Immigration is completely out of control (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SystemShock

    Uh yu ka t'ann
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    3,098
    Reaction score
    3,135
    Location
    Xibalba
    Offline
    A couple of days ago, one of the main US-MX border points of entry was blocked by 1000's of migrants demanding entry into the country, which caused chaos for those who lawfully cross the border on business, for work, or for delivery of goods, both ways.

    Lawful border crossings are getting progressively worse across the border, and drug cartels are finding it easier to move product, as the CBP has to transfer personnel and efforts to the processing of migrants.

    It's not different on MX's South border. Yesterday, ~5000 migrants stormed into Chiapas all the way to the INM building (INM is immigration) running over fences, barricades, and elements of the National Guard. They are now taking over an ecological park in Tapachula, Chiapas, which it's going to be severely affected, as it's been the case with just about everywhere migrants squat.

    Unfortunately, Juan Trump (that's Donald Trump's pet name for the President of México) was bamboozled by his "friend" Donald into making MX a "lobby" for migrants trying to reach the U.S.

    Many people would argue that migrants are "good for the economy", but that is not always the case. Billions of dollars leave the U.S. economy every year, because migrants send money from the U.S. to other countries to support families there. The biggest destinations are India and MX, to the tune of 100 billion dollars in 2023 alone, according to the Bank of México (kind of like the MX version of the Fed). These billions of dollars do not circulate in the U.S. economy.

    Speaking of inflation, the past year, the U.S. dollar has lost ~20% of its value against the MX peso. One of the main reasons for it, is the amount of money being sent to MX from the U.S. And MX is the U.S. 2nd largest trading partner.

    Gregg Abbott is a lot of things, but I don't blame him for his attempts at curbing the hordes of people demanding entry into the U.S., even the busing of migrants to other States, making some put their money where their mouth is, like the Mayor of NYC, who was so welcoming of migrants, until he he got a taste, then went crying to the federal government for more money, while the shelters were at full capacity; shelters which BTW serve the NYC poor as well.

    And please, no one mention a wall. There is a wall. A wall can be climbed; a wall can be dug under.; holes can be punched through walls.
     
    Well, then there is no problem. Asylum seekers are NOT illegal immigrants. Seeking asylum is legal and protected by law. The people you quote are all conflating the two things. And they do it on purpose to get you all riled up.

    It is true that the asylum system needs to be reformed, but that is up to Congress not the Administration.
    No problem huh?

    1000004032.jpg



    Most of the people who claim asylum don't have legitimate asylum claims.
     
    No problem huh?

    1000004032.jpg



    Most of the people who claim asylum don't have legitimate asylum claims.
    But the system is set up that way - BY CONGRESS - that everyone deserves a hearing. So yes, as I said, the asylum system needs to be fixed but that has to come from CONGRESS.

    It would be good to reflect on why everyone you are quoting is lying about asylum seekers as illegal immigrants. They are not the same thing. They know that. They are counting on you not knowing that.
     
    Once again, this is a congressional matter. You should be focused on Congress not Biden.
     
    I didn't say specifically what he said. I pointed to the video in which he did say" we would immediately surge to the border all the people who are seeking asylum."
    You made the claim "The Biden immigration policy is open borders. This is what he called for as a candidate"
    The video isn't evidence of your claim.
     
    We seem to be living in times of unprecedented mass migration. Images of people from Africa crammed into unseaworthy boats desperately trying to cross the Mediterranean, asylum seekers crossing the Channel into Britain, and “caravans” of migrants trying to reach the Mexico-US border all seem to confirm fears that global migration is spinning out of control.

    A toxic combination of poverty, inequality, violence, oppression, climate breakdown and population growth appear to be pushing growing numbers of people from Africa, Asia and Latin America to embark upon desperate journeys to reach the shores of the wealthy west.

    All of this results in the popular idea of a “migration crisis” that will require drastic countermeasures to prevent massive waves of people arriving in the future, apparently exceeding the absorption capacity of western societies and economies.

    Despite this, however, there is no scientific evidence to sustain the claim that global migration is accelerating. International migrants account for about 3% of the world population, and this percentage has remained remarkably stable over the past half a century.

    Likewise, refugee migration is much more limited than political rhetoric and media images suggest. About 10% of all international migrants are refugees, representing 0.3% of the world population. While refugee flows fluctuate strongly with levels of conflict, there is no evidence of a long-term increasing trend.

    About 80-85% of refugees remain in regions of origin, and that share has also remained rather stable over the past decades. And there is no evidence that illegal migration is spinning out of control – in fact, the large majority of migrants who move from the global south to the global north continue to move legally. For instance, nine out of 10 Africans move to Europe legally, with passports and papers in hand.

    The evidence also turns common understandings of the causes of migration on its head. The conventional view is that south-to-north migration is in essence the outgrowth of poverty, inequality and violence in origin countries – hence the popular idea that poverty reduction and development are the only long-term solutions to migration.

    However, this assumption is undermined by evidence showing that migration rises as poor countries become richer. This is because increasing levels of income and education, alongside infrastructure improvements, raise people’s capabilities and aspirations to migrate.

    Instead of the stereotypical “desperate flight from misery”, in reality migration is generally an investment in the long-term wellbeing of families and requires significant resources.

    Poverty actually deprives people of the resources required to move over long distances, let alone to cross continents.……..

    But this hasn’t been a natural process. It is instead one that has been encouraged by decades of policies geared towards economic and labour market liberalisation, which have fuelled the growth of precarious jobs that local workers won’t take.

    Politicians from left to right know this reality, but they don’t dare admit it out of fear of being seen as “soft on immigration”.

    They choose instead to talk tough and revert to acts of political showmanship that create an appearance of control, but that in effect function as a smokescreen to conceal the true nature of immigration policy.

    Under this current arrangement, more and more migrants are allowed in, and the employment of undocumented workers is widely tolerated as they fill in crucial labour shortages.

    Politicians have turned a blind eye as proven by almost laughably low levels of workplace enforcement.……

     
    No problem huh?

    1000004032.jpg



    Most of the people who claim asylum don't have legitimate asylum claims.
    Isn't it odd that after 2020, "encounters" was redefined to be apprehensions, inadmissible, and expulsions, whereas before they had different categories.

    See below for an example:
    FT_21.11.01_MexicoBorder_1a.png
     
    We seem to be living in times of unprecedented mass migration. Images of people from Africa crammed into unseaworthy boats desperately trying to cross the Mediterranean, asylum seekers crossing the Channel into Britain, and “caravans” of migrants trying to reach the Mexico-US border all seem to confirm fears that global migration is spinning out of control.

    A toxic combination of poverty, inequality, violence, oppression, climate breakdown and population growth appear to be pushing growing numbers of people from Africa, Asia and Latin America to embark upon desperate journeys to reach the shores of the wealthy west.

    All of this results in the popular idea of a “migration crisis” that will require drastic countermeasures to prevent massive waves of people arriving in the future, apparently exceeding the absorption capacity of western societies and economies.

    Despite this, however, there is no scientific evidence to sustain the claim that global migration is accelerating. International migrants account for about 3% of the world population, and this percentage has remained remarkably stable over the past half a century.

    Likewise, refugee migration is much more limited than political rhetoric and media images suggest. About 10% of all international migrants are refugees, representing 0.3% of the world population. While refugee flows fluctuate strongly with levels of conflict, there is no evidence of a long-term increasing trend.

    About 80-85% of refugees remain in regions of origin, and that share has also remained rather stable over the past decades. And there is no evidence that illegal migration is spinning out of control – in fact, the large majority of migrants who move from the global south to the global north continue to move legally. For instance, nine out of 10 Africans move to Europe legally, with passports and papers in hand.

    The evidence also turns common understandings of the causes of migration on its head. The conventional view is that south-to-north migration is in essence the outgrowth of poverty, inequality and violence in origin countries – hence the popular idea that poverty reduction and development are the only long-term solutions to migration.

    However, this assumption is undermined by evidence showing that migration rises as poor countries become richer. This is because increasing levels of income and education, alongside infrastructure improvements, raise people’s capabilities and aspirations to migrate.

    Instead of the stereotypical “desperate flight from misery”, in reality migration is generally an investment in the long-term wellbeing of families and requires significant resources.

    Poverty actually deprives people of the resources required to move over long distances, let alone to cross continents.……..

    But this hasn’t been a natural process. It is instead one that has been encouraged by decades of policies geared towards economic and labour market liberalisation, which have fuelled the growth of precarious jobs that local workers won’t take.

    Politicians from left to right know this reality, but they don’t dare admit it out of fear of being seen as “soft on immigration”.

