Explaining the border problem...

They have a year to declare under the current alias they are using. Soon as that identity has 12 months on it, simply create another

 

Yes. There IS a "but"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

 

I am doing WHAT? What nonsense are you saying?

Asylum seekers MUST be protected. At ALL costs. They have a RIGHT to be in this country. Everybody else coming into the country undocumented, you can do whatever you want....

 

Predominantly Catholic Latin America produces too many people, a great many of whom live in poverty and are also under constant threat from violent gangs who produce and sell drugs for an insatiable US market. These conditions cause a great many of these poor people to head our way in search of a better life, and the result is that they come up to our border with Mexico in large numbers with the help of certain entrepreneurs who make a good living facilitating this migration.

Within the US, Republicans hype the issue up while refusing to do anything to actually fix the situation. This allows them to ratchet up fear and anger among a great many American voters and direct that anger at the Democrats even though they are no less responsible for the problem they pretend to care so much about, similarly to how they spend like drunken sailors while slashing taxes, increasing the national deficit and helping the national debt rocket higher while likewise blaming the Democrats unfairly and reaping the electoral benefits.

That, I think, explains the border problem succinctly. It is a problem that Republicans want to have and do not want to fix, provided they can continue to benefit from it as they have been doing. At the same time, America is aging as we have fewer children and the boomers continue to retire, and we therefore need young working-age people to come in and fill roles that we may otherwise struggle to fill. Notice that unemployment remains very low and the economy continues to boom. Immigrants are proving beneficial on the whole, even if they do not enter through legal channels. The government is therefore also incentivized to allow this to continue in some form, since it is actually good for the US economy. So, while both parties make noise about solving the problem, in reality it is kind of a problem that they want to have for economic and demographic reasons as well. They just can't afford to be honest about that with the American public.

 

That argument might have flown in middle school, but not In today's America.
You have basically recategorized America from a country to a "region" where people come and go freely. Like geese.

 

And you believe that all we have to do to establish that is ask the Sandinistas....

The way this works is by demanding Juan to PROVE that it's not. Believe it or not, WE might know more about what is and isn't terrorism in Nicaragua than the Sandinistas do. And there is a very thorough database that it takes seconds for any border agent to access. Is it perfect? No! But it's better than asking the Sandinistas. The PROBLEM is that we don't have enough border agents to access it BECAUSE Republicans (and they have said this publicly) believe it would solve the problem (every time you see "solve the problem" also read "or mitigate"... I'll dispense with that caveat for the sake of brevity). And that would be a "victory" (their words) for Biden.

 

It's pretty obvious you haven't a realistic idea how it actually works, is abused and in many instances NEVER done under the letter of the law..

 

CORRECT! Because we don't have enough resources to do it properly. And REPUBLICANS are blocking those resources because... by their own admission... helping Biden to solve this would give him a political victory.

So now you know how the process works we won't hear any more nonsense about us "vetting" applicants in their home countries, I hope (though I'm not holding my breath)

 

LMAO Here comes reality back flips. Clearly you are learning how it really is and how all those other posts were ridiculous

Here is something else you can chew on..
There are so many undocumented migrants in the country now its a country within a country today! You have legit migrants that operate like "Job Service" where companies hire day, week and monthly temps while the legit jefe handles all the paperwork/payroll and assignments..

It's a network now, the illegal workers are given a card and the documented simply charge the workers card(s). And from there 90% of that money is wired back to Mexico, south America and all those other HORRIBLE places these poor abused asylum seeking folks are running from

You Sir have some serious holes in your research

 

You missed the whole "not if we can send them to a safe 3rd party" huh?
You missed the whole only if they're an refugee under the title?
". . . unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . ."
Economic migrancy doesn't qualify. Ergo they have entered without inspection and must be deported.
Further: you can simply alter the stated title to add an additional clause that directs them to a port of entry, no ticket no laundry style.

 

Forgery, federal crimes if you create a card that scans, etc.
Deportable offenses.

 

And the punishment is deportation Or as my buds would say "Volver a hacer", Redo

 

I have one friend that stays a year OR SO, and then goes home for a month or two.. Then he does the REDO, for another FREE year and a dime or two and back home again..

They know how to work a flawed system

 

Seems like a DNA registry is in order. Get deported, get your blood sample taken. Show back up as an illegal? Get a sample taken and compared. Match? **** off.

 

The Trump administration did exactly that.

The Trump administration is using DNA tests to crack down on “fake families” at the border

 

So what you're trying to say is that if they don't qualify for asylum, they don't get asylum.

Well... whoopy doo! What an earth-shattering revelation!

Irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread, though.

 

You've missed the forest for a tree friend:

"Further: you can simply alter the stated title to add an additional clause that directs them to a port of entry, no ticket no laundry style."

 

Looks like you're having trouble understanding the phrase "whether or not at a designated port of arrival" I just don't have the time, or the drive to sit here to explain it to you. Sorry....

 

Apparently you don't know that statutory provisions can simply be amended by a common vote of the legislature. You just add a clause revoking the former and laying out a new rule. That's how statutes get amended o wise and learned one.

 

WTF? What the hell does that have to do with anything I've...

Ah.... never mind!

 

You failed to read your own cite.

That cite supports the fact that illegally entering the US is itself not a criminal offense.

Think what it would mean if illegal entrants had access to criminal prosecution.

 

"Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,. . . or the first commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

How do you figure friend?

 

On 911 the terrorists entered LEGALLY.

Drugs enter the USA through our ports of entry.

Humans enter the US with visitation or work permits and then don't return.

And, our congress designed a bill to address the border, with full and active Republican participation, and then the House refused to pass it on the orders of Donald Trump.

Your party is failing you.

 

How performative. As stated: You can simply direct them to a port of entry, there is nothing preventing that change in the law.
Further: The reasoning behind these convoys is economic migrancy, which makes them per se not asylum seekers.

 

- that says nothing about a crime.
- the process specified is NOT a criminal process for first offenses.

Think it through. What would it mean to our legal system if crossing the border were made criminal?

How do we handle crime in America?