Yes, breaking asylum and due process laws will be a deterrent. The question was always how to deter immigration legally, which prior POTUSes thought they had to care about.
Re the funding increase:
People to put handcuffs on wasn’t the bottleneck, so no it doesn’t. Immigration courts are the bottleneck, and actually jamming more low-level or non-offenders into the system exacerbates that problem.
Which is not related to the closure of borders to asylum seekers nor the withholding of due process rights for people who are suspected of breaking immigration laws — neither of which is at the Executive’s discretion.
I'm pretty sure the executive has power over border policy, the INA is very broad and gives a lot of power to the executive, also it would be crazy if the executive can't decide on border policy, congress is too slow/deadlocked to do anything meaningful.
It’s not “iffy.” POTUS has absolutely no ability to curtail due process rights. It is a blatant violation of a right that undergirds every single other right in the Constitution. Without due process right, there are no property rights, no gun rights, no speech rights, no religious rights — all of them can be taken away by the state simply declaring that you have been found guilty of such an offense that those rights are stripped from you.
The solution to Congressional deadlock is called “electing new representatives.” The executive in fact does not have the ability to “shut off” asylum processing, no matter how dysfunctional Congress is. And even under the INA. Read INA § 1158(a)(1).
We could have a clause in the Constitution that says something like, “if Congress is deadlocked, POTUS can do whatever they want.” Alas we do not have such a clause, and so he cannot, even if you feel there is deadlock.
Illegal immigration can best be thought of as a slow-moving constitutional crisis. An increasingly large portion of the electorate wants decisive solutions to illegal immigration and will vote for the person who gives them that, regardless of the constitutionality.
> do you expect people across the border wait a decade to get their turn for an immigration interview only to be turned down, when they can just cross the border?
Well yes, that's what following the law means. They can't complain about it, it's not their country, and they don't have a say on the rules.
In a similar vein by your logic, if you are in a hurry, why should you obey traffic laws when you can just run a red light or a stop sign right?
This is the problem with leaky analogies. The US immigration system is more like a train tunnel in a Wile-E Coyote cartoon that Roadrunner can run through but Wile-E slams into.
Hierarchy of needs. People want to follow the law, they need food,shelter, medicine,etc.. You can punish law breakers, but if you don't provide a way to lawfully do the thing, you're only breeding law breakers and nothing more.
A missing perspective here might be that even long term imprisonment isn't a deterrent for many migrants. The disparity in living conditions is just that steep.
There is a lawfully way to do the thing. The problem is that the lawfully way wants a very small set of people with specific skills. Canada does the same, most of their immigration are university graduates. The only reason Canada hasn't had an influx of immigration like the USA is because their southern border is the USA, not Mexico.
Most of the immigration to the USA is driven for economic reasons, not political asylum or persecution. There is no right to immigrate in the USA just because you want to, you have to convince the government somehow to let you in.
> even long term imprisonment isn't a deterrent for many migrants
But quick deportation is. Imagine doing the whole trek from south/central america to the USA just to be sent back the next day. That's what deterring a lot of people now, wasting months of travel and money just to have it be worthless seems to be very dissuasive.
A lot of the latest immigration woes would be solved if the Venezuelan government was taken down and some real democratic government stepped in.
> There is no right to immigrate in the USA just because you want to, you have to convince the government somehow to let you in.
Agreed. But it is only human to want to improve your living conditions. Illegal immigrants are not claiming their migration was lawful, no one is, so the argument about their right to migrate is meaningless. The law requires them to convince the government to let them in, but a law you cannot enforce is also meaningless. if your family was in poverty, would you care what the american government thought about you trying to cross the border and work to earn a living? I mean, I wouldn't blame them if they stole, I think you're not appreciating the adversity of poverty.
Let's say working after illegally migrating is equivalent to theft. It is hypocritical, and therefore invalid, to expect a person in poverty to obey the law of a land they're not even in simply out of the goodness of their hearts. Deporting them makes sense, punishing them does not, since every single american would do the same or worse if the situation was reversed. you cannot punish people for doing the same thing you yourself would do.
You solve the root causes, punish employers for hiring them, subsidize mexico's economic development,etc... but what's happening now is sociopaths being let loose on the american people.
> But quick deportation is. Imagine doing the whole trek from south/central america to the USA just to be sent back the next day. That's what deterring a lot of people now, wasting months of travel and money just to have it be worthless seems to be very dissuasive.
I think less people will migrate in the near term, until work arounds to avoid ICE are developed. People will still attempt this. Have you read about migration to euorope? a lot of them literally die on the trip, a good chunk just get scammed before they even reach the mediterranean. people will still risk all of this. for them, their former situation is equivalent to death. For some, it is worse, because it isn't them that is suffering, it is their parents,kids,etc.. so the risks are all worth it, even it costs them their lives.
> A lot of the latest immigration woes would be solved if the Venezuelan government was taken down and some real democratic government stepped in.
No, it would be solved if employers were targeted instead. a lot of modern woes would be solved by putting business owners in prison. It just isn't politically palatable. off the books employees don't pay income tax, you can nail the employers for tax fraud conspiracy among other charges. They're screwing over not just the government, but americans looking for work. they're artificially deflating wages by abusing illegal migrants. The worst they get is a fine. But concentration camps for the migrants is tolerable?
Justice should be blind and punish all criminals equally, stop romanticizing poverty and crime. If you commit a crime, go to jail, and if you are a non citizen, get deported. Victims of society mentality only creates more victims, as the victims of the crime are ignored.
> Have you read about migration to euorope
Yes, and people die trying to get to the USA anyway, that doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t enforce borders. African immigration is a worse situation as there are several civil wars ongoing, and its poorer than South America. European countries should also enforce borders.
For your last point, I mentioned latest surge, which is mostly from Venezuela, but I agree, they should enforce i9 registration for all employment and deal out harsh punishment.
Is self-determination a human right? We certainly decided a lot of nations to the south of us didn't deserve that right. Look up the history of the banana republics some time.
Up until it conflicts with my country’s rights, yes. Not sure what you’re suggesting. Is mass migration to the United States the policy of, say, Mexico?
I'm suggesting that we spent a lot of effort overturning elected governments in South America because we didn't like who they voted for and what their policies were with regard to US fruit companies. US policy directly created instability, civil war, and a generally terrible situation that they are dealing with now. Do you know what a banana republic is?
> will only result in more illegal migration in the long term
Why? Wouldn't it disincentivize illegal immigration by making it much more riskier?
Agreed that the legal immigration system needs an overhaul, these are a lot of people living in limbo, paying taxes and not causing crimes with very few rights.
The term no taxation without representation was the reason the USA got founded.
It's a temporary partisan solution, the other party will do the opposite, reducing enforcement and letting even more illegal migrants in, lest they be accused of being a xenophobe.
Not sure of that to be honest, I think that would be a loud minority.
Once democratic cities got a taste of the flood of people coming in that were sent by southern states, they realized how big the issue is and how much of a drag on resources it is.
That's not how it is in reality, southern states (not just them though) have been doing that with homeless people too, not just immigrants.
Republicans did jim crow in the 50s and 60s, we still talk about it today, and the positive blowback from that needs no explanation. Keep in mind that ICE is doing a lot more than cops did to protesters in the 60s, and it is targeting not just one group but several minority groups. not only that, it is all being live streamed, and it is affecting a lot of majority-group americans more directly. If ICE can avoid being disbanded it would be a great victory for them.
If I were exaggerating, I would be talking about tribunals and mass incarcerations of ICE agents, but I'm not.
No, it was Republicans (today) who used to be democrats in that era. parties are made up of people, it was the same people or their ideological inheritors. Many republicans today in congress (especially leadership) were of voting age in that era. a 20 year old in 1969 would be 75 today, younger than the current and former president.
Yes, they were. They are republicans now. You arguing in bad faith here, because you very well know the democrats back then are the republicans now. The party of democrats back then is not the party of the democrats now. the democratic party represented the same people republicans represent today. You're trying to make an falsely link the democratic party today with the party in the 60's, you know that link is incorrect, but since it helps you make a point, you're making it anyways. I call this: intellectual fraud.
Ideologically, they were republicans. In name only, they were Democrats.
This is not some 'haha gotcha!' type thing. Real argument with real human brains don't work that way. You can be technically right but if it's on some semantic bullshit nobody cares about, then you're wrong.
Then their information campaign is working. They need bodies for the grinder, not free thinkers with agency and autonomy. Much like the obvious spam scam messages with glaring typos, Amazon signals to the market that driven corporate cogs that will shiv someone to get ahead need only apply.
> Senate Bill 5480, sponsored by Sen. Marcus Riccelli (D-Spokane), will protect Washington consumers by prohibiting collection agencies from reporting medical debt to credit agencies.
ICE and Trump seem to be enough deterrent now, considering how the land encounters have reduced.
> The logistics are such that once arrivals exceed the deportation machine’s capacity, people will find out and even more will come.
This explains the huge ice funding increase.
reply