    They choose instead to talk tough and revert to acts of political showmanship that create an appearance of control, but that in effect function as a smokescreen to conceal the true nature of immigration policy.

    Under this current arrangement, more and more migrants are allowed in, and the employment of undocumented workers is widely tolerated as they fill in crucial labour shortages.

    Politicians have turned a blind eye as proven by almost laughably low levels of workplace enforcement.……

    I have so many problems with that article.
    The writer should spend some time in Tapachula, Chiapas.
     
    Isn't it odd that after 2020, "encounters" was redefined to be apprehensions, inadmissible, and expulsions, whereas before they had different categories.

    See below for an example:
    FT_21.11.01_MexicoBorder_1a.png
    Why was the definition of encounters changed and who changed it? What were the criteria previously?
     
    I remember you criticizing Trump for immigration when he was President.
    Yes, I criticized him for the way he used the executive to separate toddlers and small children from their parents. That was Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions’ idea, but Trump signed off on it.

    I didn’t criticize him for basic immigration law, because that is Congress’ responsibility.
     
    Yes, I criticized him for the way he used the executive to separate toddlers and small children from their parents. That was Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions’ idea, but Trump signed off on it.

    I didn’t criticize him for basic immigration law, because that is Congress’ responsibility.
    You are ignoring for Biden that Presidents have discretionary power about how immigration is enforced. You criticized Trump about that, but you avoid it for Biden by acting like he has no power on immigration and acting like it's all left to Congress.
     
    You are ignoring for Biden that Presidents have discretionary power about how immigration is enforced. You criticized Trump about that, but you avoid it for Biden by acting like he has no power on immigration and acting like it's all left to Congress.
    Nope, just pointing out that the real solution has to come from Congress, and Rs have recently ducked addressing it. Biden is using his discretion. He has sent troops to the border recently, and he is currently working out an agreement with Mexico. In fact, Lindsey Graham criticized Biden for sending troops to the border, proving that it doesn’t matter what Biden does Rs will find a way to criticize him for it.

    If Biden had separated kids from their parents I would have criticized him for that as well. Anyone who does something that cruel should be criticized.

    I‘m also aware that R media tend to play up the caravans and border crossings in an election season and then it will suddenly go away after the election. It’s a common pattern here.
     
    This is the kind of pot-stirring that the right is doing. It’s not honest.

     
    Why was the definition of encounters changed and who changed it? What were the criteria previously?
    It was changed during COVID, and with an agreement from Mexico:

    For decades, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has released the number of arrests at the United States-Mexico border. But that changed two years ago as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and new agreements signed with the Mexican government.

    In March 2020, the federal agency announced that it would add another category to the total number of apprehensions – the number of expulsions.

    The combined statistics were then called “encounters.”

    According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, there were a total of around 4,450,240 encounters from January 2021 to October 2022.

    Also, from the same link:

    But “encounters” also includes the people who are allowed to stay in the U.S. as they apply for asylum or a humanitarian visa for reasons such as political persecution or fleeing human trafficking.

    Migrants and asylum seekers often try to enter multiple times and are counted separately each time.

    For example, in August 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol revealed that over 22% of encounters are people who had at least one prior encounter in the previous 12 months.

    The report further reveals that only 36% percent of the encounters with people from Mexico and northern Central America are unique encounters – and only 35% percent for those from Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.

    It is hard to know, with the current counting system, just how many unique individuals interacted with agents at the border. What is certain is that because of multiple counts of the same individuals, the total number is less than the 4.2 million new undocumented immigrants that Cruz claims have entered the U.S. since the start of the Biden administration.

    In addition to counting the same people multiple times, the number of total encounters overestimates the number of individuals because of another reason: the huge number of expulsions that are used in counting the total number of encounters.

    Enacted in 2020 to reduce the spread of COVID-19, “Title 42” – a provision of U.S. public health law – allows U.S. law enforcement officers to immediately deny entry to asylum seekers.

    Under Title 42, around 51% of the people encountered are immediately expelled or put into deportation proceedings. After being sent back, some may try again to have their asylum cases heard, and are counted one more time as “encountered.”

    According to the Biden administration, 1.3 million people were expelled last year. Among the total encounters, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol reported that over 1 million people were denied entry under Title 42 alone in each of the last two fiscal years.

    The large numbers of expulsions clearly show that the U.S. does not have open borders, as frequently proclaimed by conservative politicians.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom