If you want to see incompetence...

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Burnthings said:
Well why don't you see what they did before the policy change, surely you can follow your own logic if you're unable to follow mine.
Click to expand...
I did. The folks were processed in and released to society in what is very arguably an illegal and demonstrably an unsafe practice. Previous administration was inclined to force CBP to not follow the law, but to just open the door.

So, that's obviously a bad alternative. What is the good alternative to processing the people in per law, and doing it at the speed that allows for safety and security, with the manpower authorized to be funded by Congress?
 
Burnthings

Burnthings

Active Member
This_person said:
I did. The folks were processed in and released to society in what is very arguably an illegal and demonstrably an unsafe practice. Previous administration was inclined to force CBP to not follow the law, but to just open the door.

So, that's obviously a bad alternative. What is the good alternative to processing the people in per law, and doing it at the speed that allows for safety and security, with the manpower authorized to be funded by Congress?
Click to expand...
What was demonstrably bad about it? Was it worse than the crisis unfolding currently?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Burnthings said:
What was demonstrably bad about it?
Click to expand...

It let unscreened and unverified people into the country, 90+% of which never choosing to go to their asylum adjudication hearings. We don't know who we let in, and they're just out there. That's an enormous security concern, not to mention that if they were valid asylum seekers it is likely they would go to their hearings; thus, the majority are arguably not valid asylum seekers.

Was it worse than the crisis unfolding currently?
Click to expand...

For the US - absolutely without even a smidgen of a doubt.

For false asylum seekers, Mexico, and others seeking to do the US harm, no. It was a much better thing for them.
 
Burnthings

Burnthings

Active Member
This_person said:
It let unscreened and unverified people into the country, 90+% of which never choosing to go to their asylum adjudication hearings. We don't know who we let in, and they're just out there. That's an enormous security concern, not to mention that if they were valid asylum seekers it is likely they would go to their hearings; thus, the majority are arguably not valid asylum seekers.



For the US - absolutely without even a smidgen of a doubt.

For false asylum seekers, Mexico, and others seeking to do the US harm, no. It was a much better thing for them.
Click to expand...

140721

That's not what I'm seeing.

www.humanrightsfirst.org

FACT CHECK: Asylum Seekers Regularly Attend Immigration Court Hearings - Human Rights First

Recent data shows that asylum seekers continue to appear for immigration court proceedings at high rates. In fiscal year 2018, Department of Justice (DOJ) figures show that 89 percent of all asylum applicants attended their final court hearing to receive a decision on their application. When...
www.humanrightsfirst.org www.humanrightsfirst.org

140722


Doesn't seem to affect the crime rate either.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Burnthings said:
That's not what I'm seeing.

Doesn't seem to affect the crime rate either.
Click to expand...
While I don't know where your meme got it's information, but the most recent information I could find shows my numbers were, indeed, wrong.

Only 25% of people (give or take - it's been higher, it's been lower) do not show up. That's on the order of 150,000/year entering the nation without adjudication.

Now, can you explain how THAT is "better" for the United States citizen than taking the time to properly screen and process people coming in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top