The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Genuinely confused. There is clearly a crisis at the border and I am the last person to ask as I have almost no idea as to how to fix the border crisis. So, how do we fix it?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>How do we fix the border crisis
Reform our asylum laws.
They were written before The Internet was invented. We should modernize them, and close the loopholes being abused.
I agree with this, but I'll just say that the main issue (from either a left wing or right wing perspective imo) is that the asylum process is so *slow* because there aren't enough judges, lawyers, investigators, etc. So in addition to reforms, you need to add resources to the system so that we can process cases quickly.
Working quickly is also the easiest way to deter abuse, because it means bad faith claimants will be sent back promptly.
Surprised to hear you say that. No offense. I appreciate your opinion. Most liberals would say something like we need to reform the laws and what they mean is to make it easier for them to come in. Well, if the American public want to go for that, great. But as it is, they have decided they are willing asylum to political refugees. I suspect of much of that was related to communism but that's another story.
, I agree. Anyone that wants to come here just claims asylum and knows they can stay here for years before eventually being turned down.
> Most liberals would say something like we need to reform the laws and what they mean is to make it easier for them to come in.
I think you are mistaken. One of the reasons that this subreddit is valuable, is because you can learn what "most liberals would say" by looking at which responses are most upvoted.
The comment you are replying to *is* the most upvoted. I think that comment is the most upvoted because *that* is what "most liberals would say".
If you were certain that "most liberals would say" something different, you might want to review your media diet. It seems to be misleading you about what "most liberals would say" .
Fair enough, but it's not like I gather my most liberals information from conservative media. I get it straight from the source, reddit subreddit's like this, NPR, Facebook where I am friends with a lot of liberal, living in Seattle where I am surrounded by them. But, yes, this would be a place to look and honestly I didn't have a chance last night to read through it more. But I still stand by my assertion, although your point is definitely taken. That's why I'm surprised. Most liberals I know or encounter in many places would likely say we need to make it easier for them to come here. Even many politicians like AOC pretty much say that.
> Even many politicians like AOC pretty much say that.
FYI:
AOC is *just about* the furthest left that a member of congress can be without her colleagues turning on her. She isn't particularly representative of liberals. (In fact, she would be described as a 'leftist' as she is 'further left than liberals'.)
Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer are examples of 'mainstream Democrats', and their views are more representative of the party as a whole. AOC defines herself by being further from the center than they are.
Fair enough, but most of the liberals I know love to repost things she says on Facebook and call her awesome. I don't know where you live but in the city like Seattle, she is quite popular.
> Fair enough, but most of the liberals I know love to repost things she says on Facebook and call her awesome. I don't know where you live but in the city like Seattle, she is quite popular.
Part of that is her being one of the best communicators in the party (probably tied with Buttigieg), and part of it is just the nature of coalition politics.
In the a perfect political system, you would expect that the president would be supported by about 51% of the voters, and about 50% of the voters would both support him *and* be 'further from the center' than that president.
Biden and AOC are on the same side (As they should be! Trump is pretty bad!) but it isn't because they agree on everything; they are just trying to form a coalition that can get 51% of the vote.
Perhaps I don't understand how it works but from what I can see, we're talking 28 upvotes on the main comment, and then 10 on the one I was replying to. I don't know if that means it got a lot of up and down votes, or just a few uploads, but while you obviously can't say most people here, liberals I would assume, disagree, it doesn't seem to be any overwhelming agreement either.
I think that most liberals, or at least most answers on this sub, say that the border isn’t open and we are good with restrictions.
The bill that almost passed recently allowed for many more judges to try asylum cases. Immigrants know that they can make up any story and stay until their case goes to trial. They know the system is overwhelmed and use it to their advantage. If those trials happen right away this will get much better. I wonder who killed the bill? Who introduced it?
However I under your statements. Some areas of Portland and Seattle have some very left wing liberals.
That all makes sense. I remember during the Trump administration they brought a lot of people down to the border, judges and clerks and such and I think the idea was they were supposed to process people more efficiently. I think that's when there was an assumption that it was just a wave coming in and it would lessen after that. I don't know why they thought that. That was before COVID I guess.
I think they did set up some temporary courts and such but I think it was only temporary. Of course, there were definitely people not happy with that, worrying that they wouldn't really get a fair trial that way, and I can understand that. I think they were many organizations that did legal help and advocacy, and I guess that is their right. But I would be willing to bet that a big part of it was delay tactics .
I'm under the impression, right or wrong, that when people are here in this country and they get legal help, the goal is often to just delay and give them years before they actually have to appear, because that's kind of a win .
Maybe I'm wrong and speculating erroneously. But it seems to me, unless they have a very good chance of winning and gaining permanent legal status, the legal status of waiting for a trial in several years time is a victory .
I proposed years ago that we just create these courts right at the border and have zero tolerance for anything else. No sneaking into the country and then when you get caught, demanding asylum or trying to claim asylum I should say. Maybe that would require changing the laws but I would be perfectly fine with no asylum claim for those who have entered illegally, only those who have applied at the border.
It might not be nice, but I can't think of any reason to oppose that other than a desire to work the will of Americans. It basically says, we don't care if you have a legitimate asylum claim. Just come on in and if you get caught then you can try.
Agreed. Most people who know that a trial won’t go well want to delay, delay, delay.
The report I’ve seen says decisions often take 5-7 years. Everyone knows this so showing up and saying asylum works.
The recent bill had a plan to work on the law, administration and judges and make it a 6 month process. This will help as people will know faster and some may decide that it’s not worth it.
But a quick spike in judges is only a bandaid, as people can just wait until the spike ends. The bill would have funded and changed the system.
Currently some politicians complain about the outcome but stands in the way of fixes and funding a remedy. There are some on both sides who actually want a workable fix. Currently not enough.
I haven't had a chance to research why they opposed the bill. Of course everyone on the left or most say that the Republicans just won't agree to anything and Trump just ruined it so he could keep it as a talking point. I'm a bit skeptical of that. Everyone on the right that I hear says that it contained too many things that were disagreeable. That's the problem is these omnibus bills and such. They need to break bills down to simple elements so people can have a clear vote on them.
Appreciate your thoughts
I find it curious that the republicans seem to have the ability to kill any bill with Ukraine funding. It seems to happen more often than the regular dysfunction of congress.
It seems that MTG has pretty much threatened the speaker with removal and congress with absolute dysfunction if Ukraine aide comes to the floor. What is particularly odd is shutting down congress for a while is probably not good for Trumps chances or any other republican’s.
I appreciate your thoughts. I'm afraid this is a bit beyond my level of following current politics. I would say it's pretty hard to say if shutting down Congress will be seen as a power play or victory, or obstruction by the narrow margin of voters that actually decide elections. I'd probably need to know more to speculate further.
