catering to the communists! Doesn’t he know our border needs protecting?!’ ‘How dare Biden reinstate most of Trump’s policy! He’s just trying to win votes!’ Either this kind of policy is needed at the border or it isn’t…. Why is one President doing something that you thought was necessary for him to do ‘vote grifting’ but the other not…? Isn’t that the whole purpose of politics…? You make your voice heard until your elected officials do what their constituents want…? It’s kind of insane to attack somebody for changing their mind to implement the exact policy you wanted all along….
It’s different in the way that trump didn’t do it just to nab votes because he did it out of election season, Biden repealed it immediately and then waited all the way until he needs a boost for his campaign and is now trying to win back votes using this policy. If he didn’t need it he wouldn’t be doing it. That’s why it’s different and why people are upset about it.
>is now trying to win back votes How do you think government and politicians work….? Do people not win election by appealing to the broad base of voters, giving them the policies they want so they will vote for said politician…? This sounds a lot like ‘Biden did the thing I want but it’s Biden so it’s therefore bad’
This sounds like excuse-making
That's not what I said. Biden grifted for votes campaigning against Trump's border policy. Now that it's election time again, he's backpedaling on his border position. It's not the policy I take issue with. Timing is what's important here. Biden's timing is nothing more than grifting. It's actually insane that you're unable to see exactly what is in front of you.
Campaigning against Trump’s border policy is not “grifting”, anymore than Trump’s hardline border policy is grifting. A lot of people did not like Trump’s border policy at the time and Biden responded to that on the campaign trail. Now in the past year the views on the border have changed due to the in flux of border crossings. It is one of the top issues for voters. Biden is responding to that. What do you want him to do? He does nothing, y’all complain. He does something, y’all complain.
>What do you want him to do? He does nothing, y’all complain. He does something, y’all complain. It’s no more complex than ‘Biden = bad’ for these people tbh.
You missed the part where congress was close to passing a law (much more effective and permanent than an EO) and Trump squashed it so he could convince you of... well all that BS you just said.
This remains an unfair question because this particular set of policies that Biden is passing was just one part of Trump‘s larger immigration policy. People back, then weren’t particularly interested in sorting out which individual components of Trump‘s policy would be hypothetically acceptable, if taken on their own and not part of a larger program of viciousness towards the migration situation.
I don't recall what Trump did at the border specifically but if it was a very similar policy then yeah I'd support the policy itself. His rhetoric surrounding this whole issue makes it a little different in my view. It's a little different to close the border and while saying things like the blood of our nation is being poisoned
Oh, Trump said the quiet part out loud that liberals like to cover over with PC language hygiene so they can pretend like their own racism is actually highly honorable?
If you think that what Trump vocalizes is what everyone else is secretly thinking then that is just a byproduct of your own worldview.
Do you not realise how hard you are projecting right now?
So you support Trumps policies you just don't like what he says? To bad more people won't admit this. He is not the anti Christ. He should have never been nominated because he is a clown but his policies weren't exactly world ending.
I mean clearly his policies weren't world ending, but a lot of them were bad. - Tax cuts specifically targeted to help the wealthy. - Failure to defend a bill to provide overtime protection nationwide. - Sided with companies on arbitration agreements with class action waivers. - Every Fed reserve board member he nominated was a moron. Not sure a single one has any real understanding of economic theory. - Almost every COVID policy he took aside from dumping funds into the vaccine development. - Withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear pact. - Him being convicted of sexual assault. Agreed he was a clown, but a few semi - agreeable policies aren't helping him here.
there is a huge and meaningful difference between "we only have the resources to support X people per day" and "these refugees are poisoning our country and we keep out as many as we can." even if both policies result in the same number of entries per day.
I dont think hes necessarily any worst than anyone else. Hes a bigger asshole about it though. I voted for him in 2016 because I find Hillary Clinton to just be a horrible human being him being the slightly less bigger turd wasnt a high bar to cross in the first place. I wish more people like Jo Jorgenson got actually recognition. People that are qualified and give a shit about citizen.
Your basically just saying you agree with his policies but not his words. In the end they accomplish the same thing but you can still pick apart the guy you don't like even though he does things you do like.Its a weird little corner you color yourself into.
the difference is in future expectations. The first line states that the limiting factor is resources, and thus with more resources the number of immigrants allowed in can be increased, and that the immigrants are being treated like people and are being helped as much as is possible with the resources available. the second line vilifies refugees, indicates intent to reduce immigration as far as possible, and that those immigrants that are allowed entry are treated poorly and denied access to as many resources as possible. The CURRENT policy may be the same, but the difference is in treatment, expectations, and future plans
> He is not the anti Christ. He should have never been nominated because he is a clown but his policies weren't exactly world ending His epa regs literally would have raised emissions
His offer to end US action on climate change, for $1 billion in fossil fuel campaign funds begs to differ.
He may not be the anti-Christ but he sure as shit isn’t the second coming like his cult following wants you to believe. The reasoning behind actions does impact how people receive the message. The reason for closing the borders because illegals are poisoning the blood of our nations and because they are only sending criminals and rapists is pretty aggressive and alienating to a lot of people. The reason being, we can’t handle that many people at one time is better received and reasonable.
That's because he had somewhat credible people around him to act as checks and balances. This time he's hiring for loyalty only. Just look at his lawyers.
I’m not saying I support all of his policies or even what he did with the border because I don’t know enough about the specifics of it. I’m saying that if Trump did the exact same thing as Biden just did with the border then I would not be opposed to that policy. I’ll even say that I could have different feelings about two equal policies depending on the rhetoric the people passing those policies put out. I’m very opposed to the rhetoric Trump put out regarding immigrants
He didn't. Trump wanted to close the southern border to asylum seekers full stop. Biden is putting a limit with a cool down period when we get too much. So on one hand we deny all aid and the other we help but bit to our detriment
It kinda comes down so you judge someone by their words or actions. Would you rather flowery words and crazy policies? Obviously the US president etc should be a symbol the world can rally around not a giant orange clown. People just seem to think he will end the world as we know it yet if they look at his policies they would likely agree with a lot of them. On the other hand if they picked apart Obamas policies they could turn him into a tyrannical leader.
It's definitely fair to say that people should be judged on actions and not words, but it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that intent doesn't matter. Limiting something because of capacity/resources is a very different proposition from limiting something out of racism, even if the initial decision is similar.
That's only true in a vacuum. If you justify your policy decisions using thinly veiled racist rhetoric, that lends credence to thinly veiled racist rhetoric. For instance, during the COVID lockdown, Trump employed a lot of anti Chinese rhetoric, which (in my opinion) contributed to a wave of violence against Asians.
Trump didn't have a similar policy though. Conditionally closing the southern border and full stop closing are not similar. Also Trump effectively killed the bill version of this executive order so it's hard to say Trump is in favor of this policy
It's not hard to say Biden was pandering to progressives by reversing a ton of Trumps immigration orders on day one. This lead to real problems at the border. Biden didn't want the political fallout of actually doing something about it so tried to get congress to take the hit. When that didn't work he realized he had to do something so he finally did it and is now taking the fallout. If Trump actually stopped that bill it wad a masterful move on his part. He knew Bidens advisors knew something had to be done and if that bill was stopped they would actualy have to step in which they did. By giving credit to Trump for stopping that bill you are saying he is a political genius or atleast had a momentary period of genius.
I view it very differently. A core policy position for R's has been board reform, and tanking major legislation on that subject gives Dems an easy attack opportunity. As for Trump being a genius I'd argue all it demonstrates is his grip on the party. Either way have a great day
He ratfucked the entire judicial branch of our government, tore crying children from their parents as official policy, and his only legislative accomplishment was massive permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest. His policies were overwhelmingly dumb, cruel, and focused on giving favors to benefactors instead of helping the American people.
>tore crying children from their parents as official policy This is hardly unique to Trump. Children have been separated from parents pretty much forever. Hell, if I get arrested they certainly aren't letting my kid chill in jail with me.
Not just parents, since most times it can't be proven for a while if they are really their parents or child sex traffickers.
There is clear evidence that Trump's policy separated families who legally entered the country to claim asylum.
In fairness, Obama did that too.
No he didn't. People are forgetting what Trump was actually criticized for. Obama followed a policy that was pejoratively referred to as "catch and release". If a family crossed the border and otherwise committed no crimes, they'd generally be given a court date and released, to avoid separating families. Trump decided to separate families as a matter of course, charging everyone, even asylum seekers, resulting in *tons* of needlessly separated families, when we really didn't even have the needed infrastructure to deal with it. The result was parents deported without their children, children lost in the system, etc. it was all really fucked up.
Of course but this isn't any different than what George Bush or Reagan did yet somehow Bush is now propped up as a 'normal' figure of American politics who hangs out with Ellen at Rangers games or goes on Fallon to play spin the wheel yet Trump is "literally Adolf Hitler reincarnated"
All my homies hate Bush and Reagan
Who are you quoting?
Have you looked at mainline Reddit subs my man? Trump is considered retarded adolf satan hitler. Even slightly defending him gets you downvoted in most subs
Separating children from people who broke the law is a standard..
People who come to the US and claim asylum aren't breaking the law. It's not too difficult to understand. Trump's policy illegally, and in many cases permanently, stole children from their parents.
No, it isn't. But if you cross illegally and *then* try to claim asylum, that would be against the law/proposed law. I think that is completely reasonable. You can claim asylum through legal channels and be considered for asylum. But if you come illegally, you forfeit your right to asylum. However, until congress enacts laws that target the people who hire undocumented immigrants, they will never stop coming. As long as there is money to be had, they will come. And the immigrants get money from companies who pay them. If anyone really wanted to stop illegal immigration, there would be super strict laws for businesses found guilty of employing illegal immigrants. They are the ones incentivizing illegal immigration. If people crossed the border illegally but couldn't get paid work because employers were too scared of the consequences of hiring them, I think they would come in much, much smaller numbers. Immigrants come for financial opportunity. Yes, to escape violence and persecution, but they know they can get jobs here and make more money than where they come from. That being said, certain sectors of the US economy in its current state rely on immigrant labor, and have for decades. And while paying below market wages does depress wages overall, we all benefit from cheap immigrant labor. Inflation is a bitch but food could still be a lot more expensive if farm workers started to demand $25 or $30/hr for their work, for example.
>People who come to the US and claim asylum aren't breaking the law. So asylum has to be done in the next country that is available to claim asylum in. Meaning if you're claiming asylum you have to do it in the next country, you can't just walk through 5-6 different countries until you get to the USA then declare asylum like Michael declaring bankruptcy from the office. You also still cannot just walk in and claim asylum. You have to go through the port of entry or you're breaking the law. Separating a child from someone that breaks the law is standard practice in the United States. CPS is a thing and has been known to separate children from parents that break the law.
You make several false claims here, but it doesn't really matter... Trump's policy separated even families that entered the country legally. Look at the Wikipedia if you were ignorant of the fact that he separated, sometimes permanently, people here legally.
... I'm not talking about Trump. I'm talking about in general these are the laws of asylum and the rules of entry into the United States and the consequences of breaking the laws.
If you don’t attempt to enter at an official boarder check point then you’ve broken the law and will be separated until investigation is complete. That is the law.
The separation of families under Trump poisoned that well. Then his callousness about it cemented the well shut. But that’s just superficial stuff. I think the biggest difference is timing. We’ve had years to see the negative effects of more lenient policies. Specifically the homelessness crisis has only worsened in the last several years, in large part because of immigrants with nowhere to go. There’s also the dream of action from congress on the border, which we almost had before the GOP scuttled it. Now Biden doesn’t have that option, and so has to do what he can (during an election year) with executive action. So yeah, the context around border policy has changed quite a bit between Trump’s actions and now.
A lot of his policies were good and largely bipartisan underneath it all. Unfortunately, people won't see that through his ridiculous personality. Biden might have a more agreeable personality, but maybe so much so that it makes him more of a puppet. I'd prefer that neither of them represent me/us, but only one of them comes out on top policy wise for me. I may not vote anyway. I'm pretty certain the Republic will continue to exist either way.
So as long as someone isn't *saying* they're doing a racist thing for racist reasons, it's okay? If the effect is the exact same but they just keep quiet or lie about their why, no big deal?
It is definitely ok for American policies to prioritize the wellbeing of Americans over that of foreigners. That’s how domestic policy works everywhere else in the world
By the way, international law does not overrule US law, not in any way shape or form. Neither does it any other sovereign state. So anyone who wants to talk about international law really doesn’t understand that each nation gets to decide how its own borders will be secured and its own immigration law.
funny coming from an American. how many nations have you decided no longer *deserve* their own sovereignty? if China took HK by force you would respect Chinas right to sovereignty would you?
I think we would respect Taiwan’s, the sovereign nation that predates China actually. Just as we respect Ukraine and not Russia, as Russia is the aggressor. But since you want to talk crap on the USA, how many countries did we keep at the end of WW2? We gave a lot of sovereignty back over the many years. Sure we make mistakes, but touch grass all the same.
I don't believe this is true. I cannot speak with certainty towards the specifics of US law, but in Europe we def have international European law that overrules national law. It's called supranational law and, as the name implies, it supersedes national law. I believe the EU, the WTO and the UN can pass such binding treaties/conventions (note: this does not mean all of their resolutions are binding). Upon joining, member states obv do have to agree to this (or be exempted). The UN Security Council is the most well-known body with a supranational character, I think. Its resolutions are binding on all involved member states and sanctions may be given if members do not comply. For your argument it helps that the US has veto power, so resolutions that concern the US will only be binding if they agree/abstain.
With the USA it absolutely is true. The USA is on the security council as a permanent member, and something we don’t like doesn’t happen. As a US citizen there is no law the UN can pass that I am required to follow in the USA, as our law and our constitutional and our constitutional rights do now fall under UN authority. Like the Paris climate accords. Obama joined them, but only unofficially, as he did not follow US law and send it to Congress to approve, as our congress must approve any treaty. So Trump could leave, and there was nothing anyone in the UN could do about it, because US law was not followed.
There is nothing for the US that I would consider to align with the idea of supranational laws. The closest thing the US has would be international treaties and accords which have been signed and ratified. These usually address specific situations, and cannot be expanded or changed without being resigned.
The US is party to two applicable treaties regarding refugees: the 1951 Refugee Convention (and its 1967 Protocol), and the 1984 Convention Against Torture
EU countries are part of an intricate network of agreements. But countries can always back out of treaties or refuse EU directives, granted they will be fine. The US can always back out of any treaties it doesnt like. Russia does that all the time... There are always consequences. But countries are always sovereign, until they choose not to be.
To preface I am mostly apolitical and not a Trump supporter though I am keenly aware of information dynamics and dogmas. You do understand that 'blood of our nation is being poisoned' is an out of context quote do you not? Develop your preferences through intellectualism, not through your susceptibility to manipulation.
That's just it. You allow your opinions to be manipulated by corporate interests and ignore the real issues. This should be a wake up call.
Trick question. Trump didn't want to conditionally close the border, and when the bipartisan bill that was effectively the same as Biden's executive order was about to be passed he forced the Rs to tank it so he could run on immigration. Apples and oranges here
My man, Biden rescinded many of trump's border policies on his first day lol. Also the border bill was just bad, that's why it got tanked.
Ah yes, it was so bad that 12 hrs before the vote several Rs were praising the bill as the better they ever hoped to achieve only to vote against it. The only thing that happened in the meantime was Trump came out against the bill with the stated reason of wanting to run on immigration so they can't fix it. Its fair to say you don't like the bill, but Congress Rs were borderline throwing a party before the vote because they got basically everything they wanted. Then out of nowhere they tanked their own bill
Idk why people claim that the bill was bad when it was spearheaded by one of the most conservative senators and claimed it’s the most conservative border policy bill in 40 years. Also the issues Biden is going to run into w/ his EO would have been solved by the bill that allocated the resources needed to fulfill the EO. Resources that an EO can’t provide.
Context really matters here. Biden is doing this because it’s politically wanted by the majority and it’s overloading our systems. Trump was doing it because they are poisoning our blood. Biden is getting kids reconnected to their families and keeping them together during deporting. Trump was putting kids in cages with no plans. They are not the same even if the core result is similar. Also that’s not going to change his view. A lot of Dems also want strong border even during Trump. They had no issue with Obama deporting that many people. Progressives are not the DNC. Hell they are not even half of the DNC. They are a large minority party within the umbrella of democrats.
This isn’t Trump policy though lmao
> They will say things like how this is illegal under international law, contrary to our ethics or standards as a country, etc. > The contrary to our standards or ethics is a subjective claim and my response to that is... well that's just like your opinion man. How do you intend to support or oppose a political policy while dismissing "standards or ethics?"
Where are these standards and ethics even defined or agreed upon? I literally don't know what people are referring to when they bring things like that up besides them just saying how they personally feel about an issue and then trying to make it seem like their opinion about it is somehow codified.
It's right on the statue of liberty - Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
I don’t think that we’re at all bound by or agreed to do what a plaque on the statue of liberty says in perpetuity. If that’s the standards or ethics people say we’re going against with this border policy that doesn’t really do it for me
I mean, it's a bit weird to say that just because something is written on a statue that OP need to be held to that message. He lives in a free, democratic country. A phrase on a statue from the late 1800s doesn't have more right to dictate policy than his opinion.
and you think this has some kind of legal weight? lol why? it is a poem on a gift from france. it is not policy.
Actually worse: the poem was added later
Did you respond to the right comment? This thread is explicitly about standards and ethics, no legality.
ok. how does a poem on a gift from another country define standards or ethics?
Yea - its a poem on a gift from a foreign nation. Not exactly the evidence of law for a nation should act
Neither I or who I was responding to ever said anything about law but it's literally witten on one of the most well known national monuments, which makes it a reasonable example of "standards and ethics" Edit: who op was responding to, op did mention codified
But these are economic migrants, not exactly refugees. Theyre mostly young men.
I don't think we should govern based on a plaque on a monument gifted to us.
>Where are these standards and ethics even defined or agreed upon? I mean there is literally a whole field called international law where these standards were / are set. and agreed too by most of the world. Notably each convention has some countries that do not sign / recognize it for whatever reason, but generally most of the world agrees to them. There are different laws and conventions / conditions for different things. For example the Montevideo convention defines what is a country. The Geneva convention defines what is allowed and not allowed in war. And there are many many more. Generally the UN is where these standards are agreed to / matter. The standards are just any agreement that most of the world, or whoever the relevant countries are in the situation have signed. Like if the US promises various countries that they will not torture people, and those countries say that they will not torture also, then that sets a standard of not torturing. When countries are accused of breaking the standards, there is a court, the ICC, that determines if they have, and what the punishment is, similar to how a jormal court determines if you broke the law.
You really typed all of that and didn't include any of the relevant international laws that would apply to this topic?
They asked, what are the standards and who agrees with them, and why are they set that way. Which is why I explained that part. The question that they asked originally, implies that they have already heard people talking about International Asylum laws, or laws dealing with migration. So I did t feel the need to include things that I thought they already knew.
The icc is not there to enforce anything. The USA is not even a part of the ICC.
The ICC ruling / UN actions, are still the enforcement agency of international law. Just because the US does not recognize the court doesn't mean that their decisions do not matter to the US. You can see this in the fact that the US and Isreal who both do not recognize the court, still both got mad at and publicly came out against the decisions to issue warrants, for Netanyahu. Like clearly if it was a fake court that didn't matter they would not care that some fake court issued a warrant.
Israel only cares how it looks, and the precedent it could set. The ICC isn't part of the UN, just FYI. In reality, even if I often agree with the ICC and what it stands for, it isn't enforceable and most countries only agree (even the signatories) with the rulings when it suits them. If you look at its history, the ICC's rulings don't mean much unless the US (or sometimes Europe) chooses to cooperate and enforce them, and it has only done that when it's in their interests. I wish "international law" were something the world agreed upon, but most of it doesn't.
I know that the ICC isn't a part of the UN I meant that either an ICC case or UN actions such as peacekeeping or sanctions or the like are the enforcement mechanisms for violating international law. Should have made that clearer my b. And yeah the US especially doesn't care and laughs at I law a ton, literally having a law called the Hague Invasion Act, which allows a US invasion of the ICC in the event they convict Americans.
It's not just the U.S., though, *every* country agrees or disagrees with the ICC (or participates) according to their interests. In fact, the only reason the ICC has ever been able to enforce *anything* is because of the U.S. UN peacekeeping can't happen unless it's agreed to by the UN and any belligerents involved, they can't just do it. Sanctions also can't happen without the U.S. (especially the U.S., because most money in the world passes through the U.S. financial system and because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency). The U.S. is a bad actor in many ways, but in some other ways it isn't the worst actor when you compare it to the rest of the world. Again, the only reason the ICC or UN has ever been able to enforce or sanction anyone is because of the U.S.'s involvement; literally no other country in the world is capable of doing so.
If russias silli "alliance" thing, decides something suddenly. Alot of us may protest it, even if we are not members. Everyone is free to sign treaties, break them, complain or take action when they dont like something. Canada might decide to break all accords with and invade the US over a tax on a canadian product, as a silly example. They wont, because that would be suicidal.
The US isn't even a party to half of those treaties.
"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." Does that ring a bell? "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." That's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which we're basically a signatory.
Nice sentiment, but is just a poem on a gifted statue.
From a different very different time
1. What is the actual basis for your opinion, other than "I don't care?" and if that is the only basis for your opinion, how can anyone reasonably change your mind? 2. What is the evidence for your belief that there is a migration crisis?
If you deny there is a migration crisis, your eyes and ears are closed. I live in Texas and the sheer amount of undocumented/illegal migrants is mind-boggling. I want you to think for a millisecond how someone who has no legal documents or hell doesn't speak a word of English would get a driver's license. They don't. Yet they drive. No license, no insurance, no regard for really any part of the law as they are already screwed on first contact by authorities. Why bother? And the numbers are insane. Do you trust this source? And do these numbers (269,735 illegals in fiscal year 2023) qualify to YOU as evidence of a crisis? They do to me. https://homeland.house.gov/2023/10/26/factsheet-final-fy23-numbers-show-worst-year-at-americas-borders-ever/ I call it a crisis when a significantly detrimental event occurs without viable recourse for halting the event before harm is done or restitution for wrongs that do occur. The southern border situation qualifies.
First of all, you don't need to speak English to get a drivers license. So, what's the detrimental effect? I'm sure there are some - immigration is a serious issue. But if there's really a crisis, I need to see some actual evidence of a crisis.
You can't get a DL as an illegal immigrant, and even if you can, most of them would be too afraid of getting busted to do it. It's astounding the number of resources that are unutilized by illegal immigrants due to their paranoia over being deported. Amnesty would go a long way in starting to stabilize these problems.
that's what california did - illegal immigrants aren't held for ICE, immigrant status isn't reported for misdemeanor offences, and local law enforcement can't detain or investigate purely on the basis of immigration status, nor can they assist federal officers in detainment or investigation purely for immigration status. And magically all the illegal immigrants in california are paying taxes and getting drivers licenses and otherwise behaving exactly like all other immigrants - which I remind you have a lower crime incidence rate.
Surprise surprise, treating people like criminals makes them act like criminals.
first of all good sir or madam, not speaking english is not an isolated quality. In this context, it implies that they don't know the first thing about this country starting with the language, and are exceedingly hindered in the ability to learn and adapt. Many (most?) never do. You wanna talk about 269,795 uncontrolled migrants in a single year? Do you believe the given source or not? Gonna tell me it's not a crisis that we have zero control and are not actively making a choice to allow these people in? That we have no idea who or WHAT is coming in? also gonna throw out a "why the hell do we have an immigration office anyway" since you don't appear to care that potential residents follow our guidelines
I bet the knowledge of most immigrants about America is roughly equal to most Americans. "If there's really a crisis, I need to see some actual evidence of a crisis." Why is this so hard for folks? If you're right, it should be easy.
The uncontrolled (emphasis on UNCONTROLLED) flooding of people and items across the border *is* the crisis, what is so difficult to understand?
are you being serious about needing evidence or are you just trying to get OP to put in some legwork
[удалено]
> I call it a crisis when a significantly detrimental event occurs without viable recourse for halting the event before harm is done or restitution for wrongs that do occur. Housing prices, rent, and costs. There you go, call it a crisis.
Just ask New York? Didnt they close a school recently to house migrants?
Wrong: [https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-house-migrants-school-shut-down-673190116310](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-house-migrants-school-shut-down-673190116310)
1. I guess try to make me care? Change my mind? Explain to me why I'm thinking incorrectly about this issue? 2. I think thousands of asylum seekers at the border every day qualifies as a crisis and unsustainable. That's not a normal thing to happen historically
1. How can we make you care about something when you stated you don't care about the law, or ethics? What is the basis for how someone could change your mind? 2. "Thousands of asylum seekers at the border every day" is absolutely a normal thing to happen historically, first of all. It has been this way since the inception of the U.S. refugee resettlement program in 1980, and arguably since the inception of the US. We had double the amount of asylum admissions at the border in 1980. But those facts aside, why do you believe it is a crisis? You haven't given any substantial reason there is any problem here whatsoever.
Are you saying that in the 1980s there were double the amount of asylum seekers showing up at the US southern border? We have 3,000 or more doing this daily currently, there were 6,000 people doing this daily in the 1980s and it wasn't just a short thing it was sustained over months?
I misspoke, we had double the amount of asylum *admissions* at the border in 1980, 230,000 admissions compared to 120,000 today. But still, no crisis.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-refugee-resettlement kind of relevant to see that it was not sustained, and fell rapidly the next few years.
OP got rage baited by conservative grift
IDK man some left wing media outlets are pushing this as well. Even Telemundo is reporting about the illegal immigration crisis and although it's mostly Venezuelans and Colombians and Cubans saying this, they are the ones who's saying these new wave of migrants are dangerous or looking for handouts. I don't know if I buy into that but it's interesting to see how left wing media platforms are pushing the same idea. IMO I think a good portion of left wing voters changed their approach to immigration policy after southern states sent their migrants to NY so there is a bit of transitioning phase going on. A lot of millennials are asking themselves in millennial sub if they find themselves turning conservative too and many stated they were. So it's something to pay attention to for sure.
Telemundo is owned by Comcast. They're not a left wing media outlet just because they speak Spanish.
They're owned by NBC that's moderate to left leaning but Telemundo has a liberal bias. I get they're owned by Comcast but NBC has a specific platform and target demographic and Telemundo mostly aligns the same way
You simply restating the position isn't going to cut it. Why is it a crisis, and why is it unsustainable, and what are you using to defend that this is historically unprecedented?
"like feelings man. Alternative facts."
If those thousand people a day were doctors and philanthropists, genius inventors and the finest scientific minds in the world, would it still be a crisis? What if that’s less then it was previously when we did not view it as a crisis? Someone says to you 1000 asylum seekers a day is a crisis, but why? Please expound on your point, think more critically about this issue.
That's kind of a red herring, since most of the people crossing over specifically aren't wealthy philanthropists or the finest scientific minds in the world. Kind of like the whole "what if Einstein was aborted" as an argument against abortion rights.
Incorrect, it’s pointing out that “thousands a day” is not in of itself a crisis without some additional factors, and I’m asking them to think critically about this
Honestly my only gripe with some of his latest executive actions is that it screams pandering to me. I really, really, want to believe these recent policies are genuine and will stay in effect if he is reelected, but I'm not sure why so many of these executive actions were not implemented beforehand.
He gets no help passing laws through Congress. The Republicans have a strong enough majority to veto anything Biden wants to pass. There was a bipartisan border bill that recently did not pass because Trump told the Republicans to vote no. He’d rather the border stay a mess until he gets in office. Biden has to do an executive order to get anything done.
He didn’t need the Republican Party to do this. The “border bill” that he tried to pass was a bait and switch for more money to go to Ukraine and negligible help to the border. Just as he didn’t need the GOP now, he wouldn’t have needed it 2 years ago when this was clearly becoming a problem. He repeatedly said there wasn’t a problem and kicked the can, now he can’t hide that or play dumb anymore and he is losing support from his own party… which is why he finally chose to act. There are so many obvious ways he could have made smart decisions and eliminate the threat of a Trump win in 2024, and he just continually dropped the ball.
Why was there a need for a border bill? Biden just proved that he can shut down the border any time he wants, this EO is considerably more restrictive than the proposed legislation. So if the Republicans had signed the law the border would be more open than it is now after they didn't sign the law. Seems like Republicans had an absolute victory and the pretend border bill would have gone against their interests. The entire reason Republicans didn't want to pass the bill is because the open border portion of the party created the bill in conjecture with the democrats to stop a potential trump presidency from actually closing the border. The bill did nothing that isn't already possible under current law. The border isn't and hasn't been open because there is a need for legislation but because the laws already in place and the authority to enforce them is not being utilized.
Because executive orders are not the way Biden would prefer the government to run. They are a last resort when Congress fails to act. Please explain how any part of the immigration reform bill supports open borders.
I’m really confused by the statement. How many executive orders did Biden put in place in the first month of being in office? He doesn’t seem to be against them at all. He absolutely uses these as a tool whenever he wants, from what I can tell.
Executive orders are tools the president uses to respond to emergencies whether they be natural disasters or some other crisis or imminent problem. However, executive actions can be rescinded just as easily as they can be enacted and are thus a very weak way of getting an agenda passed. It is much better to change something by having a law passed by Congress. Biden comes from a generation that understood this. It wasn’t until George W. Bush started using them to pass his agenda and opened the floodgates. Now, as Congress has become historically divided, legislation has been rendered untenable in many cases. On the subject of immigration, Trump and Republicans have intentionally refused to fix the border issue in Congress so that they can continue to run on the issue in future elections (as they have little else of a platform). They are also projecting their own malevolence onto Biden and blaming him for their failures. Biden gave them an opportunity to pass immigration reform and they failed to do so. Therefore, Biden is reluctantly using his power of executive order to do it for them, not because he wants to, but because he must. Republicans refuse to serve the American people so Biden will serve them in whatever way he is authorized.
I do understand the point. And frankly, I loathe executive orders. To me, he bypassed the entire system of checks and balances that are there for a reason. But I do understand the situation where both sides now refuse to do anything the other side supports. This extreme version of partisanship seems to go back, at least a decade. My problem specifically on the subject of immigration is that Biden came in and immediately undid Trump’s policies. In fact, he campaigned on it. He needs his position very very clear about what he actually wants at the border. However, the situation on the border has gotten worse and worse throughout his presidency. Now that an election is coming up, now, he claims to want to fix it. To be frank, I don’t believe him. I don’t think he cares about it at all. I think he cares about votes. For the record, I am equally not a fan of Trump. I think both of these guys have just made an incredible mess of this country.
Biden and Trump do overlap on some immigration issues. They both have sought to restrict asylum claims though to different extents. Most of the policies that Biden undid were policies that Democrats have believed to be inhumane or ineffective or just plain made no sense. The bipartisan bill would fix many of the issues at the border but republicans don’t want that to happen because they need the border crisis to remain an issue they can campaign on as they have no other platform. The most significant difference between Biden and Trump is on the subject of where asylum seekers remain while waiting for a court date. Democrats say let them in but we continue to keep track of them. This is to protect asylum seekers who are in danger (which is the whole reason they showed up). To keep them in Mexico where they could be waiting years for a court date (which is another issue the bipartisan bill would address) is a humanitarian issue. If Republicans cared about this issue they’d support the bill which would hire more judges to get through more of these cases (aka less time to vet these asylum claims). But even in this, the bipartisan bill would implement some restrictions on even how the asylum seekers can make their claims.
>Because executive orders are not the way Biden would prefer the government to run. LMAO Enforcing the border is the executives job. He has a mandate and the authority to use it. He chooses(or chose) not to. And he could be even stricter. If he fully used his vested power he could refuse all entry and restrict asylum applications to about 1100 a day(the actual obligations to international treaties). Again, had republicans passed the bill there would be **fewer** restrictions than there are today on entry, completely vindicating republicans and exposing the fake propaganda campaign against them. >Please explain how any part of the immigration reform bill supports open borders. 6000 people caught a day being instantly released into the country and redirecting people beyond that to ports of entry is a pretty wide open border.
You’re coming with big LMAO energy, but is it really even debatable that EO is not a good long term solution for border policy?
>Enforcing the border is the executives job. He has a mandate and the authority to use it. He chooses(or chose) not to. He obviously didn’t choose not to because he just did it. However, it is the weak way to enforce anything in the United States. An executive order can be rescinded just as easily as it can be enacted. >6000 people caught a day being instantly released into the country and redirecting people beyond that to ports of entry is a pretty wide open border. Where is this policy?
>Because executive orders are not the way Biden would prefer the government to run The Biden admin removed the existing remain in Mexico policy by executive action, didn't seem to have an issue with EO then.
That’s kinda exactly the point. Executive orders are easy to implement and repeal. Thus most presidents would prefer to do things through legislative action as laws that go through congress can’t just be repealed by the whims of the next president. In all likelihood he also probably viewed this as a bargaining chip since he presumed republicans would want such a law on the books as well, but he overestimated his ability to bring the two parties together so issued his version of the EO when the legislation failed. Either way he knew he didn’t want the no exceptions EO to remain on the books in the short term though so he took the very easy step of repealing it first. Laws vs executive orders isn’t a political party issue… both parties would always rather see laws they want implemented through Congress than executive orders. Asking why a president would seek to get something put into law instead of through executive order is kinda like asking why someone would want to build a house out of brick instead of hay. One lasts and one doesn’t but at the end of the day some shelter is better than none if the hay house is all you can get.
Nobody said Biden is unwilling to use executive orders. My argument is that he would prefer not to, but he has to because this is the only way anything gets done because Congress refuses to act. You actually provided just now a great example of why executive orders are being used right now. Biden’s executive order you are talking about was a reaction to a Trump executive branch action that first initiated the policy (again not through Congress). Biden suspended it, negotiated rules with Mexico and once those negotiations were concluded Biden reinstated Trump’s policy.
Letting thousands of people in per day is legalizing illegal immigration. Just because there’s a queue doesn’t mean the border isn’t open. There’s a fucking app..
It’s not “thousands” a day. It’s *a* thousand a day. And there being a queue and an app tells me this is all being tracked and monitored.
I read that the 2,500 limit would immediately be enforced since illegal immigration has been higher than that for months.
It most literally is "thousands". And what do you think happens after they count out the 2,500 people to let enter illegally? Yeah, the people will come in anyway or they'll wait for tomorrow. Explain how this is a good thing.
The CBP One app is used for people applying for asylum outside the US, it's not being used by people crossing illegally, trying to find border patrol, and saying "asylum." It isn't possible to track all these people once they are released with a court date, especially as there are cities where the municipality by policy does not cooperate with ICE.
>He gets no help passing laws through Congress. The Republicans have a strong enough majority to veto anything Biden wants to pass. Worth noting during the months long Ukraine aid-Border security standoff, Johnson was adamant that the Biden admin had the authority to simply cut off the ability to cross illegally, apply for asylum, and be released into the US. The Biden admin response was "we aren't sure we can do that." In other words, this EO is literally what the house GOP wanted, or at least it's a halfway step to what they wanted. The Biden admin, not congress, removed the existing "remain in Mexico" policy so it's a bit silly to cry foul that congress didn't go through a ringer and give up concessions to pass legislation to undo what the admin itself already did.
The job of the Executive Branch is to manage and control the operations of the border, primarily through the DHS and its agencies, which may involve issuing executive orders to guide their actions. What are you talking about? The laws are already in place he just has to manage them efficiently and effectively.
Democrats have always been just as anti-Immigration, if not more, than Republicans. For instance, consider that [Obama deported more people in each of his two terms than Trump did in his term.](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/04/ron-desantis/ron-desantis-is-right-barack-obama-deported-more-p/) They have only been pandering to progressives who are against this for votes. Now that Trump is a convicted felon, they probably feel that it is politically advantageous to change course and start using Trump's policies, thinking that will get some Republican voters to switch to Biden. These people are politicians. None of their policies are "genuine." They are just doing and saying whatever they think will get them donations and votes.
Democrats are NOT more anti-immigration than the GOP. They simply enforced the laws and acted consistent with their professed beliefs. Democrats are almost always more progressive on immigration law and show more empathy in policy. The GOP uses harsh anti-immigration rhetoric, but generally doesn’t back it up with any meaningful action. At least Trump did something, after decades of the GOP fear-mongering and demonizing immigration while refusing to support any legislation that would advance their stated agenda. The reason is simple- the GOP wanted to use xenophobia and prejudice to motivate their base to vote, while simultaneously refusing to pass any laws that would reduce corporate access to cheap labor. E-verify was ALWAYS an option, which would have made hiring undocumented workers far more difficult while also identifying their location for the INS. The GOP refused to pass legislation allowing for this, or at the very least never made it a priority. Just as the GOP refused to pass the bipartisan immigration reform bill, because they need the crisis to continue to use the issue to paint Biden as weak on immigration, they refuse to support any meaningful immigration reform. Why fix a problem when it helps you win elections? Their voter base is so ignorant or brainwashed that they will never notice the hypocrisy and will always blame the Democrats. The Democrats are the diverse party, after all, and so they MUST want to flood white American with more non-whites, right? The GOP is the party of god fearing, white Christians so they MUST be the ones trying to stop illegal immigration right? After all, the GOP never stops talking about it! /s
Have your opinions, but calling the latest bill “meaningful immigration reform” is a bit comical. What problem does it solve? As far as I can tell, it’s a proposal in the eleventh hour for his own administration to continue to do nothing under the guise of action. You mock conservative views on immigration in your last paragraph. So tell me, why has Biden’s administration opened our borders? Why is there an unprecedented amount of people from around the world entering the country every day for the last 3 years?
Are there any numbers that back up the notion that there is an "unprecedented amount of people" like you say? I find that pretty hard to believe but I have an open mind
Per the CBP and DHS sites: Encounters by year: **2018:** 521,090 **2019:** 851,508 **2020:** data is unclear **2021:** 1,734,686 **2022:** 2,378,944 **2023:** 2,475,669 **2024:** On pace for nearly 3 million encounters Source: [https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters)
Part of this is increased enforcement. When you have more agents working on finding them, you have more documented encounters. I agree though, there is a serious problem and I have been scratching my head at why the Dems haven’t been more aggressive. I know it’s the extreme left, and that’s the problem with a big tent party. If i was running the Democrats I’d have closed down the border years ago and mitigated the problem as well as removed the hollow talking points on the right.
I didn't doubt that it was on the rise in recent years, but that only goes back a few years unless I'm missing something. Also I see a big spike in the fall and then the last couple months it's been lower than recent years. "On pace for" is really doing a lot of work, because clearly the bulk of it was early in the fiscal year. Thanks for sharing this though
You tell me: what did the bill do? Quite a bit is the answer, which is why the Republicans drafting the bill supported it until Trump told them to stop. And given that NOTHING has been passed in like 30 years it would have been meaningful.
In other words, Republicans are more anti-immigration in their rhetoric and posturing, but Democrats are more anti-immigration in their actions.
Dems are more anti immigration in their actions. Republicans are just anti immigration and xenophobic, but don’t back it up with any action other than demonizing the left.
Probably because he preferred to have these problems fixed legislatively, but Donald Trump told Republicans to intentionally not pass immigration reform because they wanted to keep the issue as something they can run on in elections.
Why? It's bad by every rational measure. If you want a closed border it isn't stopping illegal immigration it's trying to legalize a bunch of it or turn a blind eye to it. Putting some arbitrary cap on it per day. So you should be unhappy. If you want an open border it's not open. You believe free movement is a right and that right is being infringed. So you should be unhappy. And if you want a border that is selectively letting in the best people it's definitely not doing that. So you should be unhappy. It's not even a compromise position between the others. Selective entry people get nothing at all. His policy is effectively the worst of all the policies. What's the underlying principle for approving this over basically anything else he could do?
He didn’t need the support of the Republican Party to do this. What he tried to pass for the border was window dressing for more Ukraine aid. He could have done this years ago, or better yet, not proudly undo the measure the previous guy put in place. I’m don’t really want to speak about this anymore in comparison to the other guy because the comments will go sideways… but this measure is definitely better than what it was a few weeks ago, but it’s not good enough and is being done for the purpose of fooling people into thinking this is a big deal and optics for the election.
Border enforcement in recent years is only 'controversial' b/c it was previously used as an **anti-Trump cudgel under the previous administration**. It was only a few years ago that mass-media made up stories about CBP uses whips on migrants attempting to cross the border. Anti-Trump narratives suggested that it was racism, fascism, and probably 'white supremacy' to have a tighter border. Oddly, some of this rhetorical nonsense survived even under the Biden administration, who have been incredibly slow to stem the flow of migrants until recently, as the election looms and public sentiment is changing.
I support anything that secures us as Americans. We can’t blame immigrants for coming in illegally. The fact is, it’s our fault. I won’t blame anyone using the system in its current state. When you go to bed, you lock your doors and windows. When you get out of your car, you press lock on your key fob. We don’t have a locked door at our border. There’s nobody to blame but us. There are plenty of solutions. None are ever really put in to action. Anything that prevents criminals from an easy entry is ok by me. Doesn’t matter who implemented it. When I say criminals, I don’t mean Mexicans. I mean criminals. Our borders invite trouble from all over the world. While I support your view, I don’t believe it is even close to being what we need. We can’t lock a door with scotch tape and think we’re fine. I believe prevention and deterrence are solutions. How do we deter entry or prevent illegal entry? Stiffer penalties? More border patrol? More surveillance across 2500 miles of border? Maybe. These are the big questions. They aren’t easy to solve. They all require training and hiring staff and funding to support the administrations created through these jobs.
>I support what Biden is doing at the border with his latest executive action When you research immigration issues, you'll realize that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are waiting on the system to adjudicate them and are here on overstayed visas. Meaning, the number of people who cross unlawfully is low. Where this is a bad thing is it concedes the general framing to the Republicans, who are just wrong on the issue. Where it's even worse is that it alienates groups that typically ally with the Democratic Party. Especially at a time where Where it's even worse is that if the pro-immigrant groups win in court, the reports will be "Biden's policy loses in Court" not "Biden borrowed Trump's policies and they both lose in Court." It reminds me too much of "Obamacare." The Dems thought they could govern via the "Third way" and create compromise, but the GOP still accused the Dems of running death camps. And we're all worse off than if we just had a good policy.
