Immigrants in Maine get free rent for two years

[Dave Gray]

CF, your solution doesn't exist.

You want something that can't happen in the way that our government makes laws.  Here is a law that's proposed by your own people that is an incremental move towards what you want, with some things that Dems want too, but won't harm what you're looking for.  It's a much better deal (for you) than what was being worked on by Rubio years ago.

Even though it's better for you, Trump doesn't want it, because he needs to make people angry about the border to win the election, so he doesn't want the problem solved.  He said that.

[Spider-Dan]

Wow ... so much CNN bullshit in one post. It's amazing to me you guys can tie your shoes without their permission because it doesn't seem like you have an original thought. There is absolutely no way to debate someone who makes crap up.

I don't remember us ever discussing why the law works this way, so we'll give it a shot.

In order to legally enter the country, you need a passport and a visa.  Now imagine you are an everyday citizen living in North Korea, Cuba, or some other oppressive regime.  Are you going to be able to get a passport and visa to legally enter the United States?  Likely not.  So to say that people seeking asylum must first obtain legal consent from the country they are fleeing is to reject the concept of asylum itself.

I imagine many Florida residents intuitively understand this concept when talking about Cuba, but there doesn't seem to be the same sense of sympathy when talking about any other country in the western hemisphere.

[CF DolFan]

CF, your solution doesn't exist.

You want something that can't happen in the way that our government makes laws.  Here is a law that's proposed by your own people that is an incremental move towards what you want, with some things that Dems want too, but won't harm what you're looking for.  It's a much better deal (for you) than what was being worked on by Rubio years ago.

Even though it's better for you, Trump doesn't want it, because he needs to make people angry about the border to win the election, so he doesn't want the problem solved.  He said that.

Take Trump out of the equation. It gives more power to Biden to screw the states he is already screwing. Like my guy DeSantis says .. “This border deal is a farce. Joe Biden already has the authority to shut the border down. He could declare it a national emergency,” DeSantis said in a video posted to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “He could stop the invasion cold if he wanted to. He does not want to. He wants to let people in.”

All I want to know is what the heck happened to Democrats? Can everyone be bought off because this is 100% opposite of what they say now. Chuck Schumer and other Dems used to know "Illegal immigration is wrong". This is a perfect example of how I used to be a Democrat but many of my values disappeared and moved to the Republican party.

https://youtu.be/a8z2L42qedM?si=yCpwRfmrlB-6hMt-&t=245

[Dave Gray]

You can blame Biden if you want, and I don't even think that's correct, but do you -- either way, you aren't getting what you want out of the deal because the border isn't being shut down.  This FORCES the border to be shut down, so why would you not vote for it?

Also, it's not written on a stone tablet -- you could always negotiate a better deal for you later if you wanted to.  Or your president, if voted into office, could supposedly shut the border down all the time, as you say that they can.

The border situation isn't acceptable.  I'm a registered dem and I acknowledge that.  But you have to take steps to correct the problem and it's not just "shutting down the border".  Asylum isn't illegal, firstly.  We need systems in place to process the amount and yes -- in times of crisis -- to be able to stop that process.  You need funding, increased security, etc.  This is a problem that spans many, many administrations and congresses, led both all political parties for many decades.

[CF DolFan]

In order to legally enter the country, you need a passport and a visa.  Now imagine you are an everyday citizen living in North Korea, Cuba, or some other oppressive regime.  Are you going to be able to get a passport and visa to legally enter the United States?  Likely not.  So to say that people seeking asylum must first obtain legal consent from the country they are fleeing is to reject the concept of asylum itself.

I know you like to make up stuff but this comes directly form the US immigration site.

AGENCY:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security; Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments on expanded applicability in maritime context.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are issuing a final rule in anticipation of a potential surge of migration at the southwest border (“SWB”) of the United States following the termination of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (“CDC”) public health Order. The rule encourages migrants to avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in another country through which they travel, thereby reducing reliance on human smuggling networks that exploit migrants for financial gain. ....

I took this from liberal page that was created to change the laws.
The United States’ federal immigration law criminalizes immigrants in numerous and varied ways, including:

Immigration laws enacted in 1996 create double-punishment for immigrants with criminal records
Sections 1325 and 1326 of the U.S. Code make it a federal crime to enter or reenter the U.S. without authorization
Such laws have fueled the mass incarceration of communities of color, torn families apart, and caused severe harm to communities by subjecting thousands of people to detention and deportation.

Sections 1325 and 1326 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code make it a federal crime to enter or reenter the United States after a deportation or removal order without proper authorization

Coincidentally "felons" are not approved for asylum.

[CF DolFan]

You can blame Biden if you want, and I don't even think that's correct, but do you -- either way, you aren't getting what you want out of the deal because the border isn't being shut down.  This FORCES the border to be shut down, so why would you not vote for it?

Also, it's not written on a stone tablet -- you could always negotiate a better deal for you later if you wanted to.  Or your president, if voted into office, could supposedly shut the border down all the time, as you say that they can.

The border situation isn't acceptable.  I'm a registered dem and I acknowledge that.  But you have to take steps to correct the problem and it's not just "shutting down the border".  Asylum isn't illegal, firstly.  We need systems in place to process the amount and yes -- in times of crisis -- to be able to stop that process.  You need funding, increased security, etc.  This is a problem that spans many, many administrations and congresses, led both all political parties for many decades.