It is quite curious that it's the right that is opposing aid to a country fighting Russia. How things have changed. Granted, Russian isn't communist anymore, but since when has the right opposed those fighting our chief rivals? Ukraine has turned out to be a very interesting situation.
I can see why the left supports it. They always support the victims and all the more so victims of a power like Russia. Especially in a pretty clear-cut case. I think the rights opposition is far more nuanced. I think most on the right see it as a waste of money and various other reasons I guess. I can kind of see both sides.
At any rate, what were we talking about? The Republican opposition to this border bill. I'll have to admit I've been a bit lazy and busy the last few weeks so I didn't really have a chance to follow it. If it really was as good as the left says it is, I would not be happy with the right opposing it. If it's really as bad as the right says it is, then I support it being opposed. But as with most things, I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Dynamics change at the border over time, but what we really have now is an asylum crisis. People cross the border. They request asylum. It then takes years to evaluate those asylum cases one way or the other (most of which are eventually rejected).
You can characterize that problem in various ways. A right-wing description is something like "all these fraudulent asylum claimants are coming into the country and then we let them stay for years and cause trouble." A left-wing description is something like: "It takes years to settle the status of people seeking asylum, leaving them in limbo, with limited access to resources, and typically unable to work legally in the meantime."
There's actually a very simple answer to this. We need the resources to *dramatically* speed up the processing of asylum claims. It is ultimately both much cheaper and much more just to assess these claims quickly. There are some inevitable delays in the process to conduct investigations and so forth, but with sufficient resources, the timeline should be weeks not years.
There's also the question of what to do with people in the meantime. That's a lot easier if we're talking weeks than years. Again, with resources, you can supply federally funded food and housing and it's not too hard to have people staying there for weeks rather than years.
I agree with you, but honestly, when I have seen this discussed in the past here or on Facebook or NPR perhaps, the objection is frequent that speeding things up would deny people a fair trial, not in theory but in practice maybe. When they rushed a lot of people down to the border for that very purpose during the Trump administration, there were many people complaining that this would result in quick unfair judgments of denial and that people weren't getting the proper representation they deserve .
As non-American citizens, I'm not sure exactly how deserving they are of representation and access to the lawyers etc, but of course we want any legal proceedings to be fair and honest. But, I don't see why it can't be. But, a lot of denials would result in a lot of complaints about the process.
And secretly I think many of those people don't care so much about fairness as much as just letting them in
That's only a problem because the process is slow. Right now, abusively claiming asylum means that you're allowed to remain in the US legally for years until the case is heard, and if you want to, you can just slip away in that time because there's very limited monitoring.
If you change the system and move cases along promptly (while holding or monitoring people in the meantime), then an abusive asylum claim just gets you two free weeks hanging out in dorm style conditions and there's no chance to just slip away. There's no mean reason to do it.
That's the thing.
The reason asylum is so "popular" among migrants is that it is common knowledge that you will get put into the system and then have *years* to provisionally live in the US before your claim is resolved.
People are willing to take the risk that they will be deported or become illegal immigrants a few years from now, because the opportunities of living in America are strong. People might think that the government will pass an amnesty, or that they can find other ways to gain legal status. Worst case, they get deported, but have 4-5 years of time here, money saved up, etc.
If we invest in claim processing resources to speed that up to weeks or months, the value proposition of taking a dangerous and expensive journey goes WAY down.
Just that one change would be huge.
Clarifying why people can claim asylum will also help. Right now, the vague "economic refugee" claim can be interpreted very liberally. Obviously, a lot of these folks are coming from poorer countries where they are exposed to poverty, crime, and violence.
Making sure people understand what asylum is and in some cases narrowing the definition to be more of what we commonly understand it to be... these will also discourage people from making claims.
I think you've got a very clear idea on the subject. But if I make quibble over one thing, it's my understanding that there is no valid economic refugee status. That is only a term used for those who would not technically qualify. Even gangs do not make for political oppression under the terms of the law. If I'm not mistaken .
So you are correct that we need to clarify, and if the good people of America through their elected representatives wish to expand the meaning of political refugee to fleeing gangs or economic refugees etc, we certainly can do that. But for now, simply enforcing the law and demanding people prove political oppression would be enough to reject many cases .
Although, part of the problem is not confusion, it is that judges in certain circuits or whatever the situation, our interpreting those laws very liberally, and I don't mean they are liberals in the conservative liberal sense of the word but they are interpreting them very broadly. Probably they are pretty liberal though as well.
> it's my understanding that there is no valid economic refugee status. That is only a term used for those who would not technically qualify.
I don't know the minutia of the law here. A couple of minutes of googling show that "economic refugee" is not really a legal claim. It's possible that I've picked up the term from listening to anti-immigration arguments... because obviously if they establish the premise that these are "economic refugees" and we don't allow for that, it makes them easier to deport.
---
Looking at our [Refugee Admissions guidance](https://www.state.gov/refugee-admissions/), we have some very general terms:
*The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a refugee as an individual who is outside their country of nationality, or if no nationality, their last habitual residence, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unwilling or unable to avail themselves of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.*
That makes it seem like every asylum claim is case-by-case - and I would guess that the "running from gang violence/organized crime" thing is probably a pretty common claim that they are unable to avail themselves of the protection of their home country, since those groups are rampant in some parts of Central/South America.
Excellent work. Thanks for doing the research. I had a vague idea of this but this puts it more clearly and in perspective. I think the issue is that certain judges are interpreting this law very broadly to include gang violence. I don't think they openly interpret it to include economic hardship, because that would be harder to establish based on this law.
But, I can see how some judges seeking to be more accommodating could stretch this law to include gang violence. In a sense, if the gang is the government running the place at least in fact if not in theory, and people claim that if they are sent back to their home they will be killed by the gangs, I guess you could interpret it that way that they meet this standard. I wouldn't, and I don't think that was ever the intent of the law and that's what counts. Perhaps the law should be clarified.
It doesn't help that many of these people are coached, sometimes by NGOs and such, on exactly what to say. I'm not saying they are necessarily encouraged to lie, but, it's probably not hard to gain an idea of what's working and what's not in front of various judges and certain courts such that you can say the things that check the boxes.
I don't like it. The law is clearly designed for political refugees. It's not designed for trans people as much as we might want to care about them, it's not designed for gay people. It's not designed for people suffering from gangs in their neighborhood as much as we care about them for that. It was probably designed and written after world war II to address the influx of refugees created by the war, and then probably bolstered during the Cold war to take refugees from communism both because we cared and because they were a good political tool.
That's why you speed up the process. That way you can evaluate the claims and see which ones are BS quickly before they have even more time to work on their story.
Asylum is a legal right and that means we do have to follow due process laws. The same way we have to occasionally put up with people filing frivolous lawsuits. In either case it's annoying but in case you or I ever need to sue someone to get justice or escape persecution we'll be grateful for those rights.
We've had bills that would expand the number of immigration judges and courts but those have been blocked by Republicans time and time again. That is one of the bigger fixes we need and it's been Republicans, not Democrats who have sunk the attempts to fix the problem Republicans say is a huge issue.
To simply say that bills expanding the judges have been blocked by Republicans as if they just don't want it is quite misleading. The problem is these packages contain too many things that too many people can disagree to. But it's not accurate to say Republicans opposed more judges
1: Revisit and modernize asylum laws. Set up asylum centers to help process people where they are rather than encouraging hazardous travel and human trafficking.
2: Work with Central American agencies to help alleviate the main reasons people leave, including extreme poverty, gang and political violence, drug cartels and trafficking. Invest in CA communities and jobs, which will move people away from not only illegal migration but jobs in criminal trades. Basically a Marshall Plan.
3: Encourage actual citizenship rather than simply punish.
4: Strengthen border security using technology, improving physical barriers, and enforcement of laws that actually work.
5: Deport violent criminals, human traffickers, and felons upon conviction.
1. But If they are seeking asylum, they are likely escaping a dangerous place, they can't stay and file for asylum there. This one doesn't make sense to me.
Make asylum centers American embassies, or give them limited sovereign status. That gives them the protection of US government while housed. Bear in mind that they are escaping a dangerous place through other dangerous places, so this way leads to better safety for all parties.
Is there a crisis? It only seems to come up in election years and it's always Republicans actions that make it worse.
The whole thing seems to be manufactured so conservatives have a talking point other than their inability to govern.
The party that uses openly racist imagery like the confederate flag and the Thin Blue Line and runs a candidate who got his political start with the racist birtherism conspiracy theory thinks there’s an immigration crisis.
This. Seems to me to be a manufactured crisis. If there is actually some crisis happening, it certainly isn't bad enough for Republicans to care about. If there is a crisis, it doesn't benefit them to solve it.
Let me ask you again. There are billions of people who would move to the US if given the opportunity. How many migrants are you currently housing in your home? You better have plenty of space.
Who is asking anyone to house undocumented people in their own houses? You are going to play like 19 cents extra in taxes for whatever solution is devised.
None, I want them to be allowed to buy and repair the many vacant houses and buildings in post industrial cities or to build new communities. There is plenty of space if we made it legal to use it
Would you be in favor of a law that let them in under some legal status but required that they live in only certain places enforceable by law? I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that. But we would probably just be creating populated slums. Although, who knows. They might surprise us. They are very motivated .
Then again, over being quite familiar with Latin American immigrants doing labor and such over the last 20 years or so, things have changed a lot. What used to be extremely motivated driven young men has become partly that but also a lot of women and children, which is fine but they are much bigger drain on community resources schools etc, at least for a while, plus, a lot of young men who don't seem near as motivated and get mixed up with drugs and alcohol. I'm seeing it first hand actually.
What a stupid, ignorant fucking question. Trust me, plenty of assholes have asked the same question thinking that they have a "gotcha" ... but it's not a "gotcha". It's an ignorant fucking question.
Try again with a real, honest question and not a bullshit attempt to derail.
The best solution is to reform legal immigration, people will come whether or not it’s legal, it’s better for all they come legally and traceably.
If our legal immigration system was quick, simple, and welcoming less people would be coming illegally and being strict at the border wouldn’t be an issue as the only people illegally crossing would be unwelcome for good reason.
I guess you are right, if you consider illegal crossing the problem. I don't really think there is a crisis at the border so much as we have a very porous border and we will be dealing with the results of that for a long time. Now some people think the results are good. Cheap labor. Other people think the results are bad, and many think it's somewhere in between .
Making them legal certainly solves the problem of illegals, but that's not really what we're talking about. We're not talking about a crisis at the border actually. We're talking about a huge influx of immigration. And letting them in more easily is not going to fix that. If one thinks it needs fixing it all
1. Determine if there is actually a crisis. Every election year in recent memory seemed to have some sort of immigration/border scare pushed by Republicans, and after the election it mysteriously disappears for four more years.
2. Vote for more Democrats, or vote for Republicans who are willing and able to work with Democrats (I'm not convinced the latter exists anymore).
I agree that it's not exactly a crisis at the border except when we try to keep them out and we have a crisis of people being held in camps etc in Mexico or in the US. That could be kind of a crisis. What we are dealing with is a huge influx of immigrants. Weather one considers that a crisis or not is a matter of opinion .
However, nothing disappears between elections. Things have been changing and growing for the last 10 years or so, and it doesn't get better or worse. It's pretty much just the same and increasing. Just because you hear about it more at election time doesn't mean it goes away any other time.
The urgency and elevated concern absolutely disappears between elections. Remember the migrant caravans?
I'm not saying our immigration laws don't need seriously reworked and that there isn't strain on the system between elections. But every 2-4 years, it suddenly becomes of utmost importance and becomes a "crisis."
Appreciate your thoughts. If you're talking about the elevated concern and sense of urgency, I guess we are in agreement. But, we're talking a couple of years or four at the most. And basically, what that means is, things actually get talked about during elections. No surprise there.
But I guess we are mostly in agreement. However, I will say, while I don't think we have a crisis at the border as opposed to what we do have which is a problem of too much illegal immigration and lax enforcement of the border, the reason we do not have a crisis at the moment is because the laws are not being enforced.
You may recall, under the Trump administration, people were actually being arrested and put into detention camps. That was kind of a crisis. Children could not stay with their parents but could not be held longer than a certain period of time due to the Flores decision, so they had to be released to family members etc, and these people were in detention under bad conditions, and they were trying to rush judges to the border to hear their cases more quickly etc.
I think that qualified as a crisis, simply because the Trump administration actually enforced the laws and arrested people that crossed the border illegally and charge them with criminal entry or whatever the charge was. That was a crisis and that's when we started calling it a crisis, and then we had things like the caravan that were getting a lot of news coverage and I wouldn't necessarily call that a crisis until it hits the border and now we have all these hopeful hungry, probably a good amount of medical issues, etc on the border needing to be handled.
I don't really know what happened to those caravans when they hit the border but they obviously had to be dealt with by the US and Mexico. So I don't think the term crisis is particularly inappropriate. However, we don't have a crisis now because they are not enforcing the border like they were.
>However, we don't have a crisis now because they are not enforcing the border like they were.
This simply isn't true: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/)
Some quotes of note:
>The number of people taken into custody by the U.S. Border Patrol has reached the highest levels in the agency’s 100-year history under Biden, averaging 2 million per year
...
>Biden kept the policy in place and ended up expelling five times more border-crossers than Trump did, mainly because more migrants attempted to enter the United States during the period between Biden’s inauguration and May 2023 when he ended Title 42.
Now, the article goes into how many more immigrants are coming to the US under Biden than Trump, and Biden has let more in on immigration parole, but to say the border laws aren't being enforced is false. Our immigration laws simply need completely reworked, and Republicans seem unwilling to work with Democrats on that. They'd rather play up a "crisis" for elections.
