US Immigration Policy Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Immigration Policy Megathread

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Josef bugman posted:

If your just a clerk for the occupying force, are you not still part of a body that does a vast number of crimes? Or are you only half responsible?

I've completely lost the analogy you're trying to make because it makes no sense relative to what you're responding to. Instead of me trying to guess at the misunderstanding and/or false assertion you're making, how about you just say what you mean instead of giving us these flippant one-liners?

# ? Jul 27, 2021 20:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 16:44

Uncle Boogeyman: Jul 22, 2007

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

It is kind of interesting that on the one hand, you admit that the FBI "has its own share of issues" (understatement of the century, ladies and gentlemen), while on the other, you want to give it even more responsibilities, which you assume it can perform as well. You also seem to assume that if and when ICE is abolished and its responsibilities folded into the FBI, a lot of the same shitbags who infest ICE will not simply be recruited by the FBI due to their experience with immigration enforcement. Suffice it to say, I think you need to think about this a tad more carefully.

This is fair, and you have convinced me: the FBI needs to be abolished as well

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 27, 2021 20:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Josef bugman posted:

So is that a "no" on "did I say something factually incorrect" then?

It's "do not try to justify your beliefs based on your first google result with no other information", and "your finding also does not justify your underlying prescriptive claim".

# ? Jul 27, 2021 20:26

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Jarmak posted:

I've completely lost the analogy you're trying to make because it makes no sense relative to what you're responding to. Instead of me trying to guess at the misunderstanding and/or false assertion you're making, how about you just say what you mean instead of giving us these flippant one-liners?

1) The overarching organisation, in this case ICE, does a vast amount of harm to other people.
2) Being part of an organisation that does harm to human beings (even if you are not doing so as part of your job role) means that you are assisting it harming other people in some way.
3) Therefore it's best that even supposedly "untainted" parts of a bad organisation are not used to do things to help people.

That is the overarching point I am getting at. I am sorry if I am being opaque with my wording.

Sorry I should probably elaborate a bit more. essentially just because "I don't know what the other part of my organisation is doing, I can't be blamed for what they do". Doesn't seem acceptable. Just because you build a bridge whilst another part of your organisation destroys a church does not mean that the bridge cancels out the church burning.

Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jul 27, 2021

# ? Jul 27, 2021 20:31

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

From your suggestions I get the vague impression that you may not be aware of how ICE came to be, and the state of affairs before it.

Before the DHS was established, ICE's functions and jurisdictions were handled by different agencies. Immigration violations were handled by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was part of the DOJ and worked closely with the DOL (so that it could investigate illegal labor practices with regards to immigrants, such as hiring undocumented workers). There was also a separate task force, called Border Patrol, which did border monitoring. In addition to INS, there were about two dozen different agencies of various sizes that reported to different cabinet secretaries. For example, there was the National Infrastructure Protection Center that was part of the FBI. The National Commucations System was under the Department of Defense. The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Offices were under the Department of Commerce. Etcetera. This separation of tasks and responsibilities created enormous coordination problems, in part because each agency had a different jurisdiction and a different set of responsibilities (sometimes overlapping, which became very messy), and sharing intelligence and handling joint activities were huge issues. This became apparent with the Sept 11 attacks, when it was found that some of the hijackers had already been on terrorist watch lists, but had managed to board planes en route to the USA anyway.

With the formation of the DHS, several things happened:

- The two dozen or so discrete agencies were rolled into one mega agency, the Department of Homeland Security
- INS was changed to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
- US Customs Service became the US Customs and Border Protection Agency
- The law enforcement arms of INS and Customs Service were folded into the newly created ICE, which became the second largest law enforcement agency in the country (after the FBI)

It is kind of interesting that on the one hand, you admit that the FBI "has its own share of issues" (understatement of the century, ladies and gentlemen), while on the other, you want to give it even more responsibilities, which you assume it can perform as well. You also seem to assume that if and when ICE is abolished and its responsibilities folded into the FBI, a lot of the same shitbags who infest ICE will not simply be recruited by the FBI due to their experience with immigration enforcement. Suffice it to say, I think you need to think about this a tad more carefully.

You're sidestepping the political considerations that turned immigration into a civil infraction then finally a criminal one.

There's no doubt that theres been more personnel and a much more heavy handed presence of federal agents in undocumented lives now than there was in the 90s. I personally had experience with the INS around 2000 and the invasive and overpowering bureacracy now compared to then is no contest.

You're citing wikipedia or whatever but please listen personal experience that whatver developments have occured since 2000, things are worse now.

# ? Jul 27, 2021 20:45

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Josef bugman posted:

1) The overarching organisation, in this case ICE, does a vast amount of harm to other people.
2) Being part of an organisation that does harm to human beings (even if you are not doing so as part of your job role) means that you are assisting it harming other people in some way.
3) Therefore it's best that even supposedly "untainted" parts of a bad organisation are not used to do things to help people.

That is the overarching point I am getting at. I am sorry if I am being opaque with my wording.

Sorry I should probably elaborate a bit more. essentially just because "I don't know what the other part of my organisation is doing, I can't be blamed for what they do". Doesn't seem acceptable. Just because you build a bridge whilst another part of your organisation destroys a church does not mean that the bridge cancels out the church burning.

I see what you were trying to say. When the two parts of organization exist and operate as distinct entities this line of reasoning kind of falls apart, because in a government you can always move up an admin tier until you find you're under the same umbrella as some group doing lovely things.

# ? Jul 27, 2021 21:44

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Jarmak posted:

I see what you were trying to say. When the two parts of organization exist and operate as distinct entities this line of reasoning kind of falls apart, because in a government you can always move up an admin tier until you find you're under the same umbrella as some group doing lovely things.

Then this must be a philosophical disagreement as opposed to a purely practical one. I am not sure that that is the Just way to approach such things, but I do take your point. Thank you!

Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jul 27, 2021

# ? Jul 27, 2021 21:50

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

The politics of immigration are complicated, yes. I'm drawing a distinction between things that require legitimately deep policy, and things that are just politically intractable. The politics are complicated because the politicians are beholden to the racists and xenophobes, but there's nothing complicated about the policy and the solutions; people are inventing complications in order to avoid admitting that the ongoing abuse is a deliberate political decision. With climate change, we have to coordinate world governments, install strict regulations, work against the profit motive of a great number of multinational corporations, invest a huge amount of public funding into infrastructure and technology, and mandate lifestyle changes. With single-payer healthcare, we have the infrastructure to immediately put it right into place, but we need to make a ton of changes at the provider level to allow the healthcare system to weather the shock. With border enforcement, we'd have effective change with few downsides just by firing some motherfuckers.

Immigration is as complicated as anything else in politics. It's nearly it's own field of expertise from academia to government. The policies surrounding global warming, gun control or whatever else are literally no different. Just as we need to handle refugees coming across the border with adequate food, water and shelter we need to lower emissions by eating less meat and driving electric cars. Don't get me wrong it is frustrating that we have the answers, don't do much with them but simply having that will never be enough because what we're lacking is the political courage to make change.

ICE is a government organization with over 20,000 that are unionized and vote. They do things like investigate weapons trafficking, human smuggling and all sorts of terrible things and I would say getting rid of that would be a big downside. Nor is it as simply as just firing people from a job and this is not some kind of invention but reality.

Pentecoastal Elites posted:

The problem you have with my stance is because you don't understand it -- because you can't understand without understanding Marxist class analysis.

We just had a class analysis not even a few pages ago. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny and see my comments about Bush Jr's failed immigration bill. Republicans politicians and politicians in the United States are largely wealthy business owners in the first place and are voting against their own economic interests and class by limiting immigration.

