POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Perhaps it depends on who you ask. How many of those cases are tried in absentia, where the illegal immigrant fails to appear for their subsequent court date?

Personally, I prefer that our democratically determined immigration laws and policies should be adhered to, and that aliens wishing to immigrate here would avail themselves of it.

Perhaps I am alone, in that.

 

less than 15% fail to show up.

Democratically determined laws allow for applying for amnesty, current policy deliberately undermines and conflicts with that. now what?

 

So, prior to 2017, you’re saying that it was always illegal - “illegal” meaning, a criminal offense or “against the law” - to enter the US without authorization, unless that illegal entrant person also and later declared a request for amnesty?

Are you certain that I am correct in re-stating your claim, and that you are correct in believing it?

You ended on a good note, with a good question, and which has surprisingly gone unasked for quite a long time - if Trump is stopping the catch-and-release policies, holding those detained in camps, and deporting those both caught crossing or residing here illegally....why are even more illegal immigrants continuing to march toward and illegally crossing our border? Do you have any theories as to why this is?

 

How much would you like to wager that the in absentia rate for the most recent calendar year is above 15% How about $1?

I’d normally add “exceedingly well above” to my question, but I don’t want to risk allowing you any room to argue semantics about what I said, and thus, avoiding your having to mail me $1.

Second, explain to me how the current policy conflicts with the law - this is important to me, and I will carefully consider anything that you say or send to me, regarding any such conflicts.

 

something can be both illegal and not criminal. Speeding, for instance. I didn't say criminal.

I am not a lawyer. maybe someone more dialed in to that realm can help us out.

People are coming because they are desperate, and being paid anything here is better than home in poverty and violence.

no one is marching toward our border, the military rhetoric is inaccurate and unnecessary.

 

if the absentia rate is higher now, that would either mean they are locked up and not allowed to attend or current measures are the most ineffective in history. I am betting on the former- held in custody or told to wait in Mexico, then running up the numbers to push a BS narrative.

 

I'm not trashing Obama's record on immigration. Obaama's record is filled with things the left would now call racist and disqualifying for a democratic candidate.

 

it's amazing how folks want it both ways.

 

Come again?

 

that's not a march.

 

More of a slow trudge, IMHO.

 

when I hear a March on a border, I see an organized motion of a uniformed force. I don't see a migration of people of every age from half a dozen different countries with no weapons as a march. by god, they aren't in step or wearing matching shirts or with some common purpose anymore than me and the folks around me are marching to work.

gonna have to change the name of the vol walk to the vol march. and sorry Pride of the Southland, every fool with two legs and a maraca can be a marching band.

whew. Anyway. I'm [uck fay]ing tired of talking about immigration and shootings. it really doesn't matter what I think anyway.

 

It’s a helluva lot more fun when you do.

 

China manipulating their currency, shocking.

 

We're needlessly drifting a bit, here.

First things first...
The question at hand is one of the il/legality associated with the unauthorized crossing of the US border, both historic and currently.

You're asserting that the unauthorized crossing of the US border has always been historically illegal, but not criminal, and that this changed in 2017, making it simultaneously both illegal and criminal, is that correct?

Now the rest...
There are lots of poverty-stricken and violence-infested areas of the world, and which are not within walking distance of the US border. What should we do about those people in those areas, and what do they also and equally deserve? Should we ship them in from distant shores, and for free? If so, how many, or just any who also wish to come here? How many do you think we can bring in, IP, at maximum?

If we're not going to ship others in from distant shores, why not? Are we saying that those from areas which are contiguously connected to the US are more deserving than others who were not fortunate enough to be so similarly and favorably placed by birth?

Or, are you saying that simply being poor person from a violence-prone area is enough to allow unfettered migration / illegal immigration? If so, I say let's round up some of our own from Appalachia, Chicago, Baltimore, Memphis, Tuscaloosa, Houston, etc. and get them shipped to somewhere else and better, too - Sweden, maybe? Cuba? Canada? If poverty + violence is the new impetus for unchecked migration, I say let's get the US in on the exporting of those in need, too.

And why must their destination necessarily be the US? Are there not other countries who allow legal immigration, and who would not only welcome them, but who may be a more desirable landing spot than the US (what with our mean ol' president, rampant racism, white nationalists, gun violence, roving groups of gang raping jurists, etc.)? Would you be opposed to our deporting any immigrants who illegally crossed our border to any of the utopian European nations, instead?

If these illegal immigrants are merely trying to leave the poverty and violence of their home countries, how many countries do they have to traverse before one could safely say that they have suitably escaped far enough? One country over? Two? Five? Eighteen? Simply, how many countries do these refugees(?) / aliens(?) / migrants(?) have to cross before "escaping poverty and violence" is little more than a euphemism for what is actually just an excuse for "I want to go to America" - and does it matter which one is the true and largest motivation?

No one is marching toward our border, you say? That's curious, because then where are we getting all of these kids that everyone claims we are stacking up in death camp cages at the border? Is the US sending massive groups of child abductors into these countries and raiding them for kids? How are they getting here, IP?

 

How about the numbers of cases decided in abstentia prior to 2018.....or 2016 when Trump arrived....or 2015?

You still want to stick by that figure - that "less than 15%" don't show up to court? I've got a dollar that says you're being silly with that number, and that it can be easily disproven.

 

6-11% in absentia from 2012-2017.

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/download#page=34

 

Here, TT, the acting Director of DHS, in sworn testimony to a Senate subcommittee, from June of 2019:

90% did not show up for their asylum hearing. Didn't they want asylum? I've been told that they all want asylum, and that's why they've came. Which, if true (it isn't), makes it somewhat curious that 90% would skip the actual asylum hearing. You know, where a judge can give them asylum. And again, that I have been told is all that they each want.

But this could very well just be my racism talking, here.

If you watch the video at the link below, skip to the 37:00 mark.

Link:https://ijr.com/dhs-secretary-whopping-percentage-migrants-dont-show-hearing/