No one trusts Biden. Like DeSantis said ... he could already secure the border. In fact almost every GOP candidate ran on that same idea and yes, DeSantis called Trump out for not doing it previously. We already have laws in place. He wants more control over the states and that is not what most of us want.

[Dave Gray]

This new legislation would MAKE HIM shut down the border.

This is what Republicans want, dude.  You got what you wanted and your own party won't vote for it.  THEY NEGOTIATED THE DEAL THEMSELVES!!!!

[CF DolFan]

This new legislation would MAKE HIM shut down the border.

This is what Republicans want, dude. You got what you wanted and your own party won't vote for it.  THEY NEGOTIATED THE DEAL THEMSELVES!!!!

That's not exactly true but that's politics. It could be shut down after 5000 people a day for 7 days are detained. This means 4999 people a day are still encouraged to come illegally.

[Spider-Dan]

The rule encourages migrants to avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in another country through which they travel, thereby reducing reliance on human smuggling networks that exploit migrants for financial gain. ....

"Encourages" has no legal force of law.

Sections 1325 and 1326 of the U.S. Code make it a federal crime to enter or reenter the U.S. without authorization

Correct... unless you are seeking asylum.  That's the point.

Or are you disputing the claim that current law allows for undocumented immigrants to legally apply for asylum?

Coincidentally "felons" are not approved for asylum.

None of the laws you cited specified that they are felonies, only "federal crimes."
In point of fact, illegal entry is a misdemeanor.  (Illegal re-entry is indeed a felony, but if you've already been deported before, you weren't going to be approved for asylum anyway.)

Like DeSantis said ... he could already secure the border. In fact almost every GOP candidate ran on that same idea and yes, DeSantis called Trump out for not doing it previously.

Surely you do not believe this.

DeSantis (or any other politician) claiming that they could immediately "secure the border" is as absurd as any of them claiming that they could immediately balance the budget.  You'd have to be incredibly naive to think that's true.

I am forced to wonder what Trump voters like yourself believe to be the reason why Trump didn't instantly secure the border as soon as he entered office.

[CF DolFan]

"Encourages" has no legal force of law.
Correct... unless you are seeking asylum.  That's the point.

I've had this conversation with my wife. It seems like they purposely dumb characters down on TV at certain times only to allow the plot to continue. If they didn't ignore the obvious the episode would have been much shorter. I feel like you do that as well but I don't think you're dumb at all. I didn't quote the whole thing but it is pretty obvious "or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in another country" was in reference to trying to seek asylum here and NOT following the rules of entering legally.

[Spider-Dan]

It seems like they purposely dumb characters down on TV at certain times only to allow the plot to continue. If they didn't ignore the obvious the episode would have been much shorter. I feel like you do that as well but I don't think you're dumb at all. I didn't quote the whole thing but it is pretty obvious "or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in another country" was in reference to trying to seek asylum here and NOT following the rules of entering legally.

I find it bizarre that you seem to always want to mention how you think I'm "acting dumb" or whatever, so convinced of your superior intellect, when you're completely in the wrong.  It's almost like you're trolling, but I have no doubt that you sincerely believe you're being incredibly smart when you call me out; today's conservativism actively rewards aggressive ignorance.

The legally relevant part of that citation is the part that I helpfully bolded for you in my first response; the rest is just flavor text.  See, in a legal context, when you see "encourages" or "advises" or even "strongly recommends," it carries precisely the same legal meaning as "does not prohibit the opposite."

So, for example, during a major storm or times of unrest, a mayor or city council can issue a statement "encouraging" all residents to stay home after dark except in case of emergency, but doing so is explicitly NOT a curfew.  A curfew doesn't "encourage" people to stay home; it requires it.  So the fact that you are citing a rule that "encourages" asylum-seeking migrants to follow the normal process just reinforces the fact that it is not required by law.

[CF DolFan]

I find it bizarre that you seem to always want to mention how you think I'm "acting dumb" or whatever, so convinced of your superior intellect, when you're completely in the wrong.  

LOL ... No where did I even insinuate I was superior let alone say that. In fact I said I know you are not dumb. I think your pretty intelligent even though we pretty much disagree on many things. I just feel you purposely are ignoring things that are said by me and others. 

[Dave Gray]

I'll just say this:

I don't want to be straw-manned into owning the current position that the US has on immigration.  I don't think it's acceptable.

I also am probably more moderate on this issue and certain things the right wants, I also want.  Even hardline ideas like the wall -- I ultimately don't think that's an effective use of money, but I think that physically securing the border needs to be part of a larger policy.

I do think this is a problem that should have been, but has not been, incrementally addressed over the last 40 years.

We need:
- increased security
- increased funding for processing
- a plan for more states to share the load

I do, however, think immigration is a net positive and an important part of being the country that we are.  It just shouldn't go unchecked and we need to control the pace of it.

Also, I'd prefer:
- a realistic plan to deal with those who are currently living here
- DACA -- this is crazy and these people just need to be legal and preferably citizens.  I know people who fall into this and the idea you would send them back (Back to what?) is an absolute non-starter