It's because they're racist.

Slow News Day posted:

What exactly is your aim?

Same. I don't understand this mentality. The whole thing here is that when we see awful things like kids in cages is that we harness the energy from our emotions then use that to make a real world difference. As much as I would love to see Biden hold a press conference only to announce he just signed an executive order disbanding ICE it's never going happen and it'd be a bad political move to only be easily spun by Republicans.

# ? Jul 28, 2021 06:08

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

I'm entirely certain that ICE commits vastly more human trafficking than it even pretends to 'investigate'.

Fire them, break their union, and arrest them for investigation and prosecution.

# ? Jul 28, 2021 06:28

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

From your suggestions I get the vague impression that you may not be aware of how ICE came to be, and the state of affairs before it.

<snip>

It is kind of interesting that on the one hand, you admit that the FBI "has its own share of issues" (understatement of the century, ladies and gentlemen), while on the other, you want to give it even more responsibilities, which you assume it can perform as well. You also seem to assume that if and when ICE is abolished and its responsibilities folded into the FBI, a lot of the same shitbags who infest ICE will not simply be recruited by the FBI due to their experience with immigration enforcement. Suffice it to say, I think you need to think about this a tad more carefully.

This entire post is irrelevant to the argument at hand. People who say "ICE is bad and should be abolished" are not looking for a letter-of-the-law solution where the exact same apparatus is rebranded. Just like "Black lives matter" or "Defund the police" it is not just the literal face value meaning, but also a shorthand for a wide range of related policy goals - in this case, "Tear down America's immigration apparatus and restart from the ground up." Do you agree that this would be a good thing to do? Apologies if there's some loophole in my statement that you'd rather build into a molehill.

This is just the most egregious example of this but there is a lot of sidestepping happening in this thread. If yall are just attacking the form of someone's argument, but agree with it, why are you even posting? And if you're attacking the form of the argument because you disagree with it, why not just actually state your position while you're at it?

# ? Jul 28, 2021 12:34

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Ghost Leviathan posted:

I'm entirely certain that ICE commits vastly more human trafficking than it even pretends to 'investigate'.

Fire them, break their union, and arrest them for investigation and prosecution.

It's awfully convenient that the argument here (the one you're responding to, not your post) can always apply to literally any large harmful institution.

# ? Jul 29, 2021 05:59

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

Looks like Biden's Assistant Attorney General submitted an "appeal to a federal court order requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to vaccinate medically vulnerable people in its custody."

https://dralegal.org/press/ice-vaccine-appeal/

quote:

August 24, 2021�Riverside, CA�Yesterday, the Biden Administration took the surprising step of filing an appeal to a federal court order requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to vaccinate medically vulnerable people in its custody. The filing was in Fraihat v. ICE, which challenges the inhumane and traumatic experience of ICE detention, affecting tens of thousands across the country. Read the government�s vaccine appeal here.

On June 23, Judge Jesus Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered the agency to make COVID-19 vaccines available to all people in ICE detention with medical risk factors that increase their risk of serious COVID-19 complications. Read the order requiring ICE to offer vaccines to medically vulnerable people in detention. This followed multiple previous court orders admonishing ICE for systemic failures in their response to the pandemic, starting with the Court�s April 2020 injunction ordering ICE to identify and review for release those with risk factors in its custody and establish other procedures for limiting the spread of COVID-19 inside detention centers.

�As a legal matter, this appeal is disappointing. As a public health matter, it�s outrageous,� said Elizabeth Jordan, Director of the Immigration Detention Accountability Project at the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center. �Judge Bernal�s order is consistent with legal standards and protecting people in ICE detention from the Delta variant by offering vaccines is something the Biden Administration should be enthusiastically embracing, not fighting tooth and nail.�

�It is truly appalling that ICE, a known superspreader agency, would seek to reverse a court order recognizing its obligation to vaccinate medically vulnerable people it chooses to jail. The Biden Administration�s appeal completely contradicts its own rhetoric on the importance of vaccination to end this pandemic. It threatens to place in jeopardy the lives of thousands of people at increased medical risk at a time when a dangerous variant of COVID-19 is rising across the country and more and more people are being admitted to ICE detention,� said Rosa Lee Bichell, an attorney at Disability Rights Advocates. �This kind of disregard for human life highlights the importance of reviewing people for release from this unjust system, as ordered by the Court nearly a year and a half ago.�

�The court only ordered vaccines be offered because ICE had no real plan in place, resulting in unacceptably low vaccination levels in these extremely high-risk settings,� said Veronica Salama, an attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center. �The order gave ICE 30 days to vaccinate a few thousand high-risk people, a fairly straightforward proposition. But, rather than fulfilling its responsibilities, ICE has chosen to fight the order as COVID cases once again spike across the country and the ICE detained population balloons. It is abhorrent.�

Fraihat v. ICE was filed by the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC), Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in August of 2019. Read more about the case here.

I think it's a bad appeal and I hope it fails.

# ? Aug 26, 2021 17:32

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

That link to "read the government's vaccine appeal here" just downloads the list of DoJ respondents, not the actual appeal.

What in the world was the DoJ's rationale in appealing the decision? Too much work for temporary detainees? Too hard to track the vaccinated? Too expensive, given the money they're doling out to flood-remediation specialists as contractors overseeing the kiddy concentration camps?

I wish any of the posters who earlier itt seemed to have arguments for why every action under Biden was far better than when it was happening under Trump would weigh in & explain this one, too--and I mean that sincerely, not as a gotcha, bc I have no clue why the government would contest this decision, either from a humane angle or a public-health one.

# ? Aug 26, 2021 20:44

Ciprian Maricon: Feb 27, 2006

Willa Rogers posted:

What in the world was the DoJ's rationale in appealing the decision? Too much work for temporary detainees? Too hard to track the vaccinated? Too expensive, given the money they're doling out to flood-remediation specialists as contractors overseeing the kiddy concentration camps?

It's almost certainly the same old refrain they've given other times the administration has appealed rulings that are either morally correct or in the interest of the President. It's happened multiple times, I think the first was when they appealed the decision to release the full memo about why Trump wasn't charged with obstruction and its always the same refrain about how important the rules are and how its always the DoJs job to appeal etc.

# ? Aug 26, 2021 21:41

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Does anyone have a link to the appeal itself? That might have some sort of rationale in it.

# ? Aug 27, 2021 02:02

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

It looks like the summary is slightly misleading, because this is a lawsuit that significantly predates the existence of a vaccine - and, in fact, predates the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic itself. The original lawsuit was filed back in 2019, and while the latest order from the judge does mention vaccination (the first one to do so in two years of back-and-forth judicial wrestling), it's a minor part of the order.

Here is the order they're currently appealing:

quote:

Before the Court are the Special Master’s First Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiffs’ motion to modify and adopt the report as
modified, and Defendants’ objections to the Report. The Court has
carefully reviewed the Report, the motion, and the objections and
hereby adopts the findings and recommendations as its own. The
government is hereby ordered to:
1. Continue its efforts to work with the Special Master and
Plaintiffs’ counsel to confirm that all subclass members
have had an individualized and meaningful review to
determine if release is warranted and to conduct
redeterminations where necessary;
2. Track the reasons for transfers of subclass members and
provide that information to the Special Master and
Plaintiffs’ counsel biweekly, (i.e., every other week); and
3. Make vaccinations available to all subclass members within
30 days of today.

# ? Aug 27, 2021 02:18

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

Don't forget the detail about if the covid vaccine is of the "two-shot protocol". Because let's not beat around the bush, this order is (present tense) concerned about the covid vaccinations. The original suit could predate the spanish flu and what its creation predates still wouldn't be relevant to this discussion.

Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Aug 27, 2021

# ? Aug 27, 2021 02:50

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

I don't know about anyone else but I still have not found a rationale for the appeal.

Has anyone else had more luck?

# ? Sep 16, 2021 14:15

PeterCat: Apr 8, 2020; Believe women.

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/immigration/2021/09/19/haitian-migrants-tough-choices-crackdown-del-rio-texas-border/8411152002/

Remember all the new rapid removals are happening under title 42 which is being used to remove people from the United States and prevent immigration to the United States under the auspices of controlling these spread of covid.

This is what Trump did and it is what Biden is doing.

Trump was going to deploy the national guard to the border for 12 month tours, Biden is deploying them to the border for 13 month tours.

Given the history of the United States has a interfering in Haiti I don't see how Afghan refugees can be given priority while Haitians get a quick flight back to Port-au-Prince.

And apparently The Senate can't pass immigration reform due to it being blocked by the parliamentarian.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/19/1038776731/in-a-blow-to-democrats-senate-official-blocks-immigration-reform-in-budget-bill

In the future why would anybody who cares about immigrant rights ever vote for the Democratic Party?

# ? Sep 20, 2021 03:47

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

PeterCat posted:

Given the history of the United States has a interfering in Haiti I don't see how Afghan refugees can be given priority while Haitians get a quick flight back to Port-au-Prince.

You know why.

# ? Sep 20, 2021 04:18

PeterCat: Apr 8, 2020; Believe women.

Office Pig posted:

You know why.

Hmm.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Sep 20, 2021 19:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Biden administration will raise the cap on refugee admissions to 125,000.

President Biden intends to increase to 125,000 the number of refugees who can enter the United States in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, the State Department announced on Monday, making good on his campaign pledge to do so.

Mr. Biden�s decision is unlikely to affect two groups of people most recently in the news: tens of thousands of people from Kabul fleeing the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and more than 15,000 Haitians in a sprawling, makeshift camp under a bridge at the southern border. The people in those groups are not officially classified as refugees.

# ? Sep 21, 2021 00:44

PeterCat: Apr 8, 2020; Believe women.

Discendo Vox posted:

The Biden administration will raise the cap on refugee admissions to 125,000.

President Biden intends to increase to 125,000 the number of refugees who can enter the United States in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, the State Department announced on Monday, making good on his campaign pledge to do so.

Mr. Biden�s decision is unlikely to affect two groups of people most recently in the news: tens of thousands of people from Kabul fleeing the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and more than 15,000 Haitians in a sprawling, makeshift camp under a bridge at the southern border. The people in those groups are not officially classified as refugees.

I was going to say, most of the people crossing the southern border would not count as refugees.

They should but they're not going to be considered as such.

And I don't know how they can justify letting an increase number of refugees is when their whole rationale and fig leaf for operations at the border are"covid control."

# ? Sep 21, 2021 01:34

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

How the gently caress are people fleeing Afghanistan after our withdrawal not considered refugees?

# ? Sep 21, 2021 02:09

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

PeterCat posted:

I was going to say, most of the people crossing the southern border would not count as refugees.

They should but they're not going to be considered as such.

And I don't know how they can justify letting an increase number of refugees is when their whole rationale and fig leaf for operations at the border are"covid control."

Are you saying that effectively fighting covid means closing down our borders?

# ? Sep 21, 2021 02:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Muscle Tracer posted:

How the gently caress are people fleeing Afghanistan after our withdrawal not considered refugees?

Immigration law is highly complex and I'm not an expert; this is the relevant page from USCIS.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees

# ? Sep 21, 2021 04:03

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Is this the place to talk about how right-wing controlled media is trying to gin up outrage and fearmongering now that there's a D in the white house? Like, they've been spreading the "Biden says don't come" myth, and that's blatantly untrue. Like yes, technically, he did say those words, but "the claim was true at face value, though it lacked necessary context to fully comprehend why Biden made the statement." It's not like Biden is telling people "black immigrants to america will be chased through the desert by whip-wielding men on horses, and this is a policy I support." In fact, it is the opposite.

