Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Asylum seekers are illegals, Bart, until they've been granted asylum.

During their asylum procedure???

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

Depends on how they came in. If they came in through a portal they're probably okay. If they came in across the river, they're not. Don't try to understand it. The Congress has refused to modify the law to fit the circumstances. It's an incredible mess.

[Chris Kern]

Asylum seekers are illegals, Bart, until they've been granted asylum.

Actually, an alien seeking asylum in the United States typically arrives at a designated port of entry and makes a request for asylum to a U.S. immigration inspector.  If the request is plausible on its face (i.e., if the alien has asserted a claim which, if true, would justify a grant of asylum under U.S. law), the case is referred for adjudication.  This is not considered an illegal entry.

The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum as an affirmative defense in immigration removal proceedings.

To be granted asylum, aliens must credibly demonstrate that they have experienced or face persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

[Robert Roaldi]

Oh, about the butcher in Saudi Arabia.  I think I called him our bastard but I never said he was a nice person.  We deal with all kinds of tyrants in the world.  Xi is one yet we talk to him and China's one of our biggest trading partners.  Should we stop trading with them because he kills adversaries or throws them in jail?  Doesn't Canada deal with tyrants too?  Why do you think your country is so holy?

Who asserted that Canada was holy? I didn't.

[Robert Roaldi]

Sure, he can criticize Trump all he wants.  But he may have an axe to grind being a Canadian.  I was just pointing out that a non-American may be against our president's policies.  After all, an American president represents America, not Canada.  So his policies, such as the renegotiated trade agreement with Canada, gave America additional advantages over Canada that weren't there before.  So he might not like our president for policies an American would like him for. Trump butters our bread not his.   

Let me add that I like Canadians and Canada.  They are good friends of ours, allies in peace and war, and valuable trading partners.  My wife and I spent a lot of money up there on our 20th anniversary visiting Niagara Falls and Toronto.  But that doesn;t mean we shouldn't make the best deal we can when regarding trade.  When I was in business, I negotiated price with customers all the time.  That's part of relationships.  Both sides make the best deal they can for themselves and move on.  They shake hands and continue to do business.  So I'm not knocking Canadians; just the opposite.

You keep repeating the assertion that other countries (in this case Canada) were taking advantage of the US in affairs of trade. I just want to point that repeating this Trumpism over and over does not make it true. It was electioneering exaggeration, it was never true. The "proof" that it was never true is that the new "NAFTA" agreement (I forget its name) is essentially the same as the old one.

The entire sideshow was media hype. It just introduced some unneeded and unwarranted destabilization in some industry sectors that hurts everyone involved. Manufacturing in the US is and always was healthy, it never needed Trump's help. It maybe did need intervention to help Americans who were displaced by robots, which is NOT what Trump is doing. That is something that the US is not historically very good at because you don't like government intervening in business.

[faberryman]

You keep repeating the assertion that other countries (in this case Canada) were taking advantage of the US in affairs of trade. I just want to point that repeating this Trumpism over and over does not make it true. It was electioneering exaggeration, it was never true. The "proof" that it was never true is that the new "NAFTA" agreement (I forget its name) is essentially the same as the old one.

There is no "new NAFTA". The agreement Trump negotiated has not been ratified by the Senate. It is just languishing in committee. No one is in any hurry to pass it, including Trump.

[RSL]

Actually, an alien seeking asylum in the United States typically arrives at a designated port of entry and makes a request for asylum to a U.S. immigration inspector.  If the request is plausible on its face (i.e., if the alien has asserted a claim which, if true, would justify a grant of asylum under U.S. law), the case is referred for adjudication.  This is not considered an illegal entry.

The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum as an affirmative defense in immigration removal proceedings.

To be granted asylum, aliens must credibly demonstrate that they have experienced or face persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Exactly, Chris. Then, since thanks to Congress's inaction there's no way to secure the tsunami of asylum seekers while they're awaiting their hearings, they're turned loose into the country. In most cases they never show up for their hearings. Between the person's initial hearing with an immigration inspector and his scheduled day in court his status is, at best, iffy. If he fails to show up for his court date, he becomes clearly illegal again. Trump is trying to make arrangements for those awaiting their court date to be moved back across the border and detained there, but the sentiment in Congress isn't "Let's solve the problem." It's "Let's get Trump." This crap is going to continue until the next election. Then, Trump will be reelected (unless he suddenly decides he's had enough), and the Republicans will hold the Senate and re-take the House. "The Squad" is working overtime to make sure my prediction is accurate.

[faberryman]

In most cases they never show up for their hearings.

Actually, about 70% show up for their hearings.

[RSL]

In many cases they don't show up for their hearings. I'm not sure where Fab is getting his information, but I think the failure rate is more than 30%. Then we have the problem that if asylum isn't granted there's no real guarantee we'll get the applicant back to his native land. The whole process is what, in the military, we used to call a "cluster f..."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum...

Yes, they all learned that trick. Cross the birder illegally... if not caught, good... if caught, say the magic word and you are good again.

[Alan Klein]

Are they? Or is this more fake 'news'?

Or are you incorrectly conflating Asylum seekers with Illegals, which seems to be the same to xenophobes/racists, or some Republicans?

