Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Bobchillingworth]

This is a false choice, because it wasn't a problem before Trump changed the rules. Lone minors, families and adults were treated differently.

From my understanding, before Trump changed the rules children were Get Out of Jail card which is for obvious reason unacceptable. Am I correct that you see no problem with this?

Again, this is false dichotomy you are proposing where the only options are "jail asylum seekers" and "allow them to stay in the country forever". I'm not sure how things work in Russia, but applying for asylum is not illegal in the United States, and crossing the border illegally is only a federal misdemeanor. People are only being jailed because it is this administration's entirely optional policy to enforce "zero tolerance" for a minor offense where they have broad prosecutorial discretion.

Under the Obama administration, asylum seekers who illegally crossed the border were released into the interior of the United States to await a hearing (the so-called "catch and release" policy); consistently, large majorities of them attended their hearings. The U.S. could increase the number of asylum seekers who comply with their court dates by issuing ankle monitors or simply hiring more immigration judges, but the Trump administration refuses to provide funding for the former and has openly mocked the very concept of the latter. There is also no body of evidence to suggest that asylum seekers pose any sort of significant security risk to the U.S. compared to the general population.

Ultimately, this is yet another artificial and self-inflicted crisis designed to rile up Trump's conservative base.

[Gavagai]

Parents being incarcerated together with their children is policy throughout the world so I don't know where you got the idea that it's somehow illegal Gavagai?

Google Flores agreement. And do you really believe that anyone who claimed to be an asylum seeker should be treated differently just because of that?

[Gavagai]

Under the Obama administration, asylum seekers who illegally crossed the border were released into the interior of the United States to await a hearing (the so-called "catch and release" policy); 

Am I correct that this is the third option you propose? Allow anyone who claims to be an "asylum seeker" a free entrance in the country on the condition of a promise to show up in court later? I have listed this option in my initial post, it is called "throw the border open".

[Bobchillingworth]

I get the distinct impression you are more interested in repeating the same argument than engaging in a discussion.


As I already wrote, it isn't a crime in the U.S. to apply for asylum. People who formally present themselves before a border agent to make a claim can be tracked by the government afterwards to ensure they keep to their court dates; the systems and technology are widely used for other cases. The current backlog of asylum claims can be resolved by employing more judges; this will also reduce the amount of time an asylum seeker spends in the interior of the U.S. between initial entry and adjudication.


To claim that this is equivalent to "throwing the border open" is facile.

[Gavagai]

I get the distinct impression you are more interested in repeating the same argument than engaging in a discussion.  

You are right, I am not interested in a discussion. I am interested in learning the answer to my initial question. I asked you for clarification because it was hard for me to believe that someone would advocate something that stupid with a straight face. But you have dispelled my doubts, thank you for that.

[Gavagai]

If all I need to do to cross the border is to come up to an officer and say that I seek asylum - it quite literally means that the border is open.

[ipecac]

Again, this is false dichotomy you are proposing where the only options are "jail asylum seekers" and "allow them to stay in the country forever".  I'm not sure how things work in Russia, but applying for asylum is not illegal in the United States, and crossing the border illegally is only a federal misdemeanor.  People are only being jailed because it is this administration's entirely optional policy to enforce "zero tolerance" for a minor offense where they have broad prosecutorial discretion.  

I understand that it was general practice to detain people who cross the border illegally during Clinton, Bush and Obama's administrations as well, with a main reason why this was not always applied being the lack of sufficient space in detention centers, as well as the issue of detaining children.

[Mr. Cairo]

If all I need to do to cross the border is to come up to an officer and say that I seek asylum - it quite literally means that the border is open.

This is what is happening in Canada for the last few years, and it works, since Canada is in fact rejecting a majority of those applying for asylum, and then they deport them. In the meantime, after being processed in a centre, they are released into the country, with a permit to work. They get jobs and eventually are either given asylum or not.

The issue that is happening in the States arises from the fact that it's a crime to cross the border irregularly, so they get arrested and sent to jail. Not a purpose-built detention centre for asylum seekers. And a court ruling said you can't put their children in jail with them. So the federal government has to decide to either catch-and-release, as under Bush and Obama, or to separate the children from their parents while the parents await a court hearing.

This is the difference between the USA and other countries. Irregular border crossers are arrested and prosecuted, not detained, and they therefore go to jail, not a detention centre.

edit: I crossed out some bits I wasn't sure about. Most of what I've read doesn't actually talk about what happens to the parents, so they may go to purpose built detention centres. But what is true is it is the practice of arresting the parents that results in separating them from their children, since the kids aren't being prosecuted themselves.

[Gavagai]

If all I need to do to cross the border is to come up to an officer and say that I seek asylum - it quite literally means that the border is open.

This is what is happening in Canada for the last few years, and it works, since Canada is in fact rejecting a majority of those applying for asylum, and then they deport them. In the meantime, after being processed in a centre, they are released into the country, with a permit to work. They get jobs and eventually are either given asylum or not.

Canada does not have a land border with a third world country.

[Banzailizard]

If all I need to do to cross the border is to come up to an officer and say that I seek asylum - it quite literally means that the border is open.

This is what is happening in Canada for the last few years, and it works, since Canada is in fact rejecting a majority of those applying for asylum, and then they deport them. In the meantime, after being processed in a centre, they are released into the country, with a permit to work. They get jobs and eventually are either given asylum or not.

Canada does not have a land border with a third world country.

I mean technically neither does the US.  Mexico is ranked 77 on the Human Development Index list out of 188 countries. It has a GDP of 1 TR USD, comparable to Russia, and actually only half a trillion below Canada. Granted Mexico has persistent problems but its hardly third world. This is besides the point of course.  Most of the the asylum seekers, since apparently that is what is being talked about here, are from Central American countries which are arguably third world. 

Simply arriving at the boarder and claiming asylum is not sufficient grounds to be granted an immigration hearing.  The individual needs to have an interview with an agent of the department of homeland security indicating a Credible Fear of torture or death "on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” I am not aware of how these interviews proceed but those are the basic criteria.

More to the point, deferral on removal granted while awaiting an immigration hearing is not in a legal or practical sense the same as securing legal permanent residency. An asylum applicant cannot receive federal benefits while they wait.  They also cannot receive Employment Authorization Documents to legally work in the US until 180 days after submitting their asylum request, and then only if there has been no decision in their case.  This practical lack of distinction would be remedied by simply increasing the number of judges and hence the speed of hearings after an asylum claim has been made. Asylum seekers cannot apply for citizenship as well. The biggest difference of course remains that they may, whenever their case is heard, be deported immediately. If they do not show up to court they are automatically denied their asylum request. Granting individuals the mere right to be within the boarders of the US as a non-citizens is therefore fundamentally not the same as an open boarder policy.

Your question has been answered multiple times in general here.  The preferred alternative is to increase funding and personal for the immigration court system.  This is even political feasible. Most of the current asylum seekers are fleeing violence at home, and claim asylum on the basis of "membership in a particular social group" which not all judges agree includes fear of gang or domestic violence. The Trump Administration and a Republican Congress could appoint judges who take a harder stance on this question.


Separately building the wall would be an ecological disaster. The Rio Grande is the center of a major drainage basin, we may treat it as a boarder but really its where a significant number of rivers flow to.  The wall would disrupt local wildlife, and cause flooding on the US side. This is besides the general expense and impracticality of building it.

As a general rule though I am a free trader so I support the free movement of goods, capital, and labor across international boarders.