In other words, while Biden indeed cautioned people against making the trip to border crossings in March 2021, his comments implied that he would take a different stance in the future when his administration completed its rollout of changes to the country�s asylum-seeking process.

So, is there a timeline on how these changes will be implemented? Do these changes eliminate the "run people down on horseback" budget? Should I expect the guys who did that to go to jail or be fired? I understand that the executive branch has basically no power over hiring/firing and criminal charges, though.

# ? Sep 24, 2021 07:52

Nucleic Acids: Apr 10, 2007

You don�t need to worry about the �run people down on horseback budget� - they�re not going to be allowed to use horses anymore!

# ? Sep 24, 2021 15:26

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Sharkie posted:

Is this the place to talk about how right-wing controlled media is trying to gin up outrage and fearmongering now that there's a D in the white house? Like, they've been spreading the "Biden says don't come" myth, and that's blatantly untrue. Like yes, technically, he did say those words, but "the claim was true at face value, though it lacked necessary context to fully comprehend why Biden made the statement." It's not like Biden is telling people "black immigrants to america will be chased through the desert by whip-wielding men on horses, and this is a policy I support." In fact, it is the opposite.

In other words, while Biden indeed cautioned people against making the trip to border crossings in March 2021, his comments implied that he would take a different stance in the future when his administration completed its rollout of changes to the country�s asylum-seeking process.

So, is there a timeline on how these changes will be implemented? Do these changes eliminate the "run people down on horseback" budget? Should I expect the guys who did that to go to jail or be fired? I understand that the executive branch has basically no power over hiring/firing and criminal charges, though.

I don't think there's much room for something like "the claim was true at face value, though it lacked necessary context to fully comprehend why Biden made the statement" in modern political discourse. Out-of-context soundbites have been an effective political weapon for basically as long as it's been possible to spread them, but social media has made it especially bad, and this place is basically just a Facebook group your family doesn't post on.

Besides, "we'll do things the way you hate right now, but later on we'll totally do a 180 and do things the way you like, just wait till the right time, honest" has been done quite often by both sides in recent decades, and has ended in disappointment quite a few times. I can't fault anyone for not buying it. On top of that, that waiting period has a serious impact on the people who need the policy change. By definition, refugees and asylum-seekers usually aren't really in a position to just sit around in their home countries waiting for conditions to be more politically convenient for the US government.

# ? Sep 24, 2021 16:15

Direwolf: Aug 16, 2004; Fwar

Muscle Tracer posted:

How the gently caress are people fleeing Afghanistan after our withdrawal not considered refugees?

Unfortunately, the common understanding of refugee (someone fleeing war or violence) doesn't square US immigration law defining refugees, which was largely codified based on standards adopted post WWII to prevent what happened then to Jewish refugees, who were often turned away because they weren't fleeing war specifically.

Broadly, refugees to the US must be members of an identifiable protected class of people, or people who have had that imputed onto them (example - if you were Sikh but were misidentified as Muslim in a context where there's violence against Muslims, it would count despite you not being Muslim), who are fleeing violence that the government is unwilling or unable to prevent. There are specific categories and a broad "identifiable social group" category that you can try to argue your way into being, but the crux of it is that merely being a victim of war is almost never qualifying to be a refugee. So, refugees from afghanistan don't have a claim unless they are being targeted specifically, so if they are a religious or ethnic minority that the Taliban has threatened or is known to execute or attack, if they are a member of the former political class, etc. The general Afghan public fleeing the inevitable destruction of their civil society do not have a claim.

Haitians are in an even worse boat, because the collapse of their country and government isn't targeted violence for the most part, so almost none of them will have an asylum claim. There are some offers for humanitarian parole but that's always a very tenuous thing as you exist at the pleasure of the govt, and even best case scenario you might have to leave immediately once the presidential party changes, and there's no path to permanence.

The laws should be changed, but most efforts at changing them have go nowhere. There have been serious bipartisan pushes for large scale immigration reform since George W. Bush and none of them have succeeded.

# ? Sep 24, 2021 18:44

CourtFundedPoster: Feb 2, 2019

This is a slightly technical question, but I am not sure where else to ask it, and it's something I've always been interested in.

A lot of government statistics will cite the number of documented immigrants coming into this country as "about 1 million a year". For example, the USCIS statistical yearbook lists the number in 2019 as 1,031,765.
While at the same time a lot of news articles will mention that the yearly visa cap is 675,000 coming from the 1990 act.

What is causing the discrepancy in these numbers? I know that the yearbook specifically states that the million figure includes "readjustments of status" which I presume would mean those that where going from temporary work visas to permanent ones, but I thought those were also artificially limited on both ends (hence the horrific wait times)? Is the remainder just a matter of those categories not subject to limitations like spouses and parents? I remember reading somewhere that spousal visas only account for like 30,000 a year, which would leave a lot of difference to be made up.

# ? Sep 24, 2021 20:21

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

CourtFundedPoster posted:

This is a slightly technical question, but I am not sure where else to ask it, and it's something I've always been interested in.

A lot of government statistics will cite the number of documented immigrants coming into this country as "about 1 million a year". For example, the USCIS statistical yearbook lists the number in 2019 as 1,031,765.
While at the same time a lot of news articles will mention that the yearly visa cap is 675,000 coming from the 1990 act.

What is causing the discrepancy in these numbers? I know that the yearbook specifically states that the million figure includes "readjustments of status" which I presume would mean those that where going from temporary work visas to permanent ones, but I thought those were also artificially limited on both ends (hence the horrific wait times)? Is the remainder just a matter of those categories not subject to limitations like spouses and parents? I remember reading somewhere that spousal visas only account for like 30,000 a year, which would leave a lot of difference to be made up.

According to DHS, in 2016, a total of 1,183,505 people were granted green cards.

Roughly half of those went to immediate relatives of US citizens. Another 240k went to "family-sponsored preference", such as children of US citizens or spouses of permanent residents. Roughly 150k went to refugees and asylum claims, and a bit under 140k went to employer-sponsored green cards. The other categories amount to only 70k combined.

# ? Sep 24, 2021 22:41

PeterCat: Apr 8, 2020; Believe women.

https://www.businessinsider.com/title-42-judge-orders-biden-administration-to-stop-expelling-families-2021-9

The Biden-Harris administration is fighting to retain the ability to deny sanctuary and to rapidly remove migrants under the guise of Covid control, aka Title 42.

"Title 42: Judge orders Biden administration to stop expelling families that cross the border to seek asylum

A US federal judge on Thursday gave the federal government two weeks to stop summarily expelling families with children who cross the border to seek asylum � a demand that the Biden administration is appealing."

# ? Sep 29, 2021 04:28

Nucleic Acids: Apr 10, 2007

PeterCat posted:

https://www.businessinsider.com/title-42-judge-orders-biden-administration-to-stop-expelling-families-2021-9

The Biden-Harris administration is fighting to retain the ability to deny sanctuary and to rapidly remove migrants under the guise of Covid control, aka Title 42.

"Title 42: Judge orders Biden administration to stop expelling families that cross the border to seek asylum

A US federal judge on Thursday gave the federal government two weeks to stop summarily expelling families with children who cross the border to seek asylum � a demand that the Biden administration is appealing."

The cruelty is the point.

# ? Oct 1, 2021 14:35

Ciprian Maricon: Feb 27, 2006

https://news.yahoo.com/border-patrol-horse-unit-alive-135400341.html

It's loving shameful that this administration can't even maintain as weak and gutless a reform as "no more horses and whips for brown people" for even the blink of an eye before regressing.

Also, its hosed up that this thread continually falls to the second page or even farther because of the lack of "news" surrounding the topic, which is a deliberate act by the administration and helped here by the dumb rule that topics need to be kept out of USPOL so the same liberals who spent a year crying crocodile tears about kids in cages don't have to be confronted with the fact that the racist geriatric they elected doesn't give a gently caress about immigrants at all.

# ? Oct 6, 2021 16:44

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Ciprian Maricon posted:

https://news.yahoo.com/border-patrol-horse-unit-alive-135400341.html

It's loving shameful that this administration can't even maintain as weak and gutless a reform as "no more horses and whips for brown people" for even the blink of an eye before regressing.

Also, its hosed up that this thread continually falls to the second page or even farther because of the lack of "news" surrounding the topic, which is a deliberate act by the administration and helped here by the dumb rule that topics need to be kept out of USPOL so the same liberals who spent a year crying crocodile tears about kids in cages don't have to be confronted with the fact that the racist geriatric they elected doesn't give a gently caress about immigrants at all.

When you post something in a fast-moving thread like USNews, there's a very high likelihood that it will get lost in the noise, since there's a ton of competition with other topics.

When you post something in a specialized topic thread such as this, anyone who is interested in the topic is guaranteed to see it, and will be much more likely to actually read it, since there aren't 500+ other posts to sift through.

# ? Oct 6, 2021 18:17

Ciprian Maricon: Feb 27, 2006

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

When you post something in a specialized topic thread such as this, anyone who is interested in the topic is guaranteed to see it

That's the problem, people aren't interested. Segregating the discussion to where its conveniently ignored doesn't help that.

# ? Oct 6, 2021 18:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Ciprian Maricon posted:

That's the problem, people aren't interested. Segregating the discussion to where its conveniently ignored doesn't help that.

I already had to deal with this bullshit story over here. It's a story in the Washington Examiner, laundered through yahoo news by whomever originally gave it to you, that's lying or being deliberately misleading about a) what the administration actually said or did and b) the sources claiming inaction by the administration.

You should think, carefully, about why you found the story appealing, and the interests of the source from which you got the story, and why you didn't apply any scrutiny to it before sharing it here.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Oct 6, 2021

# ? Oct 6, 2021 18:41

Ciprian Maricon: Feb 27, 2006

Discendo Vox posted:

You should think, carefully, about why you found the story appealing, and the interests of the source from which you got the story, and why you didn't apply any scrutiny to it before sharing it here.

It's a bad story I guess and I'm deeply sorry for derailing the breakneck pace of discussion here. It resonated with my experience as an immigrant. Congrats though, you've successfully defended the needlessly cruel immigration apparatus of the United States, maybe you should think carefully about why you're interested in doing that before posting here.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Oct 6, 2021 19:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 16:44

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Ciprian Maricon posted:

https://news.yahoo.com/border-patrol-horse-unit-alive-135400341.html

It's loving shameful that this administration can't even maintain as weak and gutless a reform as "no more horses and whips for brown people" for even the blink of an eye before regressing.

Also, its hosed up that this thread continually falls to the second page or even farther because of the lack of "news" surrounding the topic, which is a deliberate act by the administration and helped here by the dumb rule that topics need to be kept out of USPOL so the same liberals who spent a year crying crocodile tears about kids in cages don't have to be confronted with the fact that the racist geriatric they elected doesn't give a gently caress about immigrants at all.

This was actually posted in USNews, discussed for like a page, and then completely buried by Senate-watchers speculating endlessly about Sinema's every move. That's why there's separate issue threads - so issues with a little news don't get drowned out by issues with a lot of news.

The debunking of that article was posted in USNews too, but DisVox already linked that.

# ? Oct 6, 2021 19:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Immigration Policy Megathread

«‹›36 »