Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

237 Views
Message 131 of 162

@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Appaerently you do not like this idea - what should be done with them???


Well........I am GLAD you asked.  

 

First, I would start hiring more judges to hear their cases so they could be expedited. 

 

I would set up a group to contact relatives and friends in the interior to provide the services charities are being forced by the famous Trump incompetence to provide instead. 

 

Seems......oh........I don't know.......like obvious solutions? 


The Judge part makes sense. However, how many can you get on board and how fast. And then can the caravans not increase their numbers?

 

Oh......I don't know.......simple minded but not realistic. 

 

If they have families here, why do they not set that up themselves in advance??

 

Oh......I don't know......touchy-feely but impractical

 

Alternate perspective - we have borders - oh .....I don't know.......should they not be defended?


n 2000, we had more immigrants arriving on our southern border than we do today but that was under a relatively competent president.  In 2016, we had vastly fewer immigrants showing up than we do today but we did not have 3 years of Tweets threatening to close the border and earlier presidents had worked with our neighbors to keep conditions from deteriorating.

 

Now, we have a president who is considered so repugnant as an employer that he could not find enough executive talent to staff a large McDonalds.  it is amazing that he will Tweet for months about caravans en route and yet is totally unprepared when they arrive at our border. I have to tell you that the hours long waits at the border crossings are starting to impact the economies of the southern borderlands. I can't imagine what they are doing to the northern factories.  

 

Oh well, incompetence is president.  It is why he is defending the border by putting children in cages. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

226 Views
Message 132 of 162

@Richva wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

Don’t forget all the guards required to ensure that none of the asylum seekers leave these sanctuary cities.


Help me understand this process. We, along the border, are currently arranging for refugees to travel to their friends and relatives in the interior.  

And isn't that stupid? They are not in the country legally and we turn them loose to go wherever they want.

This is because of Trump's incompetence.  

He didn't establish the stupid rules that cause this fiasco.

Why would you need guards to keep them in the "Sanctuary Cities"?  

 

Question, you do realize that a Sanctuary City is just some city which refuses to help Trump be incompetent, right? 

How does refusing to cooperate with law enforcement agencies make someone else incompetent?


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

214 Views
Message 133 of 162

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Appaerently you do not like this idea - what should be done with them???


Well........I am GLAD you asked.  

 

First, I would start hiring more judges to hear their cases so they could be expedited. 

 

I would set up a group to contact relatives and friends in the interior to provide the services charities are being forced by the famous Trump incompetence to provide instead. 

 

Seems......oh........I don't know.......like obvious solutions? 


The Judge part makes sense. However, how many can you get on board and how fast. And then can the caravans not increase their numbers?

 

Oh......I don't know.......simple minded but not realistic. 

 

If they have families here, why do they not set that up themselves in advance??

 

Oh......I don't know......touchy-feely but impractical

 

Alternate perspective - we have borders - oh .....I don't know.......should they not be defended?

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

224 Views
Message 134 of 162

@Snoopy48 wrote:

Don’t forget all the guards required to ensure that none of the asylum seekers leave these sanctuary cities.


Help me understand this process. We, along the border, are currently arranging for refugees to travel to their friends and relatives in the interior.  This is because of Trump's incompetence.  Why would you need guards to keep them in the "Sanctuary Cities"?  

 

Question, you do realize that a Sanctuary City is just some city which refuses to help Trump be incompetent, right? 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

217 Views
Message 135 of 162

@rk9152 wrote:

Appaerently you do not like this idea - what should be done with them???


Well........I am GLAD you asked.  

 

First, I would start hiring more judges to hear their cases so they could be expedited. 

 

I would set up a group to contact relatives and friends in the interior to provide the services charities are being forced by the famous Trump incompetence to provide instead. 

 

Seems......oh........I don't know.......like obvious solutions? 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

218 Views
Message 136 of 162

@Roxanna35 wrote:

Reminder:

 

The more than TRump's policies cost this country, the less money that he will have to do more harm in other areas. Rejoice.

Yes, let's send all all of those illegal immigrants, Agricultural industries, construction companies, and many other industries will applaud this policy.

We need more people to do a lot of work in California and in other states. so welcome this policy, and  simply let them go at the border of each State.

and then the fun will begin.

Wow, what an amazing solution.!!!!!

 

 


 


Appaerently you do not like this idea - what should be done with them???

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

215 Views
Message 137 of 162

@Snoopy48 wrote:

Don’t forget all the guards required to ensure that none of the asylum seekers leave these sanctuary cities.


I am not too sure that what you are saying is correct unless they are incarcerated in those cities. also.

Otherwise, if they are  free to roam the city, how can they be made to stay?

no name
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

222 Views
Message 138 of 162

@MaVolta wrote:

Isn't it interesting that the people who complain the most about sanctuary cities are people who do not live in them, or probably anywhere near one. There is a reason that our local law enforcement chooses to operate this way. If anyone is truly interested in finding the bad guys, let the locals do their jobs. 