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, you're always criticizing the US but never look at your own country.  If you're caught in the Netherlands as an illegal, they put you in jail.  Frankly, that's reasonable,  Why shouldn't America act similarly?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-The-Netherlands-handle-illegal-immigration

[Robert Roaldi]

There is no "new NAFTA". The agreement Trump negotiated has not been ratified by the Senate. It has just languishing in committee. No one is in any hurry to pass it, including Trump.

Yes, quite right. I kind of lost track of the process and just saw that its passing may be pushed until after the US election.

[Alan Klein]

You keep repeating the assertion that other countries (in this case Canada) were taking advantage of the US in affairs of trade. I just want to point that repeating this Trumpism over and over does not make it true. It was electioneering exaggeration, it was never true. The "proof" that it was never true is that the new "NAFTA" agreement (I forget its name) is essentially the same as the old one.

The entire sideshow was media hype. It just introduced some unneeded and unwarranted destabilization in some industry sectors that hurts everyone involved. Manufacturing in the US is and always was healthy, it never needed Trump's help. It maybe did need intervention to help Americans who were displaced by robots, which is NOT what Trump is doing. That is something that the US is not historically very good at because you don't like government intervening in business.

First off, only government can negotiate trade agreements. So government is not interfering in business.  Its job is to provide better results for American companies just as Canada's and Mexico's governments try to do that for their companies. 

Secondly, the new agreement is not the same as the old.  It adds significant improvement to the US economy.  It increases GDP by about 1/3 of 1% or $68 billion and adds 175,000 jobs.  Hopefully we can work out something similar with China and Europe and others. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/business/economy/trump-nafta-trade.html

[Alan Klein]

Who asserted that Canada was holy? I didn't.

As a Canadian, you were pointing critical fingers at America.  I was pointing out that Canada has relations with some pretty nasty regimes as well. What's the expression, if you live in a glass house, don;t throw stones.   

[Robert Roaldi]

As a Canadian, you were pointing critical fingers at America.  I was pointing out that Canada has relations with some pretty nasty regimes as well. What's the expression, if you live in a glass house, don;t throw stones.

Then no one should ever say anything?

Sorry, this makes no sense. The thread exists solely for the purpose of expressing opinions.

[Chris Kern]

The law also permits an alien who has entered the country illegally to enter a request for asylum as an affirmative defense in immigration removal proceedings.

Yes, they all learned that trick. Cross the birder illegally... if not caught, good... if caught, say the magic word and you are good again.

It's not that simple.  An alien in this situation is already "in proceedings" before an immigration judge.  This is an adversarial setting.  The defendant or his lawyer introduces the claim of eligibility for asylum as an "affirmative defense" after the government has shown that the alien is subject to removal.  It's a last-ditch attempt to avoid being forced to leave the United States.

[Alan Klein]

Then no one should ever say anything?

Sorry, this makes no sense. The thread exists solely for the purpose of expressing opinions.

Just pointing out that others do what America does.  Non-Americans have a knee jerk negative response to anything we do.  Rather than condemning us, and yourself for similar actions, how about adding to the conversation by recommending what we should do with tyrants we all have to deal with?  Then we can have a discussion about policies that affect both our countries.  Wouldn't that be a better approach?

[Alan Klein]

It's not that simple.  An alien in this situation is already "in proceedings" before an immigration judge.  This is an adversarial setting.  The defendant or his lawyer introduces the claim of eligibility for asylum as an "affirmative defense" after the government has shown that the alien is subject to removal.  It's a last-ditch attempt to avoid being forced to leave the United States.

So what should be done to prevent the illegal influx of so many?  It's burdening our resources especially in locations where these people wind up. 

[Alan Klein]

There is no "new NAFTA". The agreement Trump negotiated has not been ratified by the Senate. It has just languishing in committee. No one is in any hurry to pass it, including Trump.

If Elizabeth Warren gets elected president, get ready for new negotiations.  She has a different idea of what should be in these trade agreements, mainly to protect consumers, not the businesses themselves.  You'll be be wishing Trump had won.  She's going to want even more wampum from you than Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/29/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-rewrite-the-rules-on-negotiating-trade-deals.html

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, you're always criticizing the US but never look at your own country.

Alan, this thread is about the lack of understanding between Republicans and Democrats. You should welcome a fresh look from someone who looks in from the outside and wonders what the peculiarities are and what the difference is with their reference system.

I am not saying that my country is perfect in everything, but we do have a system of governance that is clearly different from yours. Firstly, we are a democracy, which I have been told by some forum members the US is not. That alone makes a big difference. Maybe you should try it, maybe you like it...

If you're caught in the Netherlands as an illegal, they put you in jail.

As a United Nations member and modern society, we have a reasonably decent and morally justifiable procedure in place.

The link you supplied gives a reasonable description of how foreigners are handled and that proper identification/documentation is required.

There is always a chance that people try to illegally enter via the European borders. Without the proper permits or an application for asylum, they are illegal and stand to be deported (and maybe arrested until they are properly identified), to be sent back to their home country.

Permits to stay can have an expiration period from several months to years (depending on the type of permit), or people can apply for citizenship (which is not automatically granted). Children that are born during the stay of the parent(s), acquire the nationality of (one of) the parents. So they too need a permit to stay which will expire.

Of course there are the exceptions which confirm the rule, and those will be attempted to be dealt with in a case-by-case humane manner.

These 'foreigners' will be treated as human beings (within the possibilities of temporary housing which may be less than ideal, basic medical care, and if an asylum procedure takes a long period then children may get education), just like a civilized country should.

Cheers,
Bart