Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, attempting to put political pressure on Republicans, announced Sunday that the chamber will vote this week on a long-negotiated bipartisan border bill that Republicans blocked earlier this year.
Republicans have been manufacturing outrage at the border to score political points on a regular basis, like that migrant caravan which convenes every four years like a Fox News political convention.
However, this recent crisis is a bit different, as we have numbers that show that there have been an increase in asylum claims at the border vs. before the Pandemic, which is overwhelming the courts that handle this sort of thing. If someone makes it over the border and claims asylum, it can take years to get a hearing, and in the meantime they can live and work here. That was not the intent behind the asylum process.
Some Senators on both sides realized this, and used the opportunity to try and fix the asylum process. Yes, it also reduces the types of people who could claim asylum. But it also addresses critical staffing shortages in CBP and other agencies who have to deal with the influx of migrants on a daily basis.
So, this is an evidence-based attempt to make things better. So, of course, Trump is against it, because using immigration as a campaign plank matters more to him than fixing the problem. As much as he complains about it, having the problem to talk about is more valuable to him than fixing it.
So, this is an evidence-based attempt to make things better
Just because Republicans keep saying something doesn’t make it “evidence”…
If that was true, Joe Biden would be a Communist that’s more progressive than AOC, whose trying to pass strict gun laws, tax the rich, fight climate change, and get universal healthcare.
I’d love for that to be true, but it’s not. And republicans repeating it over and over again won’t suddenly make it try.
Just because Republicans keep saying something doesn’t make it “evidence”…
Maybe this does:
A Sober Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog
At the end of FY 2012, over 100,000 asylum cases were pending in the Immigration Court’s backlog. A decade later, the backlog had grown over 7-fold to over 750,000 cases in September at the end of FY 2022. Since then, in just the first two months of FY 2023 (October-November 2022), the asylum backlog jumped by over 30,000 new cases and now totals 787,882. See Figure 1.
You think the existence of a large backlog of asylum seekers… Means we should deny all asylum seekers?
I don’t understand any of that logic…
Wouldn’t the fix be to process all those applications?
You don’t think people waiting years for asylum are going to try and cross illegally out of desperation?
I appreciate you linking that to show an actual problem with the border, but I have zero idea how you think this makes it better instead of worse.
Like, at all, unless I’m confused and you’ve been agreeing with me this whole time, I don’t understand why you would link something so harmful to your own argument
Quite a bit. Have you read the bill? Section I is doing a lot of hiring and training changes for border personnel. Section II is entirely centered on enhancements to the asylum review process. It’s mostly minutiae like streamlining certain bars for entry and such. There is also the contentious 5k/day (likely to be 4k under an R admin since it’s discretionary) threshold in Section III that triggers a full stop to entry until some of the backlog is cleared. Not sure I fully agree with that one but it will indisputably have an impact on the backlog.
There is also the contentious 5k/day (likely to be 4k under an R admin since it’s discretionary) threshold in Section III that triggers a full stop to entry until some of the backlog is cleared.
So…
The limit is discretionary if they can change it…
So they could do it at any point, just like I was saying?
And I still don’t know why/how not accepting more applications or not allowing anyone else to cross the border actually fixes the backlog.
Like, them saying they’ll hire more people could help. But if you had experience with a government agency, you’d know they’re always saying they’re going to increase staffing, and rarely random to do more than keep up with people leaving.
But thanks for letting me know what was in there is what I’ve been saying is in there.
No, it’s discretionary down to a limit of 4k, which is also in the text of the bill. I really think you should stop commenting strongly on things you haven’t even read. It’s not a great look. You can find the section by section and full text on Lankford’s site. He led the bipartisan team that introduced the bill, but I’m sure you can find it elsewhere.
Republicans have been manufacturing outrage at the border to score political points on a regular basis, like that migrant caravan which convenes every four years like a Fox News political convention.
However, this recent crisis is a bit different, as we have numbers that show that there have been an increase in asylum claims at the border vs. before the Pandemic, which is overwhelming the courts that handle this sort of thing. If someone makes it over the border and claims asylum, it can take years to get a hearing, and in the meantime they can live and work here. That was not the intent behind the asylum process.
Some Senators on both sides realized this, and used the opportunity to try and fix the asylum process. Yes, it also reduces the types of people who could claim asylum. But it also addresses critical staffing shortages in CBP and other agencies who have to deal with the influx of migrants on a daily basis.
So, this is an evidence-based attempt to make things better. So, of course, Trump is against it, because using immigration as a campaign plank matters more to him than fixing the problem. As much as he complains about it, having the problem to talk about is more valuable to him than fixing it.
Just because Republicans keep saying something doesn’t make it “evidence”…
If that was true, Joe Biden would be a Communist that’s more progressive than AOC, whose trying to pass strict gun laws, tax the rich, fight climate change, and get universal healthcare.
I’d love for that to be true, but it’s not. And republicans repeating it over and over again won’t suddenly make it try.
Maybe this does:
A Sober Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog
https://trac.syr.edu/reports/705/
What?
You think the existence of a large backlog of asylum seekers… Means we should deny all asylum seekers?
I don’t understand any of that logic…
Wouldn’t the fix be to process all those applications?
You don’t think people waiting years for asylum are going to try and cross illegally out of desperation?
I appreciate you linking that to show an actual problem with the border, but I have zero idea how you think this makes it better instead of worse.
Like, at all, unless I’m confused and you’ve been agreeing with me this whole time, I don’t understand why you would link something so harmful to your own argument
I never said that, and that’s not what this bill does. If you are going to lie about stuff, then there is no point to argue with you.
So what does the bill that’s a “compromise” with republicans do to clear the backlog of asylum seekers?
Quite a bit. Have you read the bill? Section I is doing a lot of hiring and training changes for border personnel. Section II is entirely centered on enhancements to the asylum review process. It’s mostly minutiae like streamlining certain bars for entry and such. There is also the contentious 5k/day (likely to be 4k under an R admin since it’s discretionary) threshold in Section III that triggers a full stop to entry until some of the backlog is cleared. Not sure I fully agree with that one but it will indisputably have an impact on the backlog.
So…
The limit is discretionary if they can change it…
So they could do it at any point, just like I was saying?
And I still don’t know why/how not accepting more applications or not allowing anyone else to cross the border actually fixes the backlog.
Like, them saying they’ll hire more people could help. But if you had experience with a government agency, you’d know they’re always saying they’re going to increase staffing, and rarely random to do more than keep up with people leaving.
But thanks for letting me know what was in there is what I’ve been saying is in there.
No, it’s discretionary down to a limit of 4k, which is also in the text of the bill. I really think you should stop commenting strongly on things you haven’t even read. It’s not a great look. You can find the section by section and full text on Lankford’s site. He led the bipartisan team that introduced the bill, but I’m sure you can find it elsewhere.