 

The mayor of Austin made it clear early on that any of the asylum seekers who wish to come here are more than welcome. There are some shelters and NGOs in the area that are helping with both unaccompanied minors and families trying to relocate and find work.

 

The asylum process is complicated. They first have to pass the initial interview with border agents to see if they have a legitimate request. If they pass, they are allowed to wait for a hearing. If they do not, they are held in detention until deportation orders are arranged. They can be deported to the country of origin. The same is true if the court finds that they do not have a legitimate request.

 

Trump has ordered border agents to deny more on first interview, which means that some are being denied who have legitimate claims, as well as those who do not. This article in NPR explains how it works, and follows the case of a woman who is in fear because she was denied access to the courts and now faces deportation.

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630877498/denied-asylum-but-terrified-to-return-home


You are Quoting a Summer 2018 Article - there have been multiple Court Cases since

 

This is the basis of the Laws but there are New Precedents

 

What Happens to Asylum Seekers Arriving at a U.S. Border?

Noncitizens who are encountered by, or present themselves to, a U.S. official at a port of entry or near the border are subject to expedited removal, an accelerated process which authorizes DHS to perform rapid deportations of certain individuals.

To ensure that the United States does not violate international and domestic laws by returning individuals to countries where their life or liberty may be at risk, the credible fear and reasonable fear screening processes are available to asylum seekers in expedited removal processes.

Credible Fear

Individuals who are placed in expedited removal proceedings and who tell a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official that they fear persecution, torture, or returning to their country or that they wish to apply for asylum should be referred for a credible fear screening interview conducted by an asylum officer.

If the asylum officer determines that the asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution or torture, it means that the person has proven that he or she has a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum or other protection under the Convention Against Torture. The individual will then be referred to immigration court to proceed with the defensive asylum application process.

If the asylum officer determines the person does not have a credible fear, the individual is ordered removed. Before deportation, the individual may appeal the negative credible fear decision by pursuing a truncated review process before an immigration judge. If the immigration judge overturns a negative credible fear finding, the individual is placed in further removal proceedings through which the individual can seek protection from removal. If the immigration judge upholds the negative finding by the asylum officer, the individual will be removed from the United States.

  • In Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, USCIS found 60,566 individuals to have credible fear. These individuals, many of whom were detained during this screening process, will be afforded an opportunity to apply for asylum defensively and establish that they meet the refugee definition.
  • The number of credible fear cases has skyrocketed since the procedure was implemented—in FY 2009, USCIS completed 5,523 cases. Case completions reached an all-time high in FY 2016 at 92,071 and decreased to 79,977 in FY 2017.

Reasonable Fear

Individuals who re-enter the United States unlawfully after a prior deportation order and noncitizens convicted of certain crimes are subject to a different expedited removal process called reinstatement of removal.  To protect asylum seekers from summary removal before their asylum claim is heard, those in reinstatement of removal proceedings who express a fear of returning to their country are afforded a “reasonable fear” interview with an asylum officer.

To demonstrate a reasonable fear, the individual must show that there is a “reasonable possibility” that he or she will be tortured in the country of removal or persecuted on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. While both credible and reasonable fear determinations evaluate the likelihood of an individual’s persecution or torture if deported, the reasonable fear standard is higher.

If the asylum officer finds that the person has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, he or she will be referred to immigration court. The person has the opportunity to prove to an immigration judge that he or she is eligible for "withholding of removal" or "deferral of removal"—protection from future persecution or torture. While withholding of removal is similar to asylum, some of the requirements are more difficult to meet and the relief it provides is narrower. Significantly, and unlike asylum, it does not provide a pathway to lawful permanent residence.

If the asylum officer determines the person does not have a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture, the individual may appeal the negative decision to an immigration judge. If the judge upholds the asylum officer’s negative determination, the individual is turned over to immigration enforcement officers for removal. However, if the immigration judge overturns the asylum officer's negative finding, the individual is placed in removal proceedings through which the individual can pursue protection from removal.

 

Source - https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/about/our-mission

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

208 Views
Message 139 of 162

Don’t forget all the guards required to ensure that none of the asylum seekers leave these sanctuary cities.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Sending immigrants to sanctuary cities: costlly & illegal

208 Views
Message 140 of 162

Reminder:

 

The more than TRump's policies cost this country, the less money that he will have to do more harm in other areas. Rejoice.

Yes, let's send all all of those illegal immigrants, Agricultural industries, construction companies, and many other industries will applaud this policy.

We need more people to do a lot of work in California and in other states. so welcome this policy, and  simply let them go at the border of each State.

and then the fun will begin.

Wow, what an amazing solution.!!!!!

 

 


 

no name
Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Thursday, July 9 – Coronavirus Event

1 p.m. ET - Answering Your Frequently Asked Questions

Call: 1-855-274-9507

Top Authors