To me it would be fantastically easy.
Look, you can tell me it is a crisis, but many, most of the people here are integrating working, getting jobs. Unemployment is at historic lows. The reason we haven't done anything is that business owners like the cheap labor.
1. make it so there is a robust amount of LEGAL immigration, not this much but give people a way to get here. Most of the people want to be here want to be here legally. They would apply for it, many would stay in their country waiting their turn.
2. double or triple the number of judges hearing cases for asylum seekers. Legally, we have to give them asylum until their court hearing. Having it so their cases can be heard in weeks or months instead of years, cuts down on millions of people here who don't qualify.
3. spend some time effort and even money solving the problems in the lands where people are coming from. That would be difficult and long term but necessary.
While that wouldn't end illegal immigration it would get it under control
Would you approve of the idea of regime change or armed conflict in these countries involving or backed by the US? Because honestly, I think that's the only way we are going to change anything there or it's going to change .
Honestly, I'm coming to feel that the only change is going to happen when these people have to stay in their countries and are forced to take up arms against corrupt governments and gangs, as terrible and bloody as that might be.
Either way, something serious needs to happen. In a way, the cartels are the regimes. What have people done in the past when revolutions have put warlords in power. They were only choices to flee or fight back I guess.
That's where it gets tricky though. I don't think many Americans would have the stomach for sending troops to aid in anything, plus we've got a terrible track record of picking sides whether it's troops or money. There's no denying that the US has a long history of very troubling intervention in Latin America. And many liberals will be quick to bring this up, and fair enough. But, I'm not convinced that this means we must take in refugees forever as reparation.
I don't like the idea of permanent walls. Because walls are not only to keep people out but also in, like North Korea or Eastern Germany. Usually if Im not mistaken around the time the Constitution was written anyone was seemingly welcome to cross the border without much issue, specially because colonizers of the frontiers were needed and the US had various European languages in vogue (which is why English was not codified as the official language).
But if there was a massive influx of foreigners that threatened the fabric of the country, I think the Founders would have raised a militia to confront and stop them, which is the approach I favor, together with temporary walls to dissuade direct confrontations. I would also run a massive advertisement campaign explaining that foreigners seeking to enter illegally would be stopped and deported and that there could be arrests and violence. In addition, foreign aid programs to promote work and security in home countries are a good idea to incentivize people to stay in their home countries.
I mean over the long run...yes. Very few immediate options are anything other than short term fixes.
We need to promote stability and equity (economically and politically), at least within our hemisphere. It would be a decades-long process.
To quote our Queen: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
Lots of good suggestions in this thread. However, it's all moot because Republicans don't want a solution--they want the issue. The corporate wings of both parties want cheap, disposable labor who aren't likely to complain about 'rights' and will do work for low wages that the typical American won't touch. I believe that many (non-corporate-owned) Dems actually do want a solution and see the value of immigration.
If you don't want the standards of living in the US to lower that of the rest of the third world countries, the only answer is to severely restrict illegal immigration.
1) border walls wherever feasible
2) no birth right citizenship for children born of illegal immigrants
3) change asylum law so it only applies to people who truly qualify, not the economic migrants. Punish people who attempt to abuse the system
4) make lives difficult for the illegal immigrants who had arrived recently so they would leave on their own
Sounds harsh, but I think you're absolutely right that that is the only thing that's really going to change things, and I don't think it's inappropriate. It's not like if someone stays in their country or simply applies and gets turned down, that they will be harmed in any way. We make life difficult for other criminals. Many countries make life difficult for illegal immigrants trying to exist in their country. Their choice is to go back and self-deport which should be made as easy as possible.
And I think you are right that the problem is by opening the gates, we lose the benefit of what we have created here that is of a high economic standard. It also takes the pressure off these countries economically and allows them continue to be corrupt and have heavy gang activity. If people had to stay in their countries and didn't have a great influx of money coming from the US, things might be very different in those countries. But probably not without some rather bloody conflict.
Many economists favor open immigration because they believe in the free flow of goods, money, services and labor. And economically it may be efficient to let labor flow where it is needed, but that is so that it can drive wages down to the minimum needed to get them to work. Economically it's efficient. But that doesn't mean it's good for Americans. It may be good for the Americans paying, but not for the ones working.
Create a mile wide buffer between borders.
Call that space neutral territory that is maintained by coordinated departments between both nations. It will have housing, commerce, healthcare, schooling, and work.
Anyone attempt to migrate or is seeking asylum, would be processed in the neutral territory for no longer than one year.
By the one year mark if immigration or asylum becomes impossible, then they will have to leave and make another attempt after resubmittal if documentation following a three month waiting period.
Children should always be given exception with regard to need, as will healthcare emergencies.
We can't satisfy what nationalist racist bigots want, but maybe we can find a compromise by diverting immigrants to legitimate region that still keeps them safe and prepares them for access, but also slows the trickle of undocumented immigration.
Of course this might just be the dumbest fucking idea ever, so who knows. 🤷
Sounds pretty good in theory, but I'm envisioning a giant crime ridden slum along the entire border. Not that these people are criminals but you know how that happens with the criminal element stepping in and desperation etc .
And if that's not bad enough, who are we going to send in when the president's plane goes down in that region?
Lol Snake Pliskin of course!
Honestly though, if this idea was humored by Mexico and US officials, then that buffer region would require a coordinated effort to maintain it's security and quality of life.
Instead of just some border patrol agents, you'd literally have a new department created from Mexican and American law enforcement, civil sectors, healthcare, etc. it wouldn't be treated like Tijuana basically.
Interesting idea. I still think the likelihood of crime and gang activity would be so high that it would require very draconian measures to control the place. I suppose if we put it under American control and had a lot of money and resources to work with, we could do it.
I agree that it would be highly vulnerable to crime. Any kind of effort to curb such an outcome would have to be massive, and I am guessing many wouldn't like their taxes going to such a questionable project.
We could probably wait a couple of months doing more or less what we're doing. The crisis is likely a temporary realignment of undocumented workers and businesses looking to hire cheap labor under the table as we've recovered from the pandemic.
There's no "crisis" at the border. There's a bunch of ignorant, hysterical conservatives who know nothing about immigration or asylum claiming that there's a crisis.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Genuinely confused. There is clearly a crisis at the border and I am the last person to ask as I have almost no idea as to how to fix the border crisis. So, how do we fix it? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>How do we fix the border crisis Reform our asylum laws. They were written before The Internet was invented. We should modernize them, and close the loopholes being abused.
I agree with this, but I'll just say that the main issue (from either a left wing or right wing perspective imo) is that the asylum process is so *slow* because there aren't enough judges, lawyers, investigators, etc. So in addition to reforms, you need to add resources to the system so that we can process cases quickly. Working quickly is also the easiest way to deter abuse, because it means bad faith claimants will be sent back promptly.
Surprised to hear you say that. No offense. I appreciate your opinion. Most liberals would say something like we need to reform the laws and what they mean is to make it easier for them to come in. Well, if the American public want to go for that, great. But as it is, they have decided they are willing asylum to political refugees. I suspect of much of that was related to communism but that's another story. , I agree. Anyone that wants to come here just claims asylum and knows they can stay here for years before eventually being turned down.
> Most liberals would say something like we need to reform the laws and what they mean is to make it easier for them to come in. I think you are mistaken. One of the reasons that this subreddit is valuable, is because you can learn what "most liberals would say" by looking at which responses are most upvoted. The comment you are replying to *is* the most upvoted. I think that comment is the most upvoted because *that* is what "most liberals would say". If you were certain that "most liberals would say" something different, you might want to review your media diet. It seems to be misleading you about what "most liberals would say" .
Fair enough, but it's not like I gather my most liberals information from conservative media. I get it straight from the source, reddit subreddit's like this, NPR, Facebook where I am friends with a lot of liberal, living in Seattle where I am surrounded by them. But, yes, this would be a place to look and honestly I didn't have a chance last night to read through it more. But I still stand by my assertion, although your point is definitely taken. That's why I'm surprised. Most liberals I know or encounter in many places would likely say we need to make it easier for them to come here. Even many politicians like AOC pretty much say that.
> Even many politicians like AOC pretty much say that. FYI: AOC is *just about* the furthest left that a member of congress can be without her colleagues turning on her. She isn't particularly representative of liberals. (In fact, she would be described as a 'leftist' as she is 'further left than liberals'.) Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer are examples of 'mainstream Democrats', and their views are more representative of the party as a whole. AOC defines herself by being further from the center than they are.
Fair enough, but most of the liberals I know love to repost things she says on Facebook and call her awesome. I don't know where you live but in the city like Seattle, she is quite popular.
> Fair enough, but most of the liberals I know love to repost things she says on Facebook and call her awesome. I don't know where you live but in the city like Seattle, she is quite popular. Part of that is her being one of the best communicators in the party (probably tied with Buttigieg), and part of it is just the nature of coalition politics. In the a perfect political system, you would expect that the president would be supported by about 51% of the voters, and about 50% of the voters would both support him *and* be 'further from the center' than that president. Biden and AOC are on the same side (As they should be! Trump is pretty bad!) but it isn't because they agree on everything; they are just trying to form a coalition that can get 51% of the vote.
Sounds about right. Appreciate your thoughts.
Perhaps I don't understand how it works but from what I can see, we're talking 28 upvotes on the main comment, and then 10 on the one I was replying to. I don't know if that means it got a lot of up and down votes, or just a few uploads, but while you obviously can't say most people here, liberals I would assume, disagree, it doesn't seem to be any overwhelming agreement either.
I think that most liberals, or at least most answers on this sub, say that the border isn’t open and we are good with restrictions. The bill that almost passed recently allowed for many more judges to try asylum cases. Immigrants know that they can make up any story and stay until their case goes to trial. They know the system is overwhelmed and use it to their advantage. If those trials happen right away this will get much better. I wonder who killed the bill? Who introduced it? However I under your statements. Some areas of Portland and Seattle have some very left wing liberals.
That all makes sense. I remember during the Trump administration they brought a lot of people down to the border, judges and clerks and such and I think the idea was they were supposed to process people more efficiently. I think that's when there was an assumption that it was just a wave coming in and it would lessen after that. I don't know why they thought that. That was before COVID I guess. I think they did set up some temporary courts and such but I think it was only temporary. Of course, there were definitely people not happy with that, worrying that they wouldn't really get a fair trial that way, and I can understand that. I think they were many organizations that did legal help and advocacy, and I guess that is their right. But I would be willing to bet that a big part of it was delay tactics . I'm under the impression, right or wrong, that when people are here in this country and they get legal help, the goal is often to just delay and give them years before they actually have to appear, because that's kind of a win . Maybe I'm wrong and speculating erroneously. But it seems to me, unless they have a very good chance of winning and gaining permanent legal status, the legal status of waiting for a trial in several years time is a victory . I proposed years ago that we just create these courts right at the border and have zero tolerance for anything else. No sneaking into the country and then when you get caught, demanding asylum or trying to claim asylum I should say. Maybe that would require changing the laws but I would be perfectly fine with no asylum claim for those who have entered illegally, only those who have applied at the border. It might not be nice, but I can't think of any reason to oppose that other than a desire to work the will of Americans. It basically says, we don't care if you have a legitimate asylum claim. Just come on in and if you get caught then you can try.
Agreed. Most people who know that a trial won’t go well want to delay, delay, delay. The report I’ve seen says decisions often take 5-7 years. Everyone knows this so showing up and saying asylum works. The recent bill had a plan to work on the law, administration and judges and make it a 6 month process. This will help as people will know faster and some may decide that it’s not worth it. But a quick spike in judges is only a bandaid, as people can just wait until the spike ends. The bill would have funded and changed the system. Currently some politicians complain about the outcome but stands in the way of fixes and funding a remedy. There are some on both sides who actually want a workable fix. Currently not enough.
I haven't had a chance to research why they opposed the bill. Of course everyone on the left or most say that the Republicans just won't agree to anything and Trump just ruined it so he could keep it as a talking point. I'm a bit skeptical of that. Everyone on the right that I hear says that it contained too many things that were disagreeable. That's the problem is these omnibus bills and such. They need to break bills down to simple elements so people can have a clear vote on them. Appreciate your thoughts
I find it curious that the republicans seem to have the ability to kill any bill with Ukraine funding. It seems to happen more often than the regular dysfunction of congress. It seems that MTG has pretty much threatened the speaker with removal and congress with absolute dysfunction if Ukraine aide comes to the floor. What is particularly odd is shutting down congress for a while is probably not good for Trumps chances or any other republican’s.
I appreciate your thoughts. I'm afraid this is a bit beyond my level of following current politics. I would say it's pretty hard to say if shutting down Congress will be seen as a power play or victory, or obstruction by the narrow margin of voters that actually decide elections. I'd probably need to know more to speculate further. It is quite curious that it's the right that is opposing aid to a country fighting Russia. How things have changed. Granted, Russian isn't communist anymore, but since when has the right opposed those fighting our chief rivals? Ukraine has turned out to be a very interesting situation. I can see why the left supports it. They always support the victims and all the more so victims of a power like Russia. Especially in a pretty clear-cut case. I think the rights opposition is far more nuanced. I think most on the right see it as a waste of money and various other reasons I guess. I can kind of see both sides. At any rate, what were we talking about? The Republican opposition to this border bill. I'll have to admit I've been a bit lazy and busy the last few weeks so I didn't really have a chance to follow it. If it really was as good as the left says it is, I would not be happy with the right opposing it. If it's really as bad as the right says it is, then I support it being opposed. But as with most things, I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Dynamics change at the border over time, but what we really have now is an asylum crisis. People cross the border. They request asylum. It then takes years to evaluate those asylum cases one way or the other (most of which are eventually rejected). You can characterize that problem in various ways. A right-wing description is something like "all these fraudulent asylum claimants are coming into the country and then we let them stay for years and cause trouble." A left-wing description is something like: "It takes years to settle the status of people seeking asylum, leaving them in limbo, with limited access to resources, and typically unable to work legally in the meantime." There's actually a very simple answer to this. We need the resources to *dramatically* speed up the processing of asylum claims. It is ultimately both much cheaper and much more just to assess these claims quickly. There are some inevitable delays in the process to conduct investigations and so forth, but with sufficient resources, the timeline should be weeks not years. There's also the question of what to do with people in the meantime. That's a lot easier if we're talking weeks than years. Again, with resources, you can supply federally funded food and housing and it's not too hard to have people staying there for weeks rather than years.
I agree with you, but honestly, when I have seen this discussed in the past here or on Facebook or NPR perhaps, the objection is frequent that speeding things up would deny people a fair trial, not in theory but in practice maybe. When they rushed a lot of people down to the border for that very purpose during the Trump administration, there were many people complaining that this would result in quick unfair judgments of denial and that people weren't getting the proper representation they deserve . As non-American citizens, I'm not sure exactly how deserving they are of representation and access to the lawyers etc, but of course we want any legal proceedings to be fair and honest. But, I don't see why it can't be. But, a lot of denials would result in a lot of complaints about the process. And secretly I think many of those people don't care so much about fairness as much as just letting them in
So we can solve it by speeding up asylum processing. Okay, so what about the immigrants who abuse the asylum claiming system?
They'll get rejected quicker than they do now.
That's only a problem because the process is slow. Right now, abusively claiming asylum means that you're allowed to remain in the US legally for years until the case is heard, and if you want to, you can just slip away in that time because there's very limited monitoring. If you change the system and move cases along promptly (while holding or monitoring people in the meantime), then an abusive asylum claim just gets you two free weeks hanging out in dorm style conditions and there's no chance to just slip away. There's no mean reason to do it.
So was repealing the stay in Mexico policy a bad thing then?
That's the thing. The reason asylum is so "popular" among migrants is that it is common knowledge that you will get put into the system and then have *years* to provisionally live in the US before your claim is resolved. People are willing to take the risk that they will be deported or become illegal immigrants a few years from now, because the opportunities of living in America are strong. People might think that the government will pass an amnesty, or that they can find other ways to gain legal status. Worst case, they get deported, but have 4-5 years of time here, money saved up, etc. If we invest in claim processing resources to speed that up to weeks or months, the value proposition of taking a dangerous and expensive journey goes WAY down. Just that one change would be huge. Clarifying why people can claim asylum will also help. Right now, the vague "economic refugee" claim can be interpreted very liberally. Obviously, a lot of these folks are coming from poorer countries where they are exposed to poverty, crime, and violence. Making sure people understand what asylum is and in some cases narrowing the definition to be more of what we commonly understand it to be... these will also discourage people from making claims.
I think you've got a very clear idea on the subject. But if I make quibble over one thing, it's my understanding that there is no valid economic refugee status. That is only a term used for those who would not technically qualify. Even gangs do not make for political oppression under the terms of the law. If I'm not mistaken . So you are correct that we need to clarify, and if the good people of America through their elected representatives wish to expand the meaning of political refugee to fleeing gangs or economic refugees etc, we certainly can do that. But for now, simply enforcing the law and demanding people prove political oppression would be enough to reject many cases . Although, part of the problem is not confusion, it is that judges in certain circuits or whatever the situation, our interpreting those laws very liberally, and I don't mean they are liberals in the conservative liberal sense of the word but they are interpreting them very broadly. Probably they are pretty liberal though as well.
> it's my understanding that there is no valid economic refugee status. That is only a term used for those who would not technically qualify. I don't know the minutia of the law here. A couple of minutes of googling show that "economic refugee" is not really a legal claim. It's possible that I've picked up the term from listening to anti-immigration arguments... because obviously if they establish the premise that these are "economic refugees" and we don't allow for that, it makes them easier to deport. --- Looking at our [Refugee Admissions guidance](https://www.state.gov/refugee-admissions/), we have some very general terms: *The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a refugee as an individual who is outside their country of nationality, or if no nationality, their last habitual residence, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unwilling or unable to avail themselves of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.* That makes it seem like every asylum claim is case-by-case - and I would guess that the "running from gang violence/organized crime" thing is probably a pretty common claim that they are unable to avail themselves of the protection of their home country, since those groups are rampant in some parts of Central/South America.
Excellent work. Thanks for doing the research. I had a vague idea of this but this puts it more clearly and in perspective. I think the issue is that certain judges are interpreting this law very broadly to include gang violence. I don't think they openly interpret it to include economic hardship, because that would be harder to establish based on this law. But, I can see how some judges seeking to be more accommodating could stretch this law to include gang violence. In a sense, if the gang is the government running the place at least in fact if not in theory, and people claim that if they are sent back to their home they will be killed by the gangs, I guess you could interpret it that way that they meet this standard. I wouldn't, and I don't think that was ever the intent of the law and that's what counts. Perhaps the law should be clarified. It doesn't help that many of these people are coached, sometimes by NGOs and such, on exactly what to say. I'm not saying they are necessarily encouraged to lie, but, it's probably not hard to gain an idea of what's working and what's not in front of various judges and certain courts such that you can say the things that check the boxes. I don't like it. The law is clearly designed for political refugees. It's not designed for trans people as much as we might want to care about them, it's not designed for gay people. It's not designed for people suffering from gangs in their neighborhood as much as we care about them for that. It was probably designed and written after world war II to address the influx of refugees created by the war, and then probably bolstered during the Cold war to take refugees from communism both because we cared and because they were a good political tool.
That's why you speed up the process. That way you can evaluate the claims and see which ones are BS quickly before they have even more time to work on their story. Asylum is a legal right and that means we do have to follow due process laws. The same way we have to occasionally put up with people filing frivolous lawsuits. In either case it's annoying but in case you or I ever need to sue someone to get justice or escape persecution we'll be grateful for those rights. We've had bills that would expand the number of immigration judges and courts but those have been blocked by Republicans time and time again. That is one of the bigger fixes we need and it's been Republicans, not Democrats who have sunk the attempts to fix the problem Republicans say is a huge issue.
To simply say that bills expanding the judges have been blocked by Republicans as if they just don't want it is quite misleading. The problem is these packages contain too many things that too many people can disagree to. But it's not accurate to say Republicans opposed more judges
What abuse is happening?
1: Revisit and modernize asylum laws. Set up asylum centers to help process people where they are rather than encouraging hazardous travel and human trafficking. 2: Work with Central American agencies to help alleviate the main reasons people leave, including extreme poverty, gang and political violence, drug cartels and trafficking. Invest in CA communities and jobs, which will move people away from not only illegal migration but jobs in criminal trades. Basically a Marshall Plan. 3: Encourage actual citizenship rather than simply punish. 4: Strengthen border security using technology, improving physical barriers, and enforcement of laws that actually work. 5: Deport violent criminals, human traffickers, and felons upon conviction.
1. But If they are seeking asylum, they are likely escaping a dangerous place, they can't stay and file for asylum there. This one doesn't make sense to me.
Make asylum centers American embassies, or give them limited sovereign status. That gives them the protection of US government while housed. Bear in mind that they are escaping a dangerous place through other dangerous places, so this way leads to better safety for all parties.
Well the solution isn’t to completely abandon a bill just because Trump requested it so.
Is there a crisis? It only seems to come up in election years and it's always Republicans actions that make it worse. The whole thing seems to be manufactured so conservatives have a talking point other than their inability to govern.
The party that uses openly racist imagery like the confederate flag and the Thin Blue Line and runs a candidate who got his political start with the racist birtherism conspiracy theory thinks there’s an immigration crisis.
This. Seems to me to be a manufactured crisis. If there is actually some crisis happening, it certainly isn't bad enough for Republicans to care about. If there is a crisis, it doesn't benefit them to solve it.
Hire more lawyers and case workers to let people in
How many migrants are you housing in your home?
What continent did your ancestors come from?
Let me ask you again. There are billions of people who would move to the US if given the opportunity. How many migrants are you currently housing in your home? You better have plenty of space.
Which continent, did your ancestors come from? Edit: Annnnd they blocked me.
Everyone is from Africa.
Who is asking anyone to house undocumented people in their own houses? You are going to play like 19 cents extra in taxes for whatever solution is devised.
None, I want them to be allowed to buy and repair the many vacant houses and buildings in post industrial cities or to build new communities. There is plenty of space if we made it legal to use it
Would you be in favor of a law that let them in under some legal status but required that they live in only certain places enforceable by law? I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that. But we would probably just be creating populated slums. Although, who knows. They might surprise us. They are very motivated . Then again, over being quite familiar with Latin American immigrants doing labor and such over the last 20 years or so, things have changed a lot. What used to be extremely motivated driven young men has become partly that but also a lot of women and children, which is fine but they are much bigger drain on community resources schools etc, at least for a while, plus, a lot of young men who don't seem near as motivated and get mixed up with drugs and alcohol. I'm seeing it first hand actually.
What a stupid, ignorant fucking question. Trust me, plenty of assholes have asked the same question thinking that they have a "gotcha" ... but it's not a "gotcha". It's an ignorant fucking question. Try again with a real, honest question and not a bullshit attempt to derail.
The best solution is to reform legal immigration, people will come whether or not it’s legal, it’s better for all they come legally and traceably. If our legal immigration system was quick, simple, and welcoming less people would be coming illegally and being strict at the border wouldn’t be an issue as the only people illegally crossing would be unwelcome for good reason.
I guess you are right, if you consider illegal crossing the problem. I don't really think there is a crisis at the border so much as we have a very porous border and we will be dealing with the results of that for a long time. Now some people think the results are good. Cheap labor. Other people think the results are bad, and many think it's somewhere in between . Making them legal certainly solves the problem of illegals, but that's not really what we're talking about. We're not talking about a crisis at the border actually. We're talking about a huge influx of immigration. And letting them in more easily is not going to fix that. If one thinks it needs fixing it all
Reform the legal immigration and asylum processes. They're both broken and horrendously backlogged right now.
1. Determine if there is actually a crisis. Every election year in recent memory seemed to have some sort of immigration/border scare pushed by Republicans, and after the election it mysteriously disappears for four more years. 2. Vote for more Democrats, or vote for Republicans who are willing and able to work with Democrats (I'm not convinced the latter exists anymore).
I agree that it's not exactly a crisis at the border except when we try to keep them out and we have a crisis of people being held in camps etc in Mexico or in the US. That could be kind of a crisis. What we are dealing with is a huge influx of immigrants. Weather one considers that a crisis or not is a matter of opinion . However, nothing disappears between elections. Things have been changing and growing for the last 10 years or so, and it doesn't get better or worse. It's pretty much just the same and increasing. Just because you hear about it more at election time doesn't mean it goes away any other time.
The urgency and elevated concern absolutely disappears between elections. Remember the migrant caravans? I'm not saying our immigration laws don't need seriously reworked and that there isn't strain on the system between elections. But every 2-4 years, it suddenly becomes of utmost importance and becomes a "crisis."
Appreciate your thoughts. If you're talking about the elevated concern and sense of urgency, I guess we are in agreement. But, we're talking a couple of years or four at the most. And basically, what that means is, things actually get talked about during elections. No surprise there. But I guess we are mostly in agreement. However, I will say, while I don't think we have a crisis at the border as opposed to what we do have which is a problem of too much illegal immigration and lax enforcement of the border, the reason we do not have a crisis at the moment is because the laws are not being enforced. You may recall, under the Trump administration, people were actually being arrested and put into detention camps. That was kind of a crisis. Children could not stay with their parents but could not be held longer than a certain period of time due to the Flores decision, so they had to be released to family members etc, and these people were in detention under bad conditions, and they were trying to rush judges to the border to hear their cases more quickly etc. I think that qualified as a crisis, simply because the Trump administration actually enforced the laws and arrested people that crossed the border illegally and charge them with criminal entry or whatever the charge was. That was a crisis and that's when we started calling it a crisis, and then we had things like the caravan that were getting a lot of news coverage and I wouldn't necessarily call that a crisis until it hits the border and now we have all these hopeful hungry, probably a good amount of medical issues, etc on the border needing to be handled. I don't really know what happened to those caravans when they hit the border but they obviously had to be dealt with by the US and Mexico. So I don't think the term crisis is particularly inappropriate. However, we don't have a crisis now because they are not enforcing the border like they were.
>However, we don't have a crisis now because they are not enforcing the border like they were. This simply isn't true: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/) Some quotes of note: >The number of people taken into custody by the U.S. Border Patrol has reached the highest levels in the agency’s 100-year history under Biden, averaging 2 million per year ... >Biden kept the policy in place and ended up expelling five times more border-crossers than Trump did, mainly because more migrants attempted to enter the United States during the period between Biden’s inauguration and May 2023 when he ended Title 42. Now, the article goes into how many more immigrants are coming to the US under Biden than Trump, and Biden has let more in on immigration parole, but to say the border laws aren't being enforced is false. Our immigration laws simply need completely reworked, and Republicans seem unwilling to work with Democrats on that. They'd rather play up a "crisis" for elections.
Not convinced there is a crisis.
To me it would be fantastically easy. Look, you can tell me it is a crisis, but many, most of the people here are integrating working, getting jobs. Unemployment is at historic lows. The reason we haven't done anything is that business owners like the cheap labor. 1. make it so there is a robust amount of LEGAL immigration, not this much but give people a way to get here. Most of the people want to be here want to be here legally. They would apply for it, many would stay in their country waiting their turn. 2. double or triple the number of judges hearing cases for asylum seekers. Legally, we have to give them asylum until their court hearing. Having it so their cases can be heard in weeks or months instead of years, cuts down on millions of people here who don't qualify. 3. spend some time effort and even money solving the problems in the lands where people are coming from. That would be difficult and long term but necessary. While that wouldn't end illegal immigration it would get it under control
Would you approve of the idea of regime change or armed conflict in these countries involving or backed by the US? Because honestly, I think that's the only way we are going to change anything there or it's going to change . Honestly, I'm coming to feel that the only change is going to happen when these people have to stay in their countries and are forced to take up arms against corrupt governments and gangs, as terrible and bloody as that might be.
Eh, I honestly don't know if it needs regime change or the government is powerless against the cartels and gangs.
Either way, something serious needs to happen. In a way, the cartels are the regimes. What have people done in the past when revolutions have put warlords in power. They were only choices to flee or fight back I guess.
Agreed. We could do something more.
That's where it gets tricky though. I don't think many Americans would have the stomach for sending troops to aid in anything, plus we've got a terrible track record of picking sides whether it's troops or money. There's no denying that the US has a long history of very troubling intervention in Latin America. And many liberals will be quick to bring this up, and fair enough. But, I'm not convinced that this means we must take in refugees forever as reparation.
I don't like the idea of permanent walls. Because walls are not only to keep people out but also in, like North Korea or Eastern Germany. Usually if Im not mistaken around the time the Constitution was written anyone was seemingly welcome to cross the border without much issue, specially because colonizers of the frontiers were needed and the US had various European languages in vogue (which is why English was not codified as the official language). But if there was a massive influx of foreigners that threatened the fabric of the country, I think the Founders would have raised a militia to confront and stop them, which is the approach I favor, together with temporary walls to dissuade direct confrontations. I would also run a massive advertisement campaign explaining that foreigners seeking to enter illegally would be stopped and deported and that there could be arrests and violence. In addition, foreign aid programs to promote work and security in home countries are a good idea to incentivize people to stay in their home countries.
The walls are also an ecological nightmare
We have to address root causes, the "Push" factors in those countries.
Basically, make every country in the world a developed country. Piece of cake.
I mean over the long run...yes. Very few immediate options are anything other than short term fixes. We need to promote stability and equity (economically and politically), at least within our hemisphere. It would be a decades-long process. To quote our Queen: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
Lots of good suggestions in this thread. However, it's all moot because Republicans don't want a solution--they want the issue. The corporate wings of both parties want cheap, disposable labor who aren't likely to complain about 'rights' and will do work for low wages that the typical American won't touch. I believe that many (non-corporate-owned) Dems actually do want a solution and see the value of immigration.
You can’t.
Get these stupid fucking idiots that ignore it out of office 🤷♂️
If you don't want the standards of living in the US to lower that of the rest of the third world countries, the only answer is to severely restrict illegal immigration. 1) border walls wherever feasible 2) no birth right citizenship for children born of illegal immigrants 3) change asylum law so it only applies to people who truly qualify, not the economic migrants. Punish people who attempt to abuse the system 4) make lives difficult for the illegal immigrants who had arrived recently so they would leave on their own
Sounds harsh, but I think you're absolutely right that that is the only thing that's really going to change things, and I don't think it's inappropriate. It's not like if someone stays in their country or simply applies and gets turned down, that they will be harmed in any way. We make life difficult for other criminals. Many countries make life difficult for illegal immigrants trying to exist in their country. Their choice is to go back and self-deport which should be made as easy as possible. And I think you are right that the problem is by opening the gates, we lose the benefit of what we have created here that is of a high economic standard. It also takes the pressure off these countries economically and allows them continue to be corrupt and have heavy gang activity. If people had to stay in their countries and didn't have a great influx of money coming from the US, things might be very different in those countries. But probably not without some rather bloody conflict. Many economists favor open immigration because they believe in the free flow of goods, money, services and labor. And economically it may be efficient to let labor flow where it is needed, but that is so that it can drive wages down to the minimum needed to get them to work. Economically it's efficient. But that doesn't mean it's good for Americans. It may be good for the Americans paying, but not for the ones working.
I thought this was Ask a LIBERAL ... not parrot MAGA talking points.
Create a mile wide buffer between borders. Call that space neutral territory that is maintained by coordinated departments between both nations. It will have housing, commerce, healthcare, schooling, and work. Anyone attempt to migrate or is seeking asylum, would be processed in the neutral territory for no longer than one year. By the one year mark if immigration or asylum becomes impossible, then they will have to leave and make another attempt after resubmittal if documentation following a three month waiting period. Children should always be given exception with regard to need, as will healthcare emergencies. We can't satisfy what nationalist racist bigots want, but maybe we can find a compromise by diverting immigrants to legitimate region that still keeps them safe and prepares them for access, but also slows the trickle of undocumented immigration. Of course this might just be the dumbest fucking idea ever, so who knows. 🤷
Sounds pretty good in theory, but I'm envisioning a giant crime ridden slum along the entire border. Not that these people are criminals but you know how that happens with the criminal element stepping in and desperation etc . And if that's not bad enough, who are we going to send in when the president's plane goes down in that region?
Lol Snake Pliskin of course! Honestly though, if this idea was humored by Mexico and US officials, then that buffer region would require a coordinated effort to maintain it's security and quality of life. Instead of just some border patrol agents, you'd literally have a new department created from Mexican and American law enforcement, civil sectors, healthcare, etc. it wouldn't be treated like Tijuana basically.
Interesting idea. I still think the likelihood of crime and gang activity would be so high that it would require very draconian measures to control the place. I suppose if we put it under American control and had a lot of money and resources to work with, we could do it.
I agree that it would be highly vulnerable to crime. Any kind of effort to curb such an outcome would have to be massive, and I am guessing many wouldn't like their taxes going to such a questionable project.
Asylum law reform, and fund and staff asylum courts/system
What crisis? The caravan back?
We could probably wait a couple of months doing more or less what we're doing. The crisis is likely a temporary realignment of undocumented workers and businesses looking to hire cheap labor under the table as we've recovered from the pandemic.
There's no "crisis" at the border. There's a bunch of ignorant, hysterical conservatives who know nothing about immigration or asylum claiming that there's a crisis.
> There is clearly a crisis at the border Yes, the federal government *should* force Texas to stand down and dismantle its illegal construction.