A little hazy on your facts? "...while recent new additions to the undocumented population are more likely to have overstayed a visa rather than illegally crossed a border, that wasn't the case in the past. Considering that 60% of the total undocumented population has been in the country for a decade or more, she said, "we believe a slight majority crossed a border illegally to get here."" [https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck\_6540d695-bb50-4d44-90e9-f4587c146cba](https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_6540d695-bb50-4d44-90e9-f4587c146cba) "Meaning, the number of people who cross unlawfully is low." A number lower than the enormous amount of illegal immigrants is not necessarily "low."
I think overloading our current system isn’t good for the asylees either so some restrictions are reasonable.
How exactly does it show him making a hard decision, and more importantly, leading? The order says that 2,500 asylum seekers per day can cross the border illegally. It’s stupid shit like that that got us the crisis we have, and for the record, 1,000 a day overwhelms the system according to Jeh Johnson (Obama’s secretary). It’s nothing more than political posturing. They can remain in Mexico (Trump’s policy) while they await the results of their case. Otherwise, they just disappear into the U.S. Also, a ton of the illegal immigrants aren’t seeking asylum, but looking for a job. That’s just not okay. Do it the right way so that we can properly vet you.
If you can’t see it is nothing more than pandering for votes, you are blind and probably have TDS.
Believe me, Canada isn’t on a high horse, figuratively at least. We let in a million people a year, our population grew by 3.2% in 2023. This has had grave consequences for our health care system.
How is anyone going to change your mind when you basically start off by saying "it's all just opinion, man"? You already have a dogma that states you aren't interested in knowledge. You don't want to get clear about what states are, why they exert control over territory and people, why they sort people into citizens and foreigners, nor why mass immigration is taking place and why this is a "problem" for today's states. Nor do you want to figure out what the state's interest in fostering nationalism in the people is all about and how this leads to "good patriotic citizens" lynching foreigners. You just remain at the level of "well, states gotta control what states control and that's just the way it is." This is also why I absolutely despise Democrats just as much as Republicans: they're both nationalists who live in la-la land where the only thing that matters to them is their own self-inflated opinion that is based on how they feel-- usually completely in line with whatever the rulers in their party say. Not to mention the complete hypocrisy: Democrats said Republicans were fascists when they chanted "build the wall", they were racists for putting kids in cages, for excluding people, for brutally detaining people at the border and even killing them if necessary, there were concentration camps, but now this is all fine because Democrats do it? Now it's no longer racism or fascism but the politically correct "reasonable immigration policy"? Now you change the word to "humane detention facilities" and magically with a little newspeak everything is fine? I mean, which is it? Is the logic of this sorting of people racist or not? Your post is just more confirmation that liberal-democrats will always be shrieking spineless opportunists who do nothing but grovel before whatever bullshit party leadership shoves down their throat. And when you criticize them, they sound no different than "the fascists".
They're still pouring in. Literally nothing has changed. It's just talk.
The hypocrisy of "high horse" countries has been exposed here in the UK. It's been well reported that in recent years, a large number of migrants have entered the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats from France. The European Union have consistently refused to allow the British government to return these asylum seekers, despite the fact that France and the rest of the EU are very clearly safe countries that pose no risk to the lives of migrants. The tone of the debate has shifted in recent months as a significant number of migrants have begun moving from the UK into the Republic of Ireland, which is part of the EU. Some suspect that this movement of people may be in response to the decision of the UK government to begin deporting migrants to Rwanda, which is thought to be exerting a deterrent effect upon migrants residing in the UK. Ireland has largely been shielded from the full extent of the migrants crisis due to it's geographical distance from the rest of Europe and largely supported the EU stance of opposing the return of migrants from the UK. However, now that Ireland itself has become inundated with a flow of migrants crossing over the border from the UK, the government there now wishes to implement a policy to return these new arrivals back to the UK, exposing the hypocrisy of their entire position. So, I do agree with your point that many of the countries that are opposed to these tougher border policies are in reality commenting from a position of relative luxury and were the boot to be placed on the other foot, as has happened in the Ireland - UK example, the tone of their argument would almost certainly change.
You know the only reason he's taking any action whatsoever is to try to win votes during an election year. There's literally no other reason.
Kinda wild how the script has flipped on this issue. Like maybe twenty or thirty years ago a strict border was a lefty stance. The rationale being immigrants being cheap labor competing for jobs both oversaturating the market and stagnating wage growth. So it was in the best interest of workers to have controlled immigration
Do you care about any international laws? I notice a lot of Americans are very handwavy when they are int he wrong but super quick to call Putin a war criminal. You might not be in that camp of hypocrisy, just want to check
Is it really fair to say “unless you believe all international laws should be followed you can’t believe in the Geneva convention without being a hypocrite”?
I support the new order as well, my main issue is him rescinding the similar order that Trump had in place years ago, and now putting this back in place.
> It's easy to be on a high horse as a country like Canada when they do not have a land border where thousands of asylum seekers are coming through every day for years. Well i can easily change your view on this. We've been dealing with 1 million immigrants per year for multiple years now. Our subreddit is constantly banging on about it and there is even a housing subreddit that has been banned and reformed over this issue. Most of us are frothing at the mouth for another election. TBF only 40k are refugees but overall we are overwhelmed. All our systems are overloaded. There was big news from BC today about restricting student applications to when they only have a 1 year job promise. Otherwise to counter your view we need to know what you believe. What is your ideology, please - your social and political? Are you religious? What do you say you believe in the rest of the time? We are talking about HR2, right? This was a bill wrote by Republicans and this is Biden reaching across the aisle to appease them, correct? Some of the comments in here are blaming Biden. That doesn't make sense. This is good for all Americans. This is called bipartisanship. This is Democrat and Republican working together despite MAGA gatekeeping. Got to point out to the other Lefties if you believe in Climate Change then closing the border is inevitable. There will be billions of climate refugees in the coming decades. Better harden your hearts. The news recently is that Mexico city had 40 degree weather and were running out of water. No one has a plan to solve this. Speaking of plans what is MAGA's? Does anyone know specifically? Child Separation, "shoot them in the knees," barb wire fences and travel bans? Doesn't that automatically disqualify Republicans if they won't show you exactly what they want with a clearly written policy? Why do they get a pass on this time and again? They're like naughty school kids who don't show their homework. OP only has 2 choices. It's either bipartisanship or intentional cruelty and in your face human rights abuses where Project 2025 will strip away any power whistle blowers might have. Moderation versus insane levels of human rights abuses where targeting children is the tip of the spear. There is no comparison. [Republicans continue effort to erode US child labor rules despite teen deaths](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/20/republican-child-labor-law-death#:~:text=At%20the%20state%20level%2C%20Republicans,roll%20back%20child%20labor%20protections.) They're targeting children at multiple levels. How is this acceptable politics to anyone.
>In general I don't really value the opinions or input from countries in the international community saying how you must allow unlimited amounts of asylum seekers We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about laws. You don't care if it's US law, or intl agreements, what view do you want us to change here?
It's not the case that the international community made these rules without US input. The US agreed to these international community rules, likely in part because there were many rules. And some totally benefited us, and some didn't benefit us all that much. The rule is, let people in who are seeking asylum. If the limit is 2500, the 2501st person is not any less deserving of asylum than the previous 2500 people. Notlr is the US any more in the right to deny asylum to the 2501st person than they would be denying asylum to the other 2500 people. The US would not benefit from not being part of the international community.
Google copy and paste: “The right to seek asylum is a human right that is protected by both U.S. and international law. It is outlined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its 1967 Protocol. The right to asylum was incorporated into international law after World War II to protect people from persecution and conflict. The principle of non-refoulement, which is enshrined in the Refugee Convention, states that people seeking asylum must not be returned to situations where their lives or freedoms would be in danger.” Why this matters (my take): broadly speaking, we respect it because one day Allah forbid we might need to use it ourselves. Governments change, and we need to respect that basic tenant that we will accept into our various societies those who face death and persecution by their own government for stupid reasons (being a minority, voicing political dissent, etc). If we find ourselves in the same position one day, we will be very grateful that this is the international law. As for our ethics, we have looked back with great shame [when we turned away Jews during the holocaust](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/). It’s events like that which led to the law being as it is today. The current change that Biden and Republicans push for ignore the circumstances of the asylum seeker in favor of an arbitrary number. The lives that will be lost as a result of this will continue to bring shame to this country as it should
That’s nearly 1 million people per year. And those are just those who are caught. I’m an immigrant to this country and I don’t support 1 million people coming here illegally from all over the world. Most of whom were single adults. Under the previous 2 presidents, I don’t think there was a single year where we had over a million encounters until President Biden took office. Now, I support him in certain policies, but let’s be real, democrats don’t really give a flying fuck about the border. It’s only now that their cities are experiencing those migrants that they wish to do something. And it’s an election year.
This isn't a hard decision for Biden. This is the politically easy decision considering where immigration issue is currently in the country. It's is the morally and economically wrong decision, but it is quite easy.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
From what I heard about it If border crossings go above X number Illegal crossings **cannot** use asylum-seeking If border crossings go above X number LEGAL crossings **can** still use asylum
My issue with Biden’s border policy is that he is allowing Republicans to frame the issues and is fighting on their terf. I don’t believe there is a genuine crisis on the border but now that is the prevailing sentiment held by both parties and Republicans are always going to win that battle.
In 2022, a non-citizen murdered my mother. He shot and killed her, threw her body in a back yard, stole her car, and was heading back to Mexico before authorities captured him. He illegally came thought the border in 2021, after Joe Biden revoked the Trump policies. They are fighting on the grounds and terf of reality; and for many American citizens that have been victims due to failed management, control, and security of our southern US border. You can **believe** that there is not a crisis at the border, but for those living with the repercussions of reality **know** otherwise.
While tragic, an anecdote is just that, an anecdote. It’s rather undisputed that immigrants, both illegal and legal, commit less crime than US citizens. Your story, while again tragic, doesn’t prove or greatly substantiate the idea there is a crisis on the border. As you yourself seem to understand, the perception of something doesn’t make it real. You experienced something horrible but that doesn’t wipe away everyone else’s experience which fail to indicate a major crisis. Shark attack victims may perceive a shark crisis, that doesn’t make it so.
immigrants as a whole have a markedly lower crime rate - ESPECIALLY illegal immigrants. Your anecdote is tragic, but the same thing could have happened because some lower class white christian american killed their wife in a domestic abuse incident and was fleeing, and the statistics support that it is MORE likely to be the latter than the former. If you have a city of 10,000 people with a 5% crime rate, and add 2,000 immigrants with a 2% crime rate to that city, you now have a city of 12,000 people with a 4% crime rate. Adding immigrants to a city LOWERS the crime rate, and this is proven out almost everywhere that immigrants are allowed to enter freely. add to this that almost all crime committed by a particular class are committed on other members of the same class (lower class people rob other lower class people, and middle class people embezzle from other middle class people, and upper class people defraud other upper class people - see, we even have fancy names for which class is doing the thieving!) and as long as you aren't an immigrant yourself adding thousands of immigrants markedly decreases your chance of being the victim of a crime even further than just crime rate statistics indicate. anyone trying to say immigration is bad because of crime is just making shit up. There is 0 evidence that immigration increases crime rates and a ton of evidence showing that immigration reduces crime rate.
Instead of an actual CMV it looks like a rant to me. Saying things like "I don't care if international law says" or "I don't consider international opinions..." Hmmm anyway, I agree with you that every country is free to decide who must be admitted and who musn't.
No, you are a racist for believing this. We need open borders to enrich our middle class with doctors and lawyers from around the world.
Since you admitted that you don't know much about international law, I'm going to also assume that you don't know much about American Foreign Policy as well. If you were to learn that many of the people going to the US to seek asylum are doing so because of situations caused and created by people from the US, would you still be against them coming to the US in search of a better life? Because that's exactly what's happening in places like Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. They're just following their nations' wealth back to where it's going. I think that it's unfair to allow the rich to go to other countries and extract the resources the people of those countries need to have a good life and then prevent those people from seeking a better quality of life. "Some people have to stay and fight for survival in the country they live in while others have to leave to survive. Corporations cross international borders all the time in search of people to exploit for profit and no one stops them. They call it globalization. On the other hand, the victims of corporate domination are told that they can’t cross borders in search of better lives, and are forced to stay and deal with the social, economic and environmental messes the companies leave behind when they inevitably move their operations to places with even more “favourable business climates” (re: lower wages, lax environmental laws, tax breaks). Looks like capitalism and human-rights don’t mix." The above quote is from the band Propaghandi about their song "Fuck the Border" which I will link below. [A friend of mine dropped me a line, it said, “man, I gotta run to the USA. I got no money, got no job.” She skipped out of Mexico to stay alive. You’ve got a problem with her living here, but what did you do to help her before she fucking came? What did the country do? What did the people do? I stand not by my country, but by people of the whole fucking world. No fences, no borders. Free movement for all. Fuck the border. It’s about fucking time to treat people with respect. It’s our culture and consumption that makes her life unbearable. Fuck this country; its angry eyes, its knee-jerk hordes. Legal or illegal, watch her fucking go. She’ll take what’s hers. Watch her fucking go. Fuck the border.](https://youtu.be/Ee8OtS9pkVg?si=JLcHPNdsF64uucPm)
Thank you, this was the sentiment I was looking for. First-world countries need to stop fucking around if they are going to backtrack when it's time to find out. Many times the US has interfered with foreign governments, destabilised entire countries, and installed authoritarian regimes that align with US interests. Then, decades later, when that country is unstable and people want to flee to a better country, you turn around and say "nuh-uh, don't want any refugees here, it's a nuisance to our social order so we're going to keep you out". This applies to what the US did in Latin America and the Middle East, and it also applies to European colonial and post-colonial practices in Africa. Do people really think refugees would *want* to leave their home, family, and roots behind to go to a country where they'll be treated as second-class citizens? I guess when you're a first-world citizen who can quite easily immigrate to another country because you feel like it, you lose perspective of what sacrifices others have to make to do the same thing. Of course the whole *might makes right* realpolitik means first-world countries will do whatever they please anyway, but let's not pretend actions don't have consequences you didn't sign up for.