• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Election 2020 The 2020 Candidates: Right, Left and Center!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Burnt Offerings said:
Yeah it's hilarious to see people on cable news freak out after Sanders steamrolled the competition in Nevada.

His victory speech from Texas yesterday was fire. He played all the hits, Medicare 4 All, Green New Deal, 15 dollar minimum wage etc.
Click to expand...

I think he really did his homework between 2016 and now. I think he's got a real shot at Texas.
 
JessFR said:
God I find this disgustingly heartless.

"break the law", what crap. Human beings will do what they have to do in the circumstances they find themselves in. Hiding behind the law is what you do when you have such a fortunate life yourself that you can afford the luxury of abiding by the arbitrary laws you're subject too.
Click to expand...

Apart from drug use which I can agree with, then which laws do you approve of breaking where people shouldn't be punished? Do you think you should be able to enter another country illegally? Why/why not? If you were in trouble would you apply for asylum or would you send your children across the border with psychopathic gangsters, rapists and child traffickers?
 
JGrimez said:
If you were in trouble would you apply for asylum or would you send your children across the border with psychopathic gangsters, rapists and child traffickers?
Click to expand...

When the process to be approved for asylum can take years, and your children are going to be pressed into gangs soon, is there really a feasible choice?
 
Xorkoth said:
When the process to be approved for asylum can take years, and your children are going to be pressed into gangs soon, is there really a feasible choice?
Click to expand...
This sounds made-up or a minority of cases. Mexico is the second-largest economy in Latin America and the 15th-largest economy in the world. So should anyone from Central America be allowed to illegally cross into Mexico? I would support the US using diplomacy to help alleviate some of the serious internal problems that these countries are facing. What liberals do is instead of suggesting something like that to help the problem , they decide that border-jumping is somehow acceptable, or moral enough so that people should just accept it (and for some reason give sanctuary to illegals that commit serious crimes).
 
According to immigrationforum.org which pulls data from the .gov website (which I have also looked at):

immigrationforum.org

Fact Sheet: U.S. Asylum Process

Note: The asylum process is one of many parts of the U.S. immigration system that have been significantly changed in the wake of the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As of March 20, 2020, all new asylum seekers have been denied access to the asylum process and are being immediately...
immigrationforum.org immigrationforum.org

Basically, the process takes up to several years, during which t hey are held in detention, and unless they can afford to hire an attorney, only about 28% are granted asylum. This number jumps to 50% with legal representation.
 
I can't seem to post the quote I am trying to from the article, it says there are problems.

How long does the asylum process take?

The length of the asylum process varies, but it typically takes between 6 months and several years. The length of asylum process may vary depending on whether the asylum seeker filed affirmatively or defensively and on the particular facts of his or her asylum claim.

Under the affirmative asylum process, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires USCIS to schedule the initial interview within 45 days after the application is filed and make a decision within 180 days after the application date.

Under the defensive asylum process, applicants must go through the immigration court system, which faces significant backlogs. As of July 2018, there were over 733,000 pending immigration cases and the average wait time for an immigration hearing was 721 days. The backlog has been worsening over the past decade as the funding for immigration judges has faileed to keep pacewith an increasing case load.

Are asylum seekers released before their immigration court hearings?

It depends. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) requires all individuals seeking asylum at ports of entry to be detained. They remain in detention even after officials confirm their claims as credible, unless the officials decide the applicants are unlikely to flee and do not pose a safety threat. In addition, they must pay a bail, which they often cannot afford. If released, many asylum seekers are monitored by GPS ankle bracelets. Data show that 96 percent of asylum applicants show up to all their immigration court hearings.

If officials determine the applicants’ claims are not credible the asylum seekers are ordered for “expedited removal” and do not receive an immigration court hearing.

Under prior administrations, immigration authorities regularly released migrants from custody while their cases were pending in the immigration court system. Those migrants were still required to check in with immigration authorities and attend hearings in immigration court. The Trump administration has modified these policies to release as few asylum seekers as possible. A recent federal court decision requiring case-by-case determinations as to whether asylum seekers pose a flight risk or threat to public safety is likely to lead to more releases pending their hearings.

Does the government provide defensive asylum seekers with appointed immigration lawyers?

No. Asylum seekers may hire their own attorney if they can afford to do so, but are not provided an attorney by the government, as criminal defendants are. Some attorneys offer pro bono services to asylum seekers and UACs in immigration proceedings.

Chances of obtaining asylum are statistically five times higher if the applicant has an attorney. In FY 2017, 90 percent of applicants without an attorney were denied, while almost half of those with representation were successful in receiving asylum.

How many people are granted asylum?

Nearly 20,500 individuals in FY 2016. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, 20,455 individuals were granted asylum, which is about 28 percent out of the 73,081 cases. Approval rates varied by immigration court from about 10 percent to 80 percent.
Click to expand...

Average wait til until trial is 721 days, in the meantime they are held in detention/separated. If they can pay bail, they are released in an ankle bracelet. Unclear on whether they are reunited with children at this time.

To get it to post I had to edit out all the source links embedded in the text but the link to the page allows you to check those.
 
Xorkoth said:
I can't seem to post the quote I am trying to from the article, it says there are problems.



Average wait til until trial is 721 days, in the meantime they are held in detention/separated. If they can pay bail, they are released in an ankle bracelet. Unclear on whether they are reunited with children at this time.

To get it to post I had to edit out all the source links embedded in the text but the link to the page allows you to check those.
Click to expand...

I would agree to speed up the asylum process. The solution however is not to just allow free travel across the border. If anything if they crack down on the massive costs that result from illegal immigration then they could redirect those funds into improving the asylum process.
 
JGrimez said:
Apart from drug use which I can agree with, then which laws do you approve of breaking where people shouldn't be punished? Do you think you should be able to enter another country illegally? Why/why not? If you were in trouble would you apply for asylum or would you send your children across the border with psychopathic gangsters, rapists and child traffickers?
Click to expand...

I would do whatever I felt had to do. Legal or not. And if I honestly felt the gangsters gave me a better option, yeah I'd probably choose that.

I'm not a big believer in "punishing" people at all. I believe that if someone needs to be incarcerated it should be because it's too dangerous to other people for them to be free. I'd only support punishment if it had the same outcome, improving community safety. But most of the time I don't believe punishment has such a consequence. It's just to make people feel like justice had been done by deliberately causing harm to someone else. I don't support that in principle. Harm should be a regrettable consequence of what has to be done, not what is to be done for its own sake.

I'm not an anarchist. I believe in having laws. This isn't about me thinking it's wrong to have laws preventing certain people from entering the country on principle. That is sometimes necessary. But I can't hold it against someone for breaking such a law in the interests of their own lives and that of their families.

People will do what they have to do. You can't expect them not to. You may have to stop them for the good of your own interests or those of the community, but that doesn't mean they've done something inherently immoral.
 
JessFR said:
I would do whatever I felt had to do. Legal or not. And if I honestly felt the gangsters gave me a better option, yeah I'd probably choose that.

I'm not a big believer in "punishing" people at all. I believe that if someone needs to be incarcerated it should be because it's too dangerous to other people for them to be free. I'd only support punishment if it had the same outcome, improving community safety. But most of the time I don't believe punishment has such a consequence. It's just to make people feel like justice had been done by deliberately causing harm to someone else. I don't support that in principle. Harm should be a regrettable consequence of what has to be done, not what is to be done for its own sake.

I'm not an anarchist. I believe in having laws. This isn't about me thinking it's wrong to have laws preventing certain people from entering the country on principle. That is sometimes necessary. But I can't hold it against someone for breaking such a law in the interests of their own lives and that of their families.

People will do what they have to do. You can't expect them not to. You may have to stop them for the good of your own interests or those of the community, but that doesn't mean they've done something inherently immoral.
Click to expand...

It couldn't be because a sizable segment of the US government is actively trying to entice people to do this, by offering welfare, free healthcare, driving licenses and sanctuary to illegal immigrants. Then there's the drug and cartel trades that certain politicians may or may not be indirectly profiting from. You have to disincentivize people to come over illegally. Unfortunately Democrats like illegal immigration for political reasons and prey on the heartstrings of their supporters so that they'll defend the practice. Where we can agree is probably on improving the methods and the facilities for detaining these people. But if you're not ok with detention in general then you're for open borders and not for enforcing the law as you claim. And then you have to decide how many hundreds of millions of people you want to allow in, because if they have a story about how their family is in danger then who are you to tell them no? You let in this guy before them so you have to let in everyone. Also it may seem like I come across as unsympathetic but that's just leftist programming. I want to help people overseas but there are people suffering inside the US. Take care of the citizens of your own country that desperately need help before focusing your efforts elsewhere (and obviously stop f**king around elsewhere).

mal3volent said:
bloomberg won't win
Click to expand...
They said Trump wouldn't win.

Bloomberg endured perhaps the most disastrous debate performance ever and his support rose. The powah of the dollar$.
If it was a fair race I think Sanders would win but we're seeing them playing similar dirty tricks to screw Sanders' campaign. I hope to God that the electoral fraud is busted wide open.
If Bloomberg does get the nod, let's see how much of b**** Sanders is and see if he: rolls over and takes it, says nothing to expose them or stand up for himself and then ultimately endorses the billionaire. He's gonna be in a tough position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top