Submitted by Shreddersaurusrex t3_10lh10h in nyc
RXisHere t1_j5ymb9x wrote
Reply to comment by acheampong14 in Adams: 'Right-to-shelter' law doesn't extend to migrants by Shreddersaurusrex
Agreed we need to prevent them from entering the country unless they follow the property procedure.
sequencedStimuli t1_j5yy3ve wrote
Our immigration system is broken and all significant compromises reached to fix it (usually by a bipartisan working group of US Senators) are shot down by anti-immigrant conservatives. They prefer the status-quo, which allows ample fearmongering during campaign season and limited immigrant quotas, over any systemic changes involving less chaos and more immigrants.
This nation was built by immigrants. We need to fix our system to more smoothly and humanely integrate the next generations of Americans into our society, not piss away huge amounts of money and effort in a failing bid to keep them out.
RXisHere t1_j5zavvo wrote
I'm not anti immigrant just anti illegal immigration. Big difference. Over a million people crossed the border illegally last year is that ok?
UniWheel t1_j61sj58 wrote
>Over a million people crossed the border illegally last year is that ok?
The people in question did not enter illegally.
They are asylum applicants who made themselves known to and were recorded by the federal government at the border, and then were released to await their hearings in accordance with law.
That is literally how asylum law works - a law which they are following, but an aspect of law you are demonstrating complete ignorance of.
RXisHere t1_j621n66 wrote
Not fucking true. They have to cross a point of entry. Sorry bro
sequencedStimuli t1_j5zfl4y wrote
> I'm not anti immigrant just anti illegal immigration. Big difference.
I clearly laid out my position that both the current panic over high “illegal crossings”, and the general discord over undocumented people in the US during the previous decades, are purposefully manufactured political crises sustained by the same people who avoid improving the situation. It’s not a coincidence that as immigration expanded to include all racial groups, it suddenly became much harder to immigrate legally in the second half of the 20th century & after.
I think instead of this broken system, the US should be open to all immigrants in a manner closer to when my Irish and Italian ancestors immigrated legally with ease during the racist Exclusion Era.
> Over a million people crossed the border illegally last year is that ok?
With the context of what I said above, and given the other option is your authoritarian notion of a militarized border & strict enforcement without huge fixes to the system first, yes I am essentially okay with the crossings. Our nation has always had large inflows of immigrants. What has changed is our ineptitude at providing efficient means of legal immigration at scale. The dysfunction serves a cynical purpose.
Grass8989 t1_j5zhj0w wrote
So we should go back to how immigration was 100+ years ago and provide 0 social services, housing, food, medical care, etc that we are allowing to the current migrants? You can’t compare immigration now to how it was back then.
sequencedStimuli t1_j5zivq7 wrote
Good thing I said "in a manner closer to" that era, which leaves ample room for the assumption that a modernized version of the more permissive system is implied, not a direct return to antiquated policy.
But that would be a good-faith assumption, so I understand why you didn't make it.
UniWheel t1_j61rydo wrote
>Agreed we need to prevent them from entering the country unless they follow the property procedure.
You overlook that following the proper procedure is exactly what the people in question have done.
They are asylum applicants who have been paroled in accordance with law to await their hearings.
These are not "illegal imigrants" trying to hide out of sight but persons known to and recorded by the federal government who are legally present while awaiting their legal hearings.
The numbers are indeed an issue. But making false statements (intentionally or ignorantly) about their status does not help the discussion in the slightest.
RXisHere t1_j621p6q wrote
Your right I should have used the term illegal aliens thanks
UniWheel t1_j621zp6 wrote
>Your right I should have used the term illegal aliens thanks
No, the people this article is about are present legally to await their hearings.
Since you have no idea what you're talking about, further debate would be pointless.
senteroa t1_j5yzhqv wrote
Let's start by deporting anti-immigrant weirdos like yourself
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments