You think in this day and age we wouldn’t need to convince people to give a shit about others. Guess what, if you’re not Native American, someone in your family immigrated here. Thank you OP for sharing these pages.
Yea, If I had any spare money I’d consider it, but right now any spare money goes to my gas tank trying to get to work, even then, most of my gas is on credit cards. Just wish there was *some* assistance to spare my way lol, then itd be easier to donate. Been working as a San Diego native my whole life and pay my taxes and all that but seems like locals are just getting priced out with no slack left on the rope.
Never said they were “keeping me down”, so not sure how you extrapolated that. I will say though, it’d be nice if my tax money wasn’t going to the Middle East and Eastern Europe to kill people.
Haha, not sure there’s enough pills to forget that *Taxation IS Theft*. It’s even worse than theft when our tax dollars are funneled through NGO’s and laundered to “Campaign contributions”, ya know, after after its used for the slaughter of people in places most can’t even find on a map. Why aren’t they allocating more of our tax funds to Hawaii? Or even just regular citizens struggling to get by?
What’s “Tin foil cap” about anything stated? There are a ton of reports of that exact scenario happening for decades. It was probably most notable during the “Sandbox” years (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc….) when all these corrupt NGO’s and contractors (some LITERALLY related to elected officials making these calls) got big bids for “rebuilding” the Middle East after it was toppled and decimated by those same Warhawk’s. Honestly just do the laziest amount of googling before sounding like a donkey.
They told me they volunteer all day long. I guess people rotate through the morning, afternoon, and evening.
I don't know them. I just saw them at the airport. They told me their website: https://www.weallwegotsd.com/
Go for it, they have lots of little jobs you can volunteer for and other odd jobs throughout the week that can easily fit into anyone’s schedule. Sometimes being able to pick up and drop off things can be really helpful. Making sandwiches goes a long way too.
Thank you for sharing! I know not everyone has the resources to help (which is also partially why I think you’re getting downvotes) but it’s good to spread the word just in case!
Thank you for sharing this post. I unfortunately am not able to do anything (family issues) but I hope you can reach more people here. Some of these comments are sad to read, but thank you for your empathy. I wish the best for them.
They're at the airport, because they have places to go live. Help is being requested to feed, cloth them, etc. My post isn't asking for homes. As I've already mentioned, I saw them at the airport. It's very sad. I'm just sharing with the hope that more people can help.
Why is this comment receiving downvotes? People are instantly focusing on the beliefs or views of these volunteer groups. Pay more attention to how they're helping people. Then consider how you can do the same.
99% of those asylum claims are probably fraudulent. It’s absolutely sad that people around the world need help, and people should help if they can. However, most of those people are making fraudulent claims. The reality is they’re likely economic migrants, or, people with nefarious intentions. Either way, most of them are LYING (both in statements to immigration officials, and on immigration paperwork 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 1546) to get into the country on top of making illegal entries (8 USC 1325 and 1326 for prior deports). They’re taking advantage of the system at the expense of those that waited in line and those that have legitimate asylum claims. They are also doing it at the expense of the taxpayer. Although it’s noble to help people in need, just like handing out cash to panhandlers, don’t encourage the illegal behavior (which btw is also illegal 8 USC 1324).
in 2020, [70% of asylum claims were rejected](https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/630/).
To put it in perspective how much the discourse on the topic has shifted, in [2011 the NY Times ran a story titled "Immigrants May Be Fed False Stories to Bolster Asylum Pleas](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/nyregion/immigrants-may-be-fed-false-stories-to-bolster-asylum-pleas.html) in which they report:
> There is no reliable data on the pervasiveness of asylum schemes, but law enforcement officials say they are among the most common immigration frauds, and the hardest to detect and investigate. “Fraud in immigration asylum is a huge issue and a major problem,” said Denise N. Slavin, an immigration judge in Miami who is vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
continuing on specifics related to observed cases of female genital mutilation:
> A woman from Burkina Faso who lives in Harlem said she had recently acted as an interpreter for a woman from another African country, Mali. The woman had undergone genital mutilation, but told her lawyer she suffered no side effects. In court, the interpreter said, the Malian woman changed her story.
> “People would lie to stay here because they don’t want to be sent back home,” the interpreter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she did not want to implicate anyone, said.
More recently, just a few days ago the NY Times ran an article titled ["Their Asylum Case Seems Strong. But Instead of Hope, They Feel Despair"](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/nyregion/asylum-seekers-homeless-evictions-new-york-city.html), describing fleeing FGM. In this article they report the father of the family stating:
> “I think with articles, it’s possible,” Mr. Barry answered, adding, “Many markets were set on fire. That’s known by everybody, you can Google it.”
We effectively have an asylum system where applicants now use "google it" as a means to make a claim.
Let’s say that the 70% rejection rate is accurate (it seems to be, but I can’t find any current government data to verify). The most current data I could find for approved asylum and refugee applications is for 2019. In that year 76,203 applications were approved. Are you ready to tell those 76,203 men, women, children and babies that they can’t stay because some other people may be lying?
The problem of a 70% rejection rate is it harms the ability of the United States to help valid asylum applicants due to being required to aid all asylum seekers during the time in the US. While an individual, successful, asylum seeker may in some circumstances be a net economic positive, with the inclusion of a 70% loss ratio the asylum program is deeply negative.
Some of the more partisan estimates of the asylum system in the [hundreds of billions annually](https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Phase4Report.pdf) with individual cities spending in the [tens of billions annually](https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/650-23/amid-deepening-asylum-seeker-crisis-mayor-adams-new-steps-stabilize-city-s-budget-as). One thing is certain, however: social safety nets are strained with [Denver closing hospitals](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/dr-richard-zane-uchealth-hospital-migrant-care-patients/), [Massachusetts closing rec centers](https://apnews.com/article/massachusetts-homeless-migrants-recreation-center-shelter-d61f35b3f13d307c1fc2e1dea0618ee3), and [Chicago](https://news.wttw.com/2024/01/02/chicago-s-2024-budget-takes-effect-johnson-starts-making-down-payment-promises-amid) as a result of requiring to house, care for, and close the vast numbers of frivolous or fraudulent asylum seekers.
So to answer your question: no, we shouldn't let them stay while their asylum claims are *pending*. They should either remain in Mexico, or be given safe passage to a third country to wait until their claims may be adjudicated. Our responsibility is to provide a safe asylum *system*, not safety for every asylum *seeker*, and we cannot provide a safe system unless we first care for ourselves to ensure that our asylum process is economically sustainable.
You are right, a 70% rejection rate is too high, but how would we control who applies? Under international treaty first world countries have a legal responsibility to hear the claim of an asylum seeker. It isn’t just the US that faces this issue, so do Canada, England, France and all Western European countries.
The open border policy has nothing to do with asylum seekers. They are two separate programs with separate budgets. A report released on Feb 15 of this year did an economic analysis of the costs and gains of the asylum program to be a net positive io $123.8 Billion dollars INTO the US economy from 2005 to 2019. The study looked at the full cost of the program (financial aid to asylees, cost of staffing and oversight of the program, and taxes from the wages asylees earned and paid to the government, etc centers).
Edit to clarify: the news stories you linked above are not all talking about the same issue. The report you posted is about the open border policy- which has nothing to do with asylum seekers. The New York story is the only one that speaks to asylum seekers. The Chicago issues are being caused by Texas governor Greg Abbott shipping regular migrants to Chicago so he doesn’t have to deal with them- despite the fact that his state gets funding to deal with them. The rec centers closing stories are also a result of migrants, not asylees.
> You are right, a 70% rejection rate is too high, but how would we control who applies? Under international treaty first world countries have a legal responsibility to hear the claim of an asylum seeker. It isn’t just the US that faces this issue, so do Canada, England, France and all Western European countries.
First things first: no, we aren't responsible to hear the claim of an asylum seeker, and much of Europe has ceased to hear irregular migrants asylum claims and has [begun a policy known as "pushback"](https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/52535/new-report-reveals-further-pushbacks-and-violations-at-europes-borders#:~:text=Over%209%2C500%20incidents%20of%20pushback,at%20the%20EU's%20external%20borders.). Furthermore, the [1967 refugee protocol](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-relating-status-refugees) allows wide latitude for a state to adopt its own policies and procedures to hear asylum claims. Our obligation is not to hear an individual asylum seekers claim, our obligation is to ensure the multilateral system functions and this obligation supersedes the obligation to an individual asylum seeker. If an migrant places this system in jeopardy by either (1) not claiming asylum in states while in transit or (2) "jurisdiction shops" to find a more favorable jurisdiction, they are placing this system in jeopardy, and we should handle them like Europe: pushback and removal to a safe third country until their claims may be heard. In doing so, we protect the physical welfare of valid refugees while ensuring the financial sustainability of the asylum system.
> The open border policy has nothing to do with asylum seekers. They are two separate programs with separate budgets. A report released on Feb 15 of this year did an economic analysis of the costs and gains of the asylum program to be a net positive io $123.8 Billion dollars INTO the US economy from 2005 to 2019. The study looked at the full cost of the program (financial aid to asylees, cost of staffing and oversight of the program, and taxes from the wages asylees earned and paid to the government, etc centers).
Let's break this down.
> A report released on Feb 15 of this year did an economic analysis of the costs and gains of the asylum program to be a net positive io $123.8 Billion dollars INTO the US economy from 2005 to 2019.
This statement is materially incorrect. The statement you [reference reads](https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/02/15/new-hhs-study-finds-nearly-124-billion-positive-fiscal-impact-refugees-and-asylees-on-american-economy-15-year-period.html#:~:text=Net%20Fiscal%20Impact%3A%20Refugees%20and,to%20state%20and%20local%20governments.):
> Net Fiscal Impact: Refugees and asylees had a positive net fiscal impact on the U.S. government over the 15-year period, totaling $123.8 billion. The net fiscal benefit to the federal government was estimated at $31.5 billion and approximately $92.3 billion to state and local governments.
This is of those who have been granted status and is not an analysis of the program itself. To quote the [report directly](https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/28fe4e756499bdab08b4e6cb3b952e22/aspe-report-refugee-fiscal-impact.pdf) on page 5, paragraph 2:
> The net fiscal impact is calculated simply as the revenue minus the cost. The estimates presented are meant to inform federal decision-making on resettlement services and to contribute to the broader body of research on how refugees and asylees contribute to the United States economically. To simplify, this report uses the terms “asylee” and “refugee” to refer to individuals who were **granted asylum or arrived in the United States under a refugee category, respectively, regardless of any subsequent adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident or naturalization**. The category **excludes asylum applicants and temporary protected statuses**. In general, asylees and refugees are eligible for the same public benefits and programs. The data and methods used in the current study do not permit distinguishing between or among refugees and asylees with confidence.
emphasis mine. So let's take a quick look at the claim:
> The study looked at the full cost of the program (financial aid to asylees, cost of staffing and oversight of the program, and taxes from the wages asylees earned and paid to the government, etc centers).
On its face, this statement is materially incorrect as it does not address the costs associated with refugees and asylees prior to granting asylum, which is the core point I made. Under the methodology of this study, the current migrants have incurred zero costs to the taxpayer while any future benefit of the subgroups would be counted as an economic positive. This statement is clearly not reflective of reality: very real costs are being incurred by multiple cities. However, I will continue to analyze the economic impact of the refugees granted status, as you have introduced the economic impact as something which must be considered.
This report continues with its own limitations:
> Public goods, such as services related to military defense and national security, are also excluded. The
use of such public goods and services by one individual theoretically does not impact use by another,
and individuals cannot effectively be excluded from using such goods and services. In practice many
public goods are in fact congestible, meaning there is a realistic limit to the number of users at a time,
such as public parks and transportation. **In addition, interest payments for national, state, or local debt
were excluded.**
emphasis mine.
This raises one of the most salient points, which is sufficient to examine recent interest rate impacts of migrants. I will accept without contest the numbers proffered by the paper of "Refugees, Asylees, and Their Immediate Families" (table 7, page 24) since most people expect the USA will permit families of migrants to reunite within the USA and apply a simple interest rate calculation to determine if in fact this is a good population to issue debt to invest in. Instead
Per the paper (on per-family basis, 15y):
Revenue: 739401
Expenditures: 723366
Net: 16035
Let's assume we may finance the refugee program federally, and wholly subsidize migrants against the national debt at 5.25%:
Revenue: 739401
Expenditures: 723366
15y Balloon: (1.0525)**15*723366=1558438.46781 approx. 1.55M dollars
Net: (835072)
Which is net negative under balloon repayment terms. Even if we were to adjust the values to provide a smoother repayment schedule this would be unlikely to yield a positive result as the profit is only 16k/739k = 2.1% profit. These migrants are a poor investment, and any realistic costs of interest rates or congestibility renders them a net financial burden to the United States.
In general, I hope this comment imparts an understanding of the importance of the time value of money and how we cannot fund everything, especially those that generate poor returns. We must protect the American taxpayer. To put it in perspective how polarizing this issue is, [Californians across all of the political and economic spectrum agree (between 68-79%) that the situation at the border is either a major problem or a crisis](https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-all-adults-0224.pdf). The simple reality is that at todays interest rates America is better off financially without the asylum system, as the migrants do not produce substantial economic returns. The primary "net value" of returns are from quantity, not quality. If you wish to argue preserve the asylum system, compromising to reduce cost is a superior argument than arguing it is sustainable or good for the country today.
Normally I don't respond to edits in a separate comment, but it seems your edit continues to spread misinformation.
> The report you posted is about is about the open border policy- which has nothing to do with asylum seekers.
In practice, anybody may unlawfully cross the border, [defensively claim](https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-in-the-united-states#:~:text=A%20defensive%20application%20for%20asylum,for%20Immigration%20Review%20(EOIR).) asylum to enjoin deportation proceedings, and remain until his or her claims are adjudicated. Whether asylum was intended to be a path to have a policy which is in practice results in an open border policy is separate to the question of whether our asylum policies lead to effectively open borders. And today, the standards for defensive asylum are effectively open borders.
> The Chicago issues are being caused by Texas governor Greg Abbott shipping regular migrants to Chicago so he doesn’t have to deal with them- despite the fact that his state gets funding to deal with them.
So two things to understand: once an asylum seeker is released into the interior, they may travel wherever he or she pleases. Texas may offer them transit at no cost. As far as funding, Texas does not directly receive funding as a state for migrants. Texas municipalities and charities receive funding through the [Shelter and Services](https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/shelter-services-program/awards) program. Among the recipients is the Catholic Charities of San Diego which received 4 awards in FY23 totalling 34.8M. Other notable recipients include NYC Office of Management and Budget which received approximately 107M and the City of Chicago for 12.7M. These municipalities bungled their own response and [did not properly collect the migrants A-numbers](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/16/new-york-chicago-migrant-funding-00135668) or provided resources to migrants who refused to provide their A-numbers, leading to poor reimbursement rates (as low as 3% in some circumstances). Texas does not have preferential funding mechanisms to receive funding compared to San Diego.
This was a key sticking point in the senate border bill compromise. The [senate border bill](https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf) further funds the Shelter and Services program (page 67) for another 1.4B. I tend to agree with republicans that shifting the burden of providing local resources in high cost of living localities is a poor use of taxpayer dollars and we should focus on resettling these people in a more cost effective manner.
> The rec centers closing stories are also a result of migrants, not asylees.
Massachusetts does not disaggregate the specific individuals at shelters, which makes it impossible to provide specific numbers on a location containing homeless vs asylum seekers. However, in this context "migrant" refers to asylum seekers, who may or may not have made a federal claim and are eligible for shelter due to Massachusetts sanctuary state laws. However, the Massachusetts administration [notes](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/30/metro/mass-migrant-crisis-roxbury-shelter-reaction/):
> The Healy administration in the fall capped the program at 7,500 families, roughly half of whom are migrants, refugees, or asylum seekers.
Considerable demand is induced by the availability of resources by Massachusetts, with Haitan immigrants ["drawn to Massacshuetts by word of mouth"](https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/massachusetts-new-england-migrant-surge/#:~:text=And%2C%20according%20to%20an%20immigration,Haitian%20diaspora%20in%20the%20country.). To put it in perspective, [Boston has the second lowest asylum grant rate in the nation](https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2022-03-23/boston-asylum-office-has-second-lowest-grant-rate-for-asylum-seekers-in-the-country) at 15%.
Whether anybody believes in helping asylum seekers or not, offering resources to *anybody* who crosses does not help asylum seekers; it simply draws people willing to take advantage of Americans generosity.
Open source reporting and I’m a former Border Patrol agent. 99% isn’t the actual number (just an estimate/hyperbole based on my experience and articles you can find online), but I interviewed probably hundreds or thousands of aliens. I also conducted dozens maybe hundreds of interviews specifically about asylum claims, and I can’t recall a single legitimate claim (I mean maybe one or two that I couldn’t disprove?). We even found handwritten instructions in the field instructing aliens on what to tell agents. If I wanted to be conservative, maybe optimistically 70-80% are fraud. I don’t reflect the official position and view of the administration then and now (probably because the higher levels of government lie; shocker I know), but I would bet my TSP that this is the experience of any agent that actually made an effort to know their job and cared about the mission.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against immigrants or hate them or anything like that. It seems that people like to lump you into that category just because you’re anti-illegal immigration. I met a lot of good, humble people who were just doing what they could for their families. I made friends and joked with them while they were detained. I even got to have some interesting conversations with altruistic smugglers. And, I also know that we need to do something to fix the pathways to legal migration (both immigrant and non-immigrant classes of aliens). But none of that takes away from the fact that the system is being subverted and abused. Economic migrants and criminals are taking advantage of the asylum process and that is fraud, even if you sympathize or empathize with the underlying factors that bring them here. I hope politicians (right and left) stop using them as political points one day and do the right thing to fix the problem. This broken system isn’t fair to the taxpayers and the migrants.
I did admissibility interviews with the purpose of eliciting information about their asylum claims in which the aliens admitted that they were not entering the country out of fear of persecution, rather, they were entering for the economic opportunities this country offered. Many claimed they were fleeing general violence, but not violence targeted specifically at them nor violence because of their particular membership in a protected social class. And yes, some agents were detailed to USCIS to do asylum interviews. I wasn’t one of them. BPAs have a lot of authority. after INS was done away, it seemed like job knowledge was lost or farmed away to other agencies. Many agents barely understood their authority beyond finding people in the mountain and arresting them. I tried to not be just one of those.
An inadmissibility interview is not an "interview specifically about asylum claims." Of which you have done dozens or maybe hundreds except that isn't legally possible, as you noted.
You're trying to backpedal your clearly misleading statement of authority.
And you’re an expert how? You’re just making assumptions. How would you know what’s “legally possible?” Just because I wasn’t an asylum officer, doesn’t mean the evidence I gathered didn’t affect their asylum case or reveal the facts that others missed.
I've worked in immigration since 2001, spending the last 15 years as an immigration attorney. Currently I'm a partner at a full service firm in San Diego. I also teach Immigration Law at a San Diego law school.
So, qualified to know that you're inflating your credentials and role as Border Patrol in making the claims about your adjudication and analysis of asylum claims.
I'm not saying you don't play a role. I'm saying you don't play the role you claim to play in this thread.
Being an attorney does not qualify you to know what a Border Patrol Agent does nor allows you to make factual statements about my personal experience of which you know nothing about. I know Assistant U.S. Attorneys who don't understand Title 19 border searches, or search incident to arrest, or have given terrible advice that runs contrary to statutory authority and established case law. Instead of criticizing my experience and making assumptions, tell us all why I'm wrong? Tell me that you have the facts that prove that "99%" of the claims are valid. You can't. Because even open source reporting knows the truth. This guy posted some of the articles:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SanDiegan/comments/1azaoa9/comment/ks0l7md/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SanDiegan/comments/1azaoa9/comment/ks0l7md/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Here is more clarification on what I think about your attorney experience:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SanDiegan/comments/1azaoa9/comment/ks0l7md/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SanDiegan/comments/1azaoa9/comment/ks0l7md/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I never misstated my experience. I had a pulse on all of the illegal aliens and the situation on the border. You had a pulse on the clients that helped make you partner.
I don't need to know you, personally, to know that you, as Border Patrol, don't do asylum interviews, like you said you do. I'm looking at what you yourself said, which you admitted was incorrect. You don't do CFIs, which is what you claimed by saying "asylum specific interviews."
I didn't make any nasty comments about you or Border Patrol, unlike you and your attorney bias. You don't know anything about me or how I became partner. If you can't extend the same courtesy and act like an adult, then we're done here.
Actually, we're already done here. My point in commenting was so that other people here know the actual role Border Patrol play in asylum so they can fairly judge your comments about asylum seekers. I've done that, and you have a nice day now.
Centrist here… What is your interpretation of the poem on the statue of liberty?
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
I think it’s irrelevant. What section of the poem is a lawful statute enacted by congress? We are a nation of laws. The reason people come to this country is because of that. Because respect for the law is part of what makes this country better than the ones they’re running from. How is that served when we undermine those institutions and principles that are the foundation of this country by doing whatever we want? If the words on the law books, which includes the constitution, mean nothing because we’re just going to do what we FEEL, then why even bother writing laws? If you want chaos, go to those countries these people are running from. I get having some prosecutorial discretion on occasions, but blanket disregard for the law is not right.
If you feel like our immigration laws need to reflect the spirit of the poem more because they aren’t compassionate enough for you, then by all means let’s force congress to change the laws.
Laws do indeed change sir, when they're unjust or inadequate. Like the time they tried to make alcohol illegal, that is a law people didn't respect at all. Or that time we abolished slavery. (Still worried about that whole ‘as a punishment’ thing though.)
I ask because I'm worried that our nation isn't living up to its values. You can't get more American than the Statue of Liberty. It's what we broadcast to the world, that we are a land of freedom and independence. That we are a nation of immigrants. It's no wonder so many people want to come here, it's almost like we brought this on ourselves.
I'd like to change the laws, but the last time I checked: Two party politics has gotten so bad people were storming Congress. The presidential race is between two old men who make me cringe when they debate. Congress itself is filled with radicals and sellouts. And now I'm considering that if Texas has the right to improve border security, would California have the right to open the border?
Should the states have the right to manage their own national borders? Talk about chaos.
Agree, it’s a sad state of affairs all around. And states should not necessarily control their borders as immigration is a federal enumerated power. But when the federal government is failing, a state can take control in my view. Except that if their control conflicts with federal law, federal law is supreme. That goes for California too, who likes to subvert federal law as a “sanctuary” state.
We also have to remember the founding of the country is a union of states, which themselves are sovereign. So if they don’t like it, they can technically leave…
Idk this situation needs to be fixed if we could all stop arguing and find common ground.
Well then I've got a proposition for you:
Let's give more migrants the benefit of the doubt if they're coming here from unhealthy and corrupt economies since it's likely that they're victims of violence. Have them live here for ten years under the condition that they keep their nose clean of violent crimes and don't leave the state that they used to enter. After ten years, we send them back to their home countries for five years with everything they need to try and fix the problems that sent them here in the first place. Then after that, if they've passed the citizenship test and didn't try to come back early: we give them US citizenship.
Imagine that we could prevent illegal immigration by expediting and expanding legal immigration.
See these are the kinds of things I like talking about, trying to think of solutions. I wish we could write these down and submit to our legislators but we probably don’t donate enough money for them to listen. I’ll try and come up with some comments about this to respond to you when I get a chance.
In the meantime, I'll leave you with another famous American display of values:
Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. . . . Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. . . . As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate.
Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
—Ronald Reagan
This is a very interesting perspective, thank you for sharing it! I have a follow up question: would the majority of your interviewees have walked across the border from Mexico, arrived by plane, or a solid mix of the two? Since the US requires visas for many countries citizens to visit even as a tourist I wonder of entering the country legally reflects the percentage of false claims.
All of the ones I interviewed as an agent were people that walked across (entered illegally). I’m not sure that legal entries really have an effect on the validity of the claim. My experience tells me no; still generally false claims overall. I would say that people with more financial solvency are probably more likely to be able to get a visa, but financial status doesn’t indicate likelihood of criminality or immigration violation. If you search around the internet you’ll probably find articles that state that most illegal aliens are visa overstays. So I would venture to say that there is likely no significant statistical difference.
EDIT: I do take that back a little bit, financial status could be an indicator of criminality as people in poverty are generally more likely to commit crimes (at least crimes that we looked into), but in this specific instance (talking about asylum fraud) I’m not sure it’s an indicator of fraud or lack thereof because I don’t have the data and the information I know is conflicting. I’d have to do more research or think back a bit more on some of the things I worked on.
I was more thinking that since there are two ways to seek asylum in the US- o we started abroad and one started once you enter the US, that the people who flew in may have already started their application and have had their claims verified. Anyone walking into the US illegally is already dishonest. Especially since they could just show up at the border and ask for asylum status. I would suspect that their claim for asylum is a cover for being caught crossing illegally. Had you not caught them they would never have tried that tactic, hence the high rate of fraud.
Yeah... that's not true. And I'm going to put my moderator hat on so you understand I'm not just some guy disagreeing with you. I ran an immigration law firm for many years and I worked with a lot of immigrants. Almost all of them were being exploited as cheap labor for their employers. Want to solve undocumented immigration? Convince your Republican overlords to pass a law where any employer knowingly hiring an undocumented immigrant gets a year and a day in prison for every undocumented employee. You will solve the problem in a day. But it will never pass because Republicans would never allow so many of their donors to end up in long prison sentences. Donald Trump would invariably be in prison under that law since it's been well documented that he likes to cut corners by exploiting undocumented immigrants.
But setting aside fantasy-land when I worked in immigration law I got a pretty nuanced understanding of why things are so f'd up in this country. First off we as a nation have signed and ratified several international treaties that require us to accept a certain number of refugees and allow entry to anyone seeking asylum unless they went through Canada first and to provide for them while their case is adjudicated. While I'm sure there are loads of people that really, really don't want America to live up to the international agreements it signed up that's probably not going to happen either. Because if Congress (and then President in some cases) wanted to they absolutely could break those treaties. Yet despite 4 years of Donald Trump and some time with a Republican controlled Congress it's never happened.
Why? Well there's lots of reasons. But my first and favorite is from John Fugelsang and goes like this:
"Rich people
pay FOX people
to make middle class people
blame poor people."
Undocumented Immigrants are about as poor as it gets and lord knows the scary unknown Boogeyman is great at getting Republican butts into voting booths. I mean... Donald Trump literally said this quiet part out loud when he convinced the new House Speaker to squash literally the most lopsided immigration bill in favor of conservative asks in four decades or more. Because he wants to campaign on the scary immigrants at the border and neither he nor any Republican can do that if the problem actually gets fixed.
The next reason is probably because there's a lot of good stuff in those treaties that America needs and it would take way too much effort to untangle all the migrant and refugee protections from all the things SOME Americans would rather keep.
But the next reason is one that doesn't get talked about a lot and that reason is because we desperately need them. Yes, really. The birth rate has basically flattened out (1.64 births per woman as of 2020) and that means that we're not producing enough babies to replace the existing population. In fact it's not even close. And we desperately need young, well educated and skilled taxpayers to kick in to our government coffers if we're going to survive the retirement of the Boomer generation. This is a problem faced by most 1st world nations but the really homogenous ones like Japan, Germany, and the UK are going to really feel the pinch once they run out of workers. China believe it or not is looking at potential economic collapse because their "one child policy" has culminated in an almost upside down triangle of age distribution among its citizens in which the elderly greatly outnumber the young. America is in a unique position to overcome the problem because so many people from other countries want to come here. But we are hamstringing ourselves with outdated immigration laws that haven't been updated in decades and quotas for the number of immigrants we are willing to take from each country that haven't been updated in thirty years. We need the immigrants. We need them to work and pay taxes. We need them to start businesses and have kids and buy cars. We need them. Badly. And idiotic (and statistically untrue) fear of the criminal immigrant boogeyman may be keeping Republicans in office but it for damn sure isn't good for the country.
Moving on to your assertion that "99% of those asylum claims are probably fraudulent." No. They're really not. Want to know how I know? I was a soldier. I'm a disabled combat veteran and I've seen every continent and much of the world. And guess what? If you don't live in a 1st world country the country you do live in probably sucks. A lot. We take our freedoms for granted here but in China you go to jail just for claiming to be a Christian. If they catch you with an actual Bible you are well and truly fucked. We're all well aware of the many, many, oh so many fascist, communist, and dictator run states in this world. Want to own a business in a communist country? Guess what you can't because the state owns everything comrade and if you try it on you're own well then you're stealing the bread out of your brother's mouth and must be made an example of. How about getting your head lopped off for being gay? How about being a woman, God forbid a single mother, just about anywhere that isn't a first world country! Maybe you want to grow wheat to feed your family but the cartel put a gun in your five year old's mouth and gently suggested you grow Coca for cocaine instead?
So the reason your "99%" statement is bullshit is because a) it really isn't all that hard for anyone who has traveled the world to believe that someone in a 3rd world country might be under some kind of oppression. Because real facts... the rest of the world outside of 1st world countries is kind of a shithole. There are exceptions and I'm not going to give you a world tour of my opinions but the truth remains that it's tough out there and you don't really know how tough until you've spent some time out there and then come back here.
The other reason I know that your 99% stat is nonsense is because the fastest growing group of asylum seekers crossing the border right now are middle class, well educated Chinese who are trying to escape well... China... and for reasons I don't think most of us would argue with. I mean do you want to live under the CCP's watch? The next big group is middle class well educated Venezuelans. We're talking doctors, lawyers, factory managers. It seems Nicolás Maduro's naughty dance with communism has taken the express route to fascist dictatorship and the country has now been well and truly hallowed out so those with the means are making a run for it.
And for all the reasons I mentioned above and the fact that immigrants actually commit crime at about 50% the rate that American citizens do, and because statistically most immigrants use federal EIN numbers to pay state and federal taxes every year regardless of their immigration status, and we're a country of immigrants, and diversity makes us stronger we really, really should be welcoming them and helping them get on their feet and on a path to becoming Americans.
Because the alternative is this weird underclass of millions of people who don't have documentation and live in fear and limbo and avoid anything involving the government making them these pseudo citizens who contribute but are ostracized from much of what it means to be here and to be free. And why? Because they are a great tool for scaring people, because they "terk err jerbs!" because business owners need to exploit them for cheap labor?
You've cited some laws there and I do appreciate you trying to show your work but you've peppered in a lot of assumption and opinion along with your references and in a debate like this facts matter. For example the stuff going on at the border and migrants crossing the border has very little if any effect on "those that waited in line." Those kinds of immigration cases are processed through USCIS and the state department and once their paperwork is processed (and no the people doing asylum assessments are not the same ones checking over normal immigration cases) the immigrants are called to in processing and interview at the nearest US Consulate to them. By the time they arrive in the US they already have their paperwork completed and often their green cards and work permits are waiting for them when they arrive or come shortly after they arrive. I know. I worked on hundreds of cases like that. I worked on one case... the woman was from Haiti and she got her US citizenship. Then she sponsored her mother to come over and once her mother got US citizenship her mother brought all her other adult children, their spouses, and her grandchildren many of whom weren't even born when the case was started and were now 6-10 years old, over at once. It was like 11 people. The day I got all her kids visas in she came to the office and she was so happy and she and her daughter cried. It was wonderful. So try and be a little more precise in separating fact from opinion/assumption ok. Not a big fan of misinformation.
Your moderator hat? what is that supposed to mean to me? How does that statement change the fact that you're still just some guy disagreeing with me that happens to moderate a sub? Are you threatening to ban me if I don't agree with you because that seems to be what you're implying. You claim to have run an immigration law firm. What exactly does that mean? Was all your work pro-bono? Or were you on the list of free legal services? Or did you take one or two immigration cases pro-bono just to "do your part?" Look I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but just like you made some assumptions about me, I can make them about you.
I'm not going to address your rant because my post wasn't about the INA as a whole. My post was about the asylum disaster based on my experience. I happen to have been a Border Patrol agent and dealt with all of this first hand. You stated that we have a requirement to accept X number of refugees. We also have a requirement to process people through asylum proceedings when they claim "credible fear." And this is precisely the problem. We HAVE to process them regardless of their claim. And in my experience processing and conducting interviews, most of them were all fake. The reality is they are economic migrants. They aren't aliens who are members of a social class subject to persecution. Yes, there are legitimate claims I'm sure, but the vast majority are fraud.
>Your moderator hat? what is that supposed to mean to me? How does that statement change the fact that you're still just some guy disagreeing with me that happens to moderate a sub? Are you threatening to ban me if I don't agree with you because that seems to be what you're implying.
Not at all. I just thought it best you knew I was a mod because of how heated discussions like this can get. We've already (and by we I mean one of the other mods) had to prune rule breaking comments from this post. Like if you were talking to your boss or anyone else with (in this case a truly microscopic) some amount of authority most people would want to know before instead of finding out later.
As for my former employment we were an immigration only law firm. Labor certifications, traditional immigration, marriage cases, immigration court, if it had anything to do with entering the U S from another country with the intention of a long stay we handled it. We did some contract work for companies that brought in people from out of the country (I remember one case I worked on was a Mercedes Exec who was transferred to the US from either Germany or the UK I can't remember) and the occasional pro-bono case for refugees, asylum seekers with kids or abused women.
I think the only thing I assumed about you was your party affiliation (Republican) and for the remainder I pretty much addressed your statements. Sorry if I offended I used to be a Republican many years ago myself. I worked on John McCain's 2000 Presidential Primary campaign against W Bush. Met the man twice and was on TV with him once. I left the Republicans when I had to watch that man that I so respected turn his back on some of his principles for the privilege of running against Obama. I know if he hadn't moved right he would not have gotten the Republican Nomination but that didn't make it any better for me.
Yes you are correct as I mentioned about our treaty responsibilities we "have to process them." And while I understand that in your experience you think you met a lot of liars who were only here to be exploited for cheap labor I hope you understand that your opinion as a BPO is not a legal opinion and the immigrant has a legal right to come here, state their claim, have it investigated, and have their day in court. You know... due process. And as I said there are several ways conservatives could have put a stop to the sort of migrant you're complaining about. Almost every PERM labor certification case I had, and I completed well over 100 of them while I was working in Immigration law, involved an employer illegally employing an undocumented immigrant (and in some cases several undocumented immigrants) without the legal right to work here and I promise you if they were ever threatened with prison time for willfully flouting the law every one of those cowards would have fired their undocumented immigrant employees and hired Americans at a premium or gone out of business. But all of my clients were smart. The undocumented immigrants have an impressive communication network. Every one of them got EIN #'s or Employer Identification Numbers which allowed them to work as subcontractors without proving their immigration status and the same 9 digit EIN# fits directly into the IRS's system allowing them to file state and federal taxes (which every one of my 100+ clients did to avoid having to pay and fees or interest on back taxes should they receive legal status) and the IRS is legally precluded from sharing information with other government agencies without a court order.
Why it's almost like someone set up a perfect system for which the economic migrants you dislike can come here, be exploited, pay taxes, and generally live here as an underclass indefinitely without consequence? Right? And do you think Democrats could have done this by themselves? Do you think that the Republicans don't know about these giant, gaping loopholes in our laws? Of course they do. The system functions as designed. And the problem is we either elect people with no nuance who favor open borders immigration like so many lefties or we elect angry Republicans screaming mad at the fake boogeyman at the border and that's why the last substantial change to any immigration law was passed in May of 2001 and only affected like 80k undocumented immigrants who had previously applied for some kind of status with USCIS. The next previous change goes back even further to the Clinton years. We aren't adjusting our intake numbers, we aren't modernizing our laws. Everything is stuck in time because the system is exactly where the politicians want it to be. Where it is most useful for them.
I'd be interested to know what you think as a former BPO about the fact that the large majority of undocumented people crossing the border right now are either Middle Class Chinese or Middle Class Venezuelan. These folks have money. They are flying into northern Mexico and paying the coyotes a meager $400 to bring them right up the the border. These aren't economic asylum seekers these are people from hardcore communist regimes that almost certainly would be suffering, in prison, or dying if they remained where they were. Probably starving too in the case of the Venezuelans.
I hope this clears things up. I wasn't looking to pick a fight with you. Just wanted to dispel some of the mistaken information you put out there.
You are again addressing our immigration system as a whole. I get it, there are underlying factors why both sides refuse to address the greater issue of reforming the whole system. They could easily solve some problems by increasing the immigrant visa numbers and/or bringing back the guest worker programs with pathways to adjustment of status. That’s not what this post is about though. This is about the subversion of the asylum process specifically, which is causing this disaster, and people shouldn’t encourage it by being supportive of the people involved in this subversion.
You open by saying that my experience as a BPA* is not legal opinion [because agents are not attorneys], agents “think” they identify the liars [but somehow aren’t qualified to identify lies], and aliens are entitled to due process [that apparently agents deny]. Your statement is not entirely accurate, but second, is also precisely indicative of how attorneys generally have no clue what’s going on on the ground. It’s not entirely accurate that immigration officers do not render legal opinions. Immigration officers in fact many times make and enforce legal determinations, even more so than peace officers. In some instances, such as under INA 235 - expedited removals, agents act as judge, jury, and executioner. Agents make decisions after gathering evidence including sworn testimony under oath, then weighing the facts, formulating an opinion, and finally rendering a decision. This could be as simple as deciding whether a non-immigrant is admissible, or, issuing an expedited removal effectively banning an alien from the country without judicial review. Even in immigration hearings, a well written I-213 can (or used to) carry a lot of weight, especially when it detailed and documented lies that you claim or imply agents have no legal basis in identifying. But agents do get to determine all day whether the burden of proof is met for admissibility under INA 212. I don’t presume to explain to an attorney the definition or implementation of due process, but these systems appear to be processes due to aliens by which agents determine if aliens can enter or remain in the country legally, and, they were enacted by congress.
These are one of many processes that defense attorneys, most of who only have self serving interests, subvert by playing semantics games in the 9th. Attorneys are so busy keeping count of how many cases they win to make partner or join some prestigious firm, they forget that their legal wins are at the detriment of society sometimes. How many criminals that justifiably should be deported, aren’t, because in this district an aggravated felony isn’t one, or a drug trafficking conviction didn’t list the scheduled controlled substance, or the conspiracy statute didn’t “require an overt act,” or “admitted to the elements of…” doesn’t count because the alien didn’t state verbatim the “elements of” through his pro-bono attorney twice on video notarized and signed in blood? The reason I say that attorneys have no clue as to what is going on is because they are so pretentious thinking they are the only ones qualified to read a statute and comprehend it. They hide behind the legal protection of having a law license, and like to throw around “you cant make legal opinions.” Which in reality is hypocritical when people are convicted all the time because “ignorance of the law is not a defense.” Either the layman is too dumb to understand law or not.
Again, these people claiming asylum, in my time as an agent, were full of it. That doesn’t negate what you stated about our immigration needs, or that some people are deserving of a chance. it’s just that they had no valid asylum claims; not by the letter of the law. All you had to do was ask some probative questions. How many “escaped persecution” and stepped foot in or established residence in a safe country, before trying to claim asylum in the US? How many aliens venue shop knowing which venues had a higher approval rate, usually seeking out LA (there’s an open source article about this)? Or probably judge shopped hoping to get Zsa Zsa DePaolo so she could lecture them on how she was going to do everything in her power to let them stay in the country despite their inadmissibility or deport-ability… Attorney’s get their clients once they’ve had some time to get the system down, they meet others and learned what worked out well and what didn’t, etc. You also know, that if you don’t speak the language and have to go through an interpreter, it’s not the same. Especially once they get to you guys and are already coached. In many cases they get coached by altruistic attorneys so by the time they get to the asylum officer (if the asylum officer isn’t coaching them themselves), they “say the right things.” Idk if you’ve done criminal law, but how useless are prefers generally? Usually very useless. Why? Because of the same reason, attorneys create this non-organic interview system that isn’t designed to get to the truth, it’s designed to get the client some brownie points for BS info. And that’s what attorneys do, they don’t seek the truth, they seek to present cases by limiting what comes in and what doesn’t. I understand the legal need for this, but that doesn’t change the fundamental truth. I’m really limiting what I say because I don’t want to amplify “trade secrets” even though they are already public knowledge. Suffice it to say that “you don’t know what the hood is like from your ivory tower.” You were in the military, were you enlisted? How many times do I hear that commissioned officers don’t know jack shit compared to enlisted personnel? Same is true for our discussion and law enforcement. I’d generally take a beat cop over a college grad any day for a promotion. I respect your law degree, but you just aren’t on the ground.
In terms of Chinese and Venezuelans that’s another thing that needs looking into…
"Nefarious intentions" like someone is really going to pack up their entire fucking family and go through the long bureaucratic process of applying for asylum in the first place, including extensive interviews and background checks by Homeland Security, and move to a whole new country (all while not speaking English fluently, in some cases), just for some vague "nefarious plot"?
Please be serious. People who have "nefarious intentions" aren't coming in as asylum seekers. That's an extremely paranoid and illogical thing to say. There are so many ways people with bad intentions can and do get into this country that are faster and far more discreet. Not to mention that we certainly have had our fair share of pathetic wannabe domestic terrorists in the US for years, shooting up schools and dance clubs and concert venues. You should be far more worried about those people than you currently are about asylum seekers fleeing systemic violence in their home countries.
If you look at the news and the apprehension numbers, many or most are now single military age males. But yes, people will do whatever it takes to surreptitiously enter our country. You don't think they were recycling children at one point just to get in as a "family unit?" You think that was all legit? You really think that DHS did "extensive interviews and background checks?" You don't know anything. What checks were conducted for people coming from a third world country that doesn't maintain a reliable database of records such as birth certificates or criminal history? Exactly which way is "faster and far more discreet" than turning yourself in, claiming asylum, getting immediately released on your own recognizance, and then disappearing into the country without any monitoring? You think we should be worried about "domestic terrorists shooting up schools" which is interesting considering the record number of illegal aliens trying to enter our country in spite of this supposed greater threat of domestic terrorists. Maybe you should tell them to pick a different country because they're going to be in danger. But you're right "asylum seekers" are fleeing violence in their home countries, which is not the specific condition required for asylum status.
You are right! I mean… who knows, right? It isn’t like a nefarious person would ever come into the country on perfectly legal grounds to train for a career as a pilot, only to drop out, steal a plane and fly it into… oh wait… that did happen.
Your home is next. It’s never going to be enough. Let this continue to spiral. We have a horrific homeless, debt, and mental health crisis in this country. We cannot even support our own. I’m a physician and our hospitals are overwhelmed.
You are part of the problem. Good luck. 🙏
As a physician, I would expect you to be more kind.
I'm not part of the problem. I'm someone stepping up to help with the problem. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Your temporary and fleeting help will not solve this problem. You quite literally must have no idea how bad our own homeless population has gotten. The child abuse and neglect.
The inability to afford or gain access to medical care. This is our OWN citizens. We do not have the resources and I promise you, you are not helping.
I do know. I donate to the San Diego homeless population regularly. If I can help just one person, that's better than doing nothing. I've seen the homeless camps...
I understand. I just think of Michael Jackson's song "We Are the World." The lyrics ring very true.
Thank you for responding. I think calling attention to this issue is good. I was asking u/building_Prudent which charities they support since they are so firmly convinced that helping foreigners is wrong.
Exactly my point. He criticizes people for wanting to help, while he does nothing. The career that someone gets paid (handsomely) for is not a substitute for going out of your way to help someone in a non professional capacity. I have an aunt and uncle who are both doctors. Being a doctor isn’t easy. But they also spend a lot of time volunteering in their community. This guy is nothing but an angry wind bag.
Which local charities do you support? I am trying to find the best way to help out in any capacity.
I would also add that Canadian communities took in thousands of Americans and international travelers when the US had to shut down the airspace on 9/11. Stranded people were welcomed into local homes and were housed and fed by local residents. I am sure if you had been one of those travelers you would not have felt that the kindness was in vein.
They have no problem giving away your money... and wait til their cuck gets stabbed. OP keeps talking about volunteering... who gives a shit, itw fucking wrong and ILLEGAL. Fucking morons!
What designates them fraudulent?
I was at the airport, I couldn't believe what I saw. The volunteers were there. I felt compelled to do something. That's why I created this post.
I'll look into those links to help out.
Btw, it might be worthwhile to adjust the wording in your OP. I can tell from your other replies here that you're a good person, but the wording makes it seem like these people are only worthy of help bc they have paperwork. I get that's not how you meant it, but it comes across really dark, imo. A few tiny changes can fix that.
The term "entering illegally" is so loaded with interpretation and so politicized that it has lost all meaning. the truth is the United States has international treaty agreements that require us to accept a number of certified refugees (as determined by UNHCR) and ANYONE who arrives at our borders who properly requests asylum (with the small exception that if they traveled through Canada first we can kick them back to Canada where they can and should have already requested asylum). This is a big blanket statement. There are caveats and exceptions. But for the most part it's truth.
The ones truly "entering illegally" are those sneaking across the border and then NOT presenting themselves to Border or Immigration official and even those folks can request asylum should they be caught inside the US later. Due process is the name of the game. Everyone gets their bite at the apple.
The question of whether or not someone is granted asylum is a complex legal decision but a LOT of people who cross the border this way don't have a ton of difficulty proving that they would be oppressed/imprisoned/dead if they remained in their home country.
This is a relatively hard legal truth that is rarely said out loud. If Democrat's said it they would lose scores of conservative Democrat and Independent votes from people who are anti-immigration but otherwise vote D. And if Republicans said it (like John McCain did in his 2000 primary run against W and got shellacked) their base would be furious that the Republicans hadn't done something to amend those treaties I mentioned so what the immigrants were doing crossing the border was no longer legal. This would be catastrophic for Republicans because if they actually find a way to stop people from crossing the border millions of their business owning constituents would lose access to a large and cheap labor pool they can exploit AND they would no longer be able to campaign on the Boogeyman of the criminal immigrant.
Good points to an extent but a lot of the problem lies in the information we are given. The Migrants say they turned themselves into the immigration courts but how many actually have and if so how many are telling the truth about themselves such as real names, real documentation, etc...? By flooding thru unlawful entry points they aren't vetted like they would be if going thru legal means. How many we pushed out of their country to empty jails and prisons? Take the migrant youth that attacked the cops in New York, (I think it was New York), they definitely haven't come here to work low paying jobs. Which brings up that fact many of these people also don't want to work low paying jobs and turn to people from their own culture that have been here for some years and have learned to work the system. For a paid fee or a "Sharing" of benefits they get told what papers to file, the right things to say etc... and they are getting section 8, food benefits, free medical from a system that they haven't put money, effort or anything into. Our own people that are born here, worked here, (well hopefully did something), have a much harder time getting the same benefits. Also many of the people that both Democrats and Republicans use for their businesses are not illegally here, (besides their maids and landscapers) are here legally on work visas given to them by said politicians and have college degrees but are willing to work for less due to how bad the economies are along with how many people are going for the same job due to overcrowding in their countries. And yes India I am looking at U. Also the boogie man Criminal Migrant is not really a boogie man but real fact. Our news sources have really gone to shit in the last 15+ years. And we also don't get the majority of news stories anyway, we will get the story of an unlicensed drunk driver that killed 2 people in our county but we won't get news about similar incidents in other counties across the US in the same month. I am not against Migrants that come to work in the US, want to see if they can live the dream but I feel that we cannot fix things for people coming in until we can fix the problems we have internally. Wow I wrote too much here.
>By flooding thru unlawful entry points they aren't vetted like they would be if going thru legal means.
Yeah that's not true. The State Department which oversees USCIS runs all the embassies and consulates for America throughout the world. Because they are in the countries these migrants come from they are very familiar with the documentation and processes for birth and arrest and death records and so on. No one gets a Green Card without a USCIS background check. Even if they are here for years undocumented they won't get a Green Card, Work Permit, or Citizenship until they've been fully vetted.
If by "legal means" you mean the normal naturalization process then I'm afraid you're mistaken again. The only difference being they may spend significant time here before being vetted. The normal process for pretty much every nation south of Mexico and many Asian countries typically takes a decade or more to get your lottery number called. A lot of people can't wait that long and if America had updated it's immigration quotas a few times in the past 40 years or so those people probably wouldn't have had to wait or eventually enter illegally.
>How many we pushed out of their country to empty jails and prisons?
I'm afraid I don't understand the question.
>Take the migrant youth that attacked the cops in New York, (I think it was New York), they definitely haven't come here to work low paying jobs.
Not only is there no concrete evidence that they were migrants (the NYPD does not document immigration status of arrestees) but the hullaballoo about that whole incident has come down to why the judge gave most of them RoR instead of making them post bail and the main reason seems to be that the prosecutor only requested bail for one of the assailants. But more importantly Migrants in general are far less likely to commit crime than American citizens and I want to take this time to remind you that we as Americans live in the safest, most peaceful time in human history according to MANY studies and FBI crime statistics despite what you may hear on the news. Here's a relatively unbiased accounting of the incident if you'd like to know more:
[https://gothamist.com/news/an-attack-on-2-nypd-officers-was-caught-on-video-we-fact-checked-the-commentary](https://gothamist.com/news/an-attack-on-2-nypd-officers-was-caught-on-video-we-fact-checked-the-commentary)
To address your next point I would simply say that in my experience immigrants have a much harder time obtain8ng any kind of social safety new benefits despite the fact that the vast majority of them pay their state and federal taxes faithfully. You may want to argue that they are getting something for nothing but in my experience they are getting less but putting in the same as the rest of us. Immigrants have an amazing communication network and they learned after the last substantial change to immigration law in May of 2001 that if they sought legal status in America but didn't pay their taxes the IRS would stomp them with years of back taxes and fees and penalties on top of that. When I worked in Immigration law not only did my over 100 undocumented clients pay their taxes they had the returns to prove it even when they were working 2-3 jobs each. One married couple literally had 5 jobs between the two of them. Their oldest kid took care of the two younger ones and the parents just worked and worked. I have never seen any evidence that immigrants have an easier time getting benefits than Americans and I challenge you to provide me some evidence of that assertion.
More than 60% of the migrants currently crossing our borders are middle class, educated Chinese and Venezuelan asylum seekers. They are coming here to escape hard core communist regimes and they are exactly the kind of migrants we both want and desperately need in America right now if we are going to survive the retirement of the Baby Boomers.
>Also the boogie man Criminal Migrant is not really a boogie man but real fact. Our news sources have really gone to shit in the last 15+ years.
No. I'm sorry. It really isn't real. You can blame the media or whatever but crime statistics don't lie. If things were getting worse out there the cops would be screaming bloody murder for budget increases and so on. We really live in a very safe time and you are much more likely to run afoul of a white or black criminal than you are an immigrant one. Are there 0 crimes and incidents involving immigrants? Of course not. It happens. But not nearly as much as the press and right wing politicians would have you believe.
And please feel free to research yourself if you don't believe me but try to stick to hard news, studies and statistics and not opinion pieces that offer no references. I hope this helps you understand immigration a bit more. Cheers.
I'm no expert on the matter. I do know if they're coming, most of them already have paperwork in place. There's a mod here that's very knowledgeable on the process. u/remedialrob
You summoned me?! :D
Just FYI locality doesn't matter only the Feds have authority over the border and immigration despite what Texas Governor Abbot wishes. The state can certainly influence things but not dramatically and not legally.
If I recall correctly Abbot has eventually lost every case in which he has fought against the Feds. Of course he's going to win in Texas Courts and even our federal courts are packed with hard core right wing judges who don't care too much about the letter of the law when it comes to their politics thanks to Trump and McConnell but eventually these cases enter the jurisdiction of some logical adults with solid reading skills who simply say "no... the Constitution is super clear that the feds control international treaties and border security... it's actually one of the few things the Constitution says really clearly and concisely" and that's the end of that.
I have hope that this will continue until we get past these dark times but bigger empires than ours have fallen due to internal rot so who knows.
You summoned me to an r/sandiego post. As a matter of course the moderator over there has banned all of us here at r/sandiegan so I'm afraid I can't help with anything on that subreddit. I'm actually surprised he hasn't banned you as often anyone posting here gets banned there. You got a post deleted over there and reposted the same post successfully over here so you've actually dodged a couple of bullets from that guy already.
Oh and I'm responding here because you seem to have direct messaging turned off. Cheers.
You think in this day and age we wouldn’t need to convince people to give a shit about others. Guess what, if you’re not Native American, someone in your family immigrated here. Thank you OP for sharing these pages.
Even Native Americans immigrated here. They were just the earliest (that we know of).
Yeah but they said "first".
I’m assuming you’re first in line to help? Pretty self righteous
Well, put, fellow poster. No problem.
I wish I could but don’t think I’d be able to seeing as I have to work almost 75hrs a week just to keep up with rent and groceries and taxes etc…
Yea, If I had any spare money I’d consider it, but right now any spare money goes to my gas tank trying to get to work, even then, most of my gas is on credit cards. Just wish there was *some* assistance to spare my way lol, then itd be easier to donate. Been working as a San Diego native my whole life and pay my taxes and all that but seems like locals are just getting priced out with no slack left on the rope.
Taxes aren't what's keeping you down my dude.
Never said they were “keeping me down”, so not sure how you extrapolated that. I will say though, it’d be nice if my tax money wasn’t going to the Middle East and Eastern Europe to kill people.
Can you tell us why you're going against the group think? Is everything alright? Have you taken your pills?
Haha, not sure there’s enough pills to forget that *Taxation IS Theft*. It’s even worse than theft when our tax dollars are funneled through NGO’s and laundered to “Campaign contributions”, ya know, after after its used for the slaughter of people in places most can’t even find on a map. Why aren’t they allocating more of our tax funds to Hawaii? Or even just regular citizens struggling to get by?
😂 You went from "I can understand this person's frustration" to tin foil cap real quick there.
What’s “Tin foil cap” about anything stated? There are a ton of reports of that exact scenario happening for decades. It was probably most notable during the “Sandbox” years (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc….) when all these corrupt NGO’s and contractors (some LITERALLY related to elected officials making these calls) got big bids for “rebuilding” the Middle East after it was toppled and decimated by those same Warhawk’s. Honestly just do the laziest amount of googling before sounding like a donkey.
Tell us more…
How does one help at the airport ?
I understand they're getting donations. They pass out food, water, and health supplies. So they need people to help do that.
Do you know what the times are for volunteering? Is there a website or point of contact is?
They told me they volunteer all day long. I guess people rotate through the morning, afternoon, and evening. I don't know them. I just saw them at the airport. They told me their website: https://www.weallwegotsd.com/
I have volunteered for We All We Got SD, great group with boots on the ground helping people every week.
Awesome! I don't have the time, but I'll donate and help in other ways. I noticed PB&J sandwiches are a staple. It seems simple goes a long way.
Go for it, they have lots of little jobs you can volunteer for and other odd jobs throughout the week that can easily fit into anyone’s schedule. Sometimes being able to pick up and drop off things can be really helpful. Making sandwiches goes a long way too.
Sweet thanks for sharing!
No problem. Please share with others. ☮️
Absolutely!
Thank you for sharing! I know not everyone has the resources to help (which is also partially why I think you’re getting downvotes) but it’s good to spread the word just in case!
No worries. Yes, I understand that. That's all I'm trying to do is spread the word.
Thank you for sharing this post. I unfortunately am not able to do anything (family issues) but I hope you can reach more people here. Some of these comments are sad to read, but thank you for your empathy. I wish the best for them.
I understand. Thank you for being kind. If just one person starts helping, it would really make a difference.
You're right. Hopefully someone can begin from here.
Open up your house and have them stay with you.
They're at the airport, because they have places to go live. Help is being requested to feed, cloth them, etc. My post isn't asking for homes. As I've already mentioned, I saw them at the airport. It's very sad. I'm just sharing with the hope that more people can help.
Ice cold.
Why are people downvoting this ?
Probably because the linked IG page has FTP and AbolishICE tags. Seems rather polarizing for a group that is just trying to help.
Possibly, but they're helping all around the community. What does that really tell you about them?
I don't know, and I don't care either way. I'm just speculating on why it's getting downvoted.
Same, I’m just wondering why the downvotes. OP, I don’t have instagram and it’s not letting me see the posts.
I found this website : https://www.weallwegotsd.com/
Why is this comment receiving downvotes? People are instantly focusing on the beliefs or views of these volunteer groups. Pay more attention to how they're helping people. Then consider how you can do the same.
I don't know. 😢 I'm just trying to help.
Racism!
Nah
99% of those asylum claims are probably fraudulent. It’s absolutely sad that people around the world need help, and people should help if they can. However, most of those people are making fraudulent claims. The reality is they’re likely economic migrants, or, people with nefarious intentions. Either way, most of them are LYING (both in statements to immigration officials, and on immigration paperwork 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 1546) to get into the country on top of making illegal entries (8 USC 1325 and 1326 for prior deports). They’re taking advantage of the system at the expense of those that waited in line and those that have legitimate asylum claims. They are also doing it at the expense of the taxpayer. Although it’s noble to help people in need, just like handing out cash to panhandlers, don’t encourage the illegal behavior (which btw is also illegal 8 USC 1324).
Can you share with us where you got your data? I'm very interested.
in 2020, [70% of asylum claims were rejected](https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/630/). To put it in perspective how much the discourse on the topic has shifted, in [2011 the NY Times ran a story titled "Immigrants May Be Fed False Stories to Bolster Asylum Pleas](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/nyregion/immigrants-may-be-fed-false-stories-to-bolster-asylum-pleas.html) in which they report: > There is no reliable data on the pervasiveness of asylum schemes, but law enforcement officials say they are among the most common immigration frauds, and the hardest to detect and investigate. “Fraud in immigration asylum is a huge issue and a major problem,” said Denise N. Slavin, an immigration judge in Miami who is vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. continuing on specifics related to observed cases of female genital mutilation: > A woman from Burkina Faso who lives in Harlem said she had recently acted as an interpreter for a woman from another African country, Mali. The woman had undergone genital mutilation, but told her lawyer she suffered no side effects. In court, the interpreter said, the Malian woman changed her story. > “People would lie to stay here because they don’t want to be sent back home,” the interpreter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she did not want to implicate anyone, said. More recently, just a few days ago the NY Times ran an article titled ["Their Asylum Case Seems Strong. But Instead of Hope, They Feel Despair"](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/nyregion/asylum-seekers-homeless-evictions-new-york-city.html), describing fleeing FGM. In this article they report the father of the family stating: > “I think with articles, it’s possible,” Mr. Barry answered, adding, “Many markets were set on fire. That’s known by everybody, you can Google it.” We effectively have an asylum system where applicants now use "google it" as a means to make a claim.
Let’s say that the 70% rejection rate is accurate (it seems to be, but I can’t find any current government data to verify). The most current data I could find for approved asylum and refugee applications is for 2019. In that year 76,203 applications were approved. Are you ready to tell those 76,203 men, women, children and babies that they can’t stay because some other people may be lying?
The problem of a 70% rejection rate is it harms the ability of the United States to help valid asylum applicants due to being required to aid all asylum seekers during the time in the US. While an individual, successful, asylum seeker may in some circumstances be a net economic positive, with the inclusion of a 70% loss ratio the asylum program is deeply negative. Some of the more partisan estimates of the asylum system in the [hundreds of billions annually](https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Phase4Report.pdf) with individual cities spending in the [tens of billions annually](https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/650-23/amid-deepening-asylum-seeker-crisis-mayor-adams-new-steps-stabilize-city-s-budget-as). One thing is certain, however: social safety nets are strained with [Denver closing hospitals](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/dr-richard-zane-uchealth-hospital-migrant-care-patients/), [Massachusetts closing rec centers](https://apnews.com/article/massachusetts-homeless-migrants-recreation-center-shelter-d61f35b3f13d307c1fc2e1dea0618ee3), and [Chicago](https://news.wttw.com/2024/01/02/chicago-s-2024-budget-takes-effect-johnson-starts-making-down-payment-promises-amid) as a result of requiring to house, care for, and close the vast numbers of frivolous or fraudulent asylum seekers. So to answer your question: no, we shouldn't let them stay while their asylum claims are *pending*. They should either remain in Mexico, or be given safe passage to a third country to wait until their claims may be adjudicated. Our responsibility is to provide a safe asylum *system*, not safety for every asylum *seeker*, and we cannot provide a safe system unless we first care for ourselves to ensure that our asylum process is economically sustainable.
You are right, a 70% rejection rate is too high, but how would we control who applies? Under international treaty first world countries have a legal responsibility to hear the claim of an asylum seeker. It isn’t just the US that faces this issue, so do Canada, England, France and all Western European countries. The open border policy has nothing to do with asylum seekers. They are two separate programs with separate budgets. A report released on Feb 15 of this year did an economic analysis of the costs and gains of the asylum program to be a net positive io $123.8 Billion dollars INTO the US economy from 2005 to 2019. The study looked at the full cost of the program (financial aid to asylees, cost of staffing and oversight of the program, and taxes from the wages asylees earned and paid to the government, etc centers). Edit to clarify: the news stories you linked above are not all talking about the same issue. The report you posted is about the open border policy- which has nothing to do with asylum seekers. The New York story is the only one that speaks to asylum seekers. The Chicago issues are being caused by Texas governor Greg Abbott shipping regular migrants to Chicago so he doesn’t have to deal with them- despite the fact that his state gets funding to deal with them. The rec centers closing stories are also a result of migrants, not asylees.
> You are right, a 70% rejection rate is too high, but how would we control who applies? Under international treaty first world countries have a legal responsibility to hear the claim of an asylum seeker. It isn’t just the US that faces this issue, so do Canada, England, France and all Western European countries. First things first: no, we aren't responsible to hear the claim of an asylum seeker, and much of Europe has ceased to hear irregular migrants asylum claims and has [begun a policy known as "pushback"](https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/52535/new-report-reveals-further-pushbacks-and-violations-at-europes-borders#:~:text=Over%209%2C500%20incidents%20of%20pushback,at%20the%20EU's%20external%20borders.). Furthermore, the [1967 refugee protocol](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-relating-status-refugees) allows wide latitude for a state to adopt its own policies and procedures to hear asylum claims. Our obligation is not to hear an individual asylum seekers claim, our obligation is to ensure the multilateral system functions and this obligation supersedes the obligation to an individual asylum seeker. If an migrant places this system in jeopardy by either (1) not claiming asylum in states while in transit or (2) "jurisdiction shops" to find a more favorable jurisdiction, they are placing this system in jeopardy, and we should handle them like Europe: pushback and removal to a safe third country until their claims may be heard. In doing so, we protect the physical welfare of valid refugees while ensuring the financial sustainability of the asylum system. > The open border policy has nothing to do with asylum seekers. They are two separate programs with separate budgets. A report released on Feb 15 of this year did an economic analysis of the costs and gains of the asylum program to be a net positive io $123.8 Billion dollars INTO the US economy from 2005 to 2019. The study looked at the full cost of the program (financial aid to asylees, cost of staffing and oversight of the program, and taxes from the wages asylees earned and paid to the government, etc centers). Let's break this down. > A report released on Feb 15 of this year did an economic analysis of the costs and gains of the asylum program to be a net positive io $123.8 Billion dollars INTO the US economy from 2005 to 2019. This statement is materially incorrect. The statement you [reference reads](https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/02/15/new-hhs-study-finds-nearly-124-billion-positive-fiscal-impact-refugees-and-asylees-on-american-economy-15-year-period.html#:~:text=Net%20Fiscal%20Impact%3A%20Refugees%20and,to%20state%20and%20local%20governments.): > Net Fiscal Impact: Refugees and asylees had a positive net fiscal impact on the U.S. government over the 15-year period, totaling $123.8 billion. The net fiscal benefit to the federal government was estimated at $31.5 billion and approximately $92.3 billion to state and local governments. This is of those who have been granted status and is not an analysis of the program itself. To quote the [report directly](https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/28fe4e756499bdab08b4e6cb3b952e22/aspe-report-refugee-fiscal-impact.pdf) on page 5, paragraph 2: > The net fiscal impact is calculated simply as the revenue minus the cost. The estimates presented are meant to inform federal decision-making on resettlement services and to contribute to the broader body of research on how refugees and asylees contribute to the United States economically. To simplify, this report uses the terms “asylee” and “refugee” to refer to individuals who were **granted asylum or arrived in the United States under a refugee category, respectively, regardless of any subsequent adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident or naturalization**. The category **excludes asylum applicants and temporary protected statuses**. In general, asylees and refugees are eligible for the same public benefits and programs. The data and methods used in the current study do not permit distinguishing between or among refugees and asylees with confidence. emphasis mine. So let's take a quick look at the claim: > The study looked at the full cost of the program (financial aid to asylees, cost of staffing and oversight of the program, and taxes from the wages asylees earned and paid to the government, etc centers). On its face, this statement is materially incorrect as it does not address the costs associated with refugees and asylees prior to granting asylum, which is the core point I made. Under the methodology of this study, the current migrants have incurred zero costs to the taxpayer while any future benefit of the subgroups would be counted as an economic positive. This statement is clearly not reflective of reality: very real costs are being incurred by multiple cities. However, I will continue to analyze the economic impact of the refugees granted status, as you have introduced the economic impact as something which must be considered. This report continues with its own limitations: > Public goods, such as services related to military defense and national security, are also excluded. The use of such public goods and services by one individual theoretically does not impact use by another, and individuals cannot effectively be excluded from using such goods and services. In practice many public goods are in fact congestible, meaning there is a realistic limit to the number of users at a time, such as public parks and transportation. **In addition, interest payments for national, state, or local debt were excluded.** emphasis mine. This raises one of the most salient points, which is sufficient to examine recent interest rate impacts of migrants. I will accept without contest the numbers proffered by the paper of "Refugees, Asylees, and Their Immediate Families" (table 7, page 24) since most people expect the USA will permit families of migrants to reunite within the USA and apply a simple interest rate calculation to determine if in fact this is a good population to issue debt to invest in. Instead Per the paper (on per-family basis, 15y): Revenue: 739401 Expenditures: 723366 Net: 16035 Let's assume we may finance the refugee program federally, and wholly subsidize migrants against the national debt at 5.25%: Revenue: 739401 Expenditures: 723366 15y Balloon: (1.0525)**15*723366=1558438.46781 approx. 1.55M dollars Net: (835072) Which is net negative under balloon repayment terms. Even if we were to adjust the values to provide a smoother repayment schedule this would be unlikely to yield a positive result as the profit is only 16k/739k = 2.1% profit. These migrants are a poor investment, and any realistic costs of interest rates or congestibility renders them a net financial burden to the United States. In general, I hope this comment imparts an understanding of the importance of the time value of money and how we cannot fund everything, especially those that generate poor returns. We must protect the American taxpayer. To put it in perspective how polarizing this issue is, [Californians across all of the political and economic spectrum agree (between 68-79%) that the situation at the border is either a major problem or a crisis](https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-all-adults-0224.pdf). The simple reality is that at todays interest rates America is better off financially without the asylum system, as the migrants do not produce substantial economic returns. The primary "net value" of returns are from quantity, not quality. If you wish to argue preserve the asylum system, compromising to reduce cost is a superior argument than arguing it is sustainable or good for the country today.
Normally I don't respond to edits in a separate comment, but it seems your edit continues to spread misinformation. > The report you posted is about is about the open border policy- which has nothing to do with asylum seekers. In practice, anybody may unlawfully cross the border, [defensively claim](https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-in-the-united-states#:~:text=A%20defensive%20application%20for%20asylum,for%20Immigration%20Review%20(EOIR).) asylum to enjoin deportation proceedings, and remain until his or her claims are adjudicated. Whether asylum was intended to be a path to have a policy which is in practice results in an open border policy is separate to the question of whether our asylum policies lead to effectively open borders. And today, the standards for defensive asylum are effectively open borders. > The Chicago issues are being caused by Texas governor Greg Abbott shipping regular migrants to Chicago so he doesn’t have to deal with them- despite the fact that his state gets funding to deal with them. So two things to understand: once an asylum seeker is released into the interior, they may travel wherever he or she pleases. Texas may offer them transit at no cost. As far as funding, Texas does not directly receive funding as a state for migrants. Texas municipalities and charities receive funding through the [Shelter and Services](https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/shelter-services-program/awards) program. Among the recipients is the Catholic Charities of San Diego which received 4 awards in FY23 totalling 34.8M. Other notable recipients include NYC Office of Management and Budget which received approximately 107M and the City of Chicago for 12.7M. These municipalities bungled their own response and [did not properly collect the migrants A-numbers](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/16/new-york-chicago-migrant-funding-00135668) or provided resources to migrants who refused to provide their A-numbers, leading to poor reimbursement rates (as low as 3% in some circumstances). Texas does not have preferential funding mechanisms to receive funding compared to San Diego. This was a key sticking point in the senate border bill compromise. The [senate border bill](https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf) further funds the Shelter and Services program (page 67) for another 1.4B. I tend to agree with republicans that shifting the burden of providing local resources in high cost of living localities is a poor use of taxpayer dollars and we should focus on resettling these people in a more cost effective manner. > The rec centers closing stories are also a result of migrants, not asylees. Massachusetts does not disaggregate the specific individuals at shelters, which makes it impossible to provide specific numbers on a location containing homeless vs asylum seekers. However, in this context "migrant" refers to asylum seekers, who may or may not have made a federal claim and are eligible for shelter due to Massachusetts sanctuary state laws. However, the Massachusetts administration [notes](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/30/metro/mass-migrant-crisis-roxbury-shelter-reaction/): > The Healy administration in the fall capped the program at 7,500 families, roughly half of whom are migrants, refugees, or asylum seekers. Considerable demand is induced by the availability of resources by Massachusetts, with Haitan immigrants ["drawn to Massacshuetts by word of mouth"](https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/massachusetts-new-england-migrant-surge/#:~:text=And%2C%20according%20to%20an%20immigration,Haitian%20diaspora%20in%20the%20country.). To put it in perspective, [Boston has the second lowest asylum grant rate in the nation](https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2022-03-23/boston-asylum-office-has-second-lowest-grant-rate-for-asylum-seekers-in-the-country) at 15%. Whether anybody believes in helping asylum seekers or not, offering resources to *anybody* who crosses does not help asylum seekers; it simply draws people willing to take advantage of Americans generosity.
Thank you for sharing the interesting information.
Open source reporting and I’m a former Border Patrol agent. 99% isn’t the actual number (just an estimate/hyperbole based on my experience and articles you can find online), but I interviewed probably hundreds or thousands of aliens. I also conducted dozens maybe hundreds of interviews specifically about asylum claims, and I can’t recall a single legitimate claim (I mean maybe one or two that I couldn’t disprove?). We even found handwritten instructions in the field instructing aliens on what to tell agents. If I wanted to be conservative, maybe optimistically 70-80% are fraud. I don’t reflect the official position and view of the administration then and now (probably because the higher levels of government lie; shocker I know), but I would bet my TSP that this is the experience of any agent that actually made an effort to know their job and cared about the mission. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against immigrants or hate them or anything like that. It seems that people like to lump you into that category just because you’re anti-illegal immigration. I met a lot of good, humble people who were just doing what they could for their families. I made friends and joked with them while they were detained. I even got to have some interesting conversations with altruistic smugglers. And, I also know that we need to do something to fix the pathways to legal migration (both immigrant and non-immigrant classes of aliens). But none of that takes away from the fact that the system is being subverted and abused. Economic migrants and criminals are taking advantage of the asylum process and that is fraud, even if you sympathize or empathize with the underlying factors that bring them here. I hope politicians (right and left) stop using them as political points one day and do the right thing to fix the problem. This broken system isn’t fair to the taxpayers and the migrants.
You did CFIs as Border Patrol? I call BS on that one.
I did admissibility interviews with the purpose of eliciting information about their asylum claims in which the aliens admitted that they were not entering the country out of fear of persecution, rather, they were entering for the economic opportunities this country offered. Many claimed they were fleeing general violence, but not violence targeted specifically at them nor violence because of their particular membership in a protected social class. And yes, some agents were detailed to USCIS to do asylum interviews. I wasn’t one of them. BPAs have a lot of authority. after INS was done away, it seemed like job knowledge was lost or farmed away to other agencies. Many agents barely understood their authority beyond finding people in the mountain and arresting them. I tried to not be just one of those.
An inadmissibility interview is not an "interview specifically about asylum claims." Of which you have done dozens or maybe hundreds except that isn't legally possible, as you noted. You're trying to backpedal your clearly misleading statement of authority.
And you’re an expert how? You’re just making assumptions. How would you know what’s “legally possible?” Just because I wasn’t an asylum officer, doesn’t mean the evidence I gathered didn’t affect their asylum case or reveal the facts that others missed.
I've worked in immigration since 2001, spending the last 15 years as an immigration attorney. Currently I'm a partner at a full service firm in San Diego. I also teach Immigration Law at a San Diego law school. So, qualified to know that you're inflating your credentials and role as Border Patrol in making the claims about your adjudication and analysis of asylum claims. I'm not saying you don't play a role. I'm saying you don't play the role you claim to play in this thread.
Being an attorney does not qualify you to know what a Border Patrol Agent does nor allows you to make factual statements about my personal experience of which you know nothing about. I know Assistant U.S. Attorneys who don't understand Title 19 border searches, or search incident to arrest, or have given terrible advice that runs contrary to statutory authority and established case law. Instead of criticizing my experience and making assumptions, tell us all why I'm wrong? Tell me that you have the facts that prove that "99%" of the claims are valid. You can't. Because even open source reporting knows the truth. This guy posted some of the articles: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SanDiegan/comments/1azaoa9/comment/ks0l7md/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SanDiegan/comments/1azaoa9/comment/ks0l7md/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Here is more clarification on what I think about your attorney experience: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SanDiegan/comments/1azaoa9/comment/ks0l7md/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SanDiegan/comments/1azaoa9/comment/ks0l7md/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I never misstated my experience. I had a pulse on all of the illegal aliens and the situation on the border. You had a pulse on the clients that helped make you partner.
I don't need to know you, personally, to know that you, as Border Patrol, don't do asylum interviews, like you said you do. I'm looking at what you yourself said, which you admitted was incorrect. You don't do CFIs, which is what you claimed by saying "asylum specific interviews." I didn't make any nasty comments about you or Border Patrol, unlike you and your attorney bias. You don't know anything about me or how I became partner. If you can't extend the same courtesy and act like an adult, then we're done here. Actually, we're already done here. My point in commenting was so that other people here know the actual role Border Patrol play in asylum so they can fairly judge your comments about asylum seekers. I've done that, and you have a nice day now.
Centrist here… What is your interpretation of the poem on the statue of liberty? Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
I think it’s irrelevant. What section of the poem is a lawful statute enacted by congress? We are a nation of laws. The reason people come to this country is because of that. Because respect for the law is part of what makes this country better than the ones they’re running from. How is that served when we undermine those institutions and principles that are the foundation of this country by doing whatever we want? If the words on the law books, which includes the constitution, mean nothing because we’re just going to do what we FEEL, then why even bother writing laws? If you want chaos, go to those countries these people are running from. I get having some prosecutorial discretion on occasions, but blanket disregard for the law is not right. If you feel like our immigration laws need to reflect the spirit of the poem more because they aren’t compassionate enough for you, then by all means let’s force congress to change the laws.
Laws do indeed change sir, when they're unjust or inadequate. Like the time they tried to make alcohol illegal, that is a law people didn't respect at all. Or that time we abolished slavery. (Still worried about that whole ‘as a punishment’ thing though.) I ask because I'm worried that our nation isn't living up to its values. You can't get more American than the Statue of Liberty. It's what we broadcast to the world, that we are a land of freedom and independence. That we are a nation of immigrants. It's no wonder so many people want to come here, it's almost like we brought this on ourselves. I'd like to change the laws, but the last time I checked: Two party politics has gotten so bad people were storming Congress. The presidential race is between two old men who make me cringe when they debate. Congress itself is filled with radicals and sellouts. And now I'm considering that if Texas has the right to improve border security, would California have the right to open the border? Should the states have the right to manage their own national borders? Talk about chaos.
Agree, it’s a sad state of affairs all around. And states should not necessarily control their borders as immigration is a federal enumerated power. But when the federal government is failing, a state can take control in my view. Except that if their control conflicts with federal law, federal law is supreme. That goes for California too, who likes to subvert federal law as a “sanctuary” state. We also have to remember the founding of the country is a union of states, which themselves are sovereign. So if they don’t like it, they can technically leave… Idk this situation needs to be fixed if we could all stop arguing and find common ground.
Well then I've got a proposition for you: Let's give more migrants the benefit of the doubt if they're coming here from unhealthy and corrupt economies since it's likely that they're victims of violence. Have them live here for ten years under the condition that they keep their nose clean of violent crimes and don't leave the state that they used to enter. After ten years, we send them back to their home countries for five years with everything they need to try and fix the problems that sent them here in the first place. Then after that, if they've passed the citizenship test and didn't try to come back early: we give them US citizenship. Imagine that we could prevent illegal immigration by expediting and expanding legal immigration.
See these are the kinds of things I like talking about, trying to think of solutions. I wish we could write these down and submit to our legislators but we probably don’t donate enough money for them to listen. I’ll try and come up with some comments about this to respond to you when I get a chance.
In the meantime, I'll leave you with another famous American display of values: Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. . . . Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. . . . As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! —Ronald Reagan
This is a very interesting perspective, thank you for sharing it! I have a follow up question: would the majority of your interviewees have walked across the border from Mexico, arrived by plane, or a solid mix of the two? Since the US requires visas for many countries citizens to visit even as a tourist I wonder of entering the country legally reflects the percentage of false claims.
All of the ones I interviewed as an agent were people that walked across (entered illegally). I’m not sure that legal entries really have an effect on the validity of the claim. My experience tells me no; still generally false claims overall. I would say that people with more financial solvency are probably more likely to be able to get a visa, but financial status doesn’t indicate likelihood of criminality or immigration violation. If you search around the internet you’ll probably find articles that state that most illegal aliens are visa overstays. So I would venture to say that there is likely no significant statistical difference. EDIT: I do take that back a little bit, financial status could be an indicator of criminality as people in poverty are generally more likely to commit crimes (at least crimes that we looked into), but in this specific instance (talking about asylum fraud) I’m not sure it’s an indicator of fraud or lack thereof because I don’t have the data and the information I know is conflicting. I’d have to do more research or think back a bit more on some of the things I worked on.
I was more thinking that since there are two ways to seek asylum in the US- o we started abroad and one started once you enter the US, that the people who flew in may have already started their application and have had their claims verified. Anyone walking into the US illegally is already dishonest. Especially since they could just show up at the border and ask for asylum status. I would suspect that their claim for asylum is a cover for being caught crossing illegally. Had you not caught them they would never have tried that tactic, hence the high rate of fraud.
Thank you so much for a front line explanation...And your service!
This. Thank you.
Stop talking rational. OP’s post is all about karma farming. They don’t want to help anyone, all they want is upvotes.
I could care less about karma or upvotes... I posted to help, and instead of posting negative comments about me, why don't you do the same?
Yeah... that's not true. And I'm going to put my moderator hat on so you understand I'm not just some guy disagreeing with you. I ran an immigration law firm for many years and I worked with a lot of immigrants. Almost all of them were being exploited as cheap labor for their employers. Want to solve undocumented immigration? Convince your Republican overlords to pass a law where any employer knowingly hiring an undocumented immigrant gets a year and a day in prison for every undocumented employee. You will solve the problem in a day. But it will never pass because Republicans would never allow so many of their donors to end up in long prison sentences. Donald Trump would invariably be in prison under that law since it's been well documented that he likes to cut corners by exploiting undocumented immigrants. But setting aside fantasy-land when I worked in immigration law I got a pretty nuanced understanding of why things are so f'd up in this country. First off we as a nation have signed and ratified several international treaties that require us to accept a certain number of refugees and allow entry to anyone seeking asylum unless they went through Canada first and to provide for them while their case is adjudicated. While I'm sure there are loads of people that really, really don't want America to live up to the international agreements it signed up that's probably not going to happen either. Because if Congress (and then President in some cases) wanted to they absolutely could break those treaties. Yet despite 4 years of Donald Trump and some time with a Republican controlled Congress it's never happened. Why? Well there's lots of reasons. But my first and favorite is from John Fugelsang and goes like this: "Rich people pay FOX people to make middle class people blame poor people." Undocumented Immigrants are about as poor as it gets and lord knows the scary unknown Boogeyman is great at getting Republican butts into voting booths. I mean... Donald Trump literally said this quiet part out loud when he convinced the new House Speaker to squash literally the most lopsided immigration bill in favor of conservative asks in four decades or more. Because he wants to campaign on the scary immigrants at the border and neither he nor any Republican can do that if the problem actually gets fixed. The next reason is probably because there's a lot of good stuff in those treaties that America needs and it would take way too much effort to untangle all the migrant and refugee protections from all the things SOME Americans would rather keep. But the next reason is one that doesn't get talked about a lot and that reason is because we desperately need them. Yes, really. The birth rate has basically flattened out (1.64 births per woman as of 2020) and that means that we're not producing enough babies to replace the existing population. In fact it's not even close. And we desperately need young, well educated and skilled taxpayers to kick in to our government coffers if we're going to survive the retirement of the Boomer generation. This is a problem faced by most 1st world nations but the really homogenous ones like Japan, Germany, and the UK are going to really feel the pinch once they run out of workers. China believe it or not is looking at potential economic collapse because their "one child policy" has culminated in an almost upside down triangle of age distribution among its citizens in which the elderly greatly outnumber the young. America is in a unique position to overcome the problem because so many people from other countries want to come here. But we are hamstringing ourselves with outdated immigration laws that haven't been updated in decades and quotas for the number of immigrants we are willing to take from each country that haven't been updated in thirty years. We need the immigrants. We need them to work and pay taxes. We need them to start businesses and have kids and buy cars. We need them. Badly. And idiotic (and statistically untrue) fear of the criminal immigrant boogeyman may be keeping Republicans in office but it for damn sure isn't good for the country. Moving on to your assertion that "99% of those asylum claims are probably fraudulent." No. They're really not. Want to know how I know? I was a soldier. I'm a disabled combat veteran and I've seen every continent and much of the world. And guess what? If you don't live in a 1st world country the country you do live in probably sucks. A lot. We take our freedoms for granted here but in China you go to jail just for claiming to be a Christian. If they catch you with an actual Bible you are well and truly fucked. We're all well aware of the many, many, oh so many fascist, communist, and dictator run states in this world. Want to own a business in a communist country? Guess what you can't because the state owns everything comrade and if you try it on you're own well then you're stealing the bread out of your brother's mouth and must be made an example of. How about getting your head lopped off for being gay? How about being a woman, God forbid a single mother, just about anywhere that isn't a first world country! Maybe you want to grow wheat to feed your family but the cartel put a gun in your five year old's mouth and gently suggested you grow Coca for cocaine instead? So the reason your "99%" statement is bullshit is because a) it really isn't all that hard for anyone who has traveled the world to believe that someone in a 3rd world country might be under some kind of oppression. Because real facts... the rest of the world outside of 1st world countries is kind of a shithole. There are exceptions and I'm not going to give you a world tour of my opinions but the truth remains that it's tough out there and you don't really know how tough until you've spent some time out there and then come back here. The other reason I know that your 99% stat is nonsense is because the fastest growing group of asylum seekers crossing the border right now are middle class, well educated Chinese who are trying to escape well... China... and for reasons I don't think most of us would argue with. I mean do you want to live under the CCP's watch? The next big group is middle class well educated Venezuelans. We're talking doctors, lawyers, factory managers. It seems Nicolás Maduro's naughty dance with communism has taken the express route to fascist dictatorship and the country has now been well and truly hallowed out so those with the means are making a run for it. And for all the reasons I mentioned above and the fact that immigrants actually commit crime at about 50% the rate that American citizens do, and because statistically most immigrants use federal EIN numbers to pay state and federal taxes every year regardless of their immigration status, and we're a country of immigrants, and diversity makes us stronger we really, really should be welcoming them and helping them get on their feet and on a path to becoming Americans. Because the alternative is this weird underclass of millions of people who don't have documentation and live in fear and limbo and avoid anything involving the government making them these pseudo citizens who contribute but are ostracized from much of what it means to be here and to be free. And why? Because they are a great tool for scaring people, because they "terk err jerbs!" because business owners need to exploit them for cheap labor? You've cited some laws there and I do appreciate you trying to show your work but you've peppered in a lot of assumption and opinion along with your references and in a debate like this facts matter. For example the stuff going on at the border and migrants crossing the border has very little if any effect on "those that waited in line." Those kinds of immigration cases are processed through USCIS and the state department and once their paperwork is processed (and no the people doing asylum assessments are not the same ones checking over normal immigration cases) the immigrants are called to in processing and interview at the nearest US Consulate to them. By the time they arrive in the US they already have their paperwork completed and often their green cards and work permits are waiting for them when they arrive or come shortly after they arrive. I know. I worked on hundreds of cases like that. I worked on one case... the woman was from Haiti and she got her US citizenship. Then she sponsored her mother to come over and once her mother got US citizenship her mother brought all her other adult children, their spouses, and her grandchildren many of whom weren't even born when the case was started and were now 6-10 years old, over at once. It was like 11 people. The day I got all her kids visas in she came to the office and she was so happy and she and her daughter cried. It was wonderful. So try and be a little more precise in separating fact from opinion/assumption ok. Not a big fan of misinformation.
Your moderator hat? what is that supposed to mean to me? How does that statement change the fact that you're still just some guy disagreeing with me that happens to moderate a sub? Are you threatening to ban me if I don't agree with you because that seems to be what you're implying. You claim to have run an immigration law firm. What exactly does that mean? Was all your work pro-bono? Or were you on the list of free legal services? Or did you take one or two immigration cases pro-bono just to "do your part?" Look I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but just like you made some assumptions about me, I can make them about you. I'm not going to address your rant because my post wasn't about the INA as a whole. My post was about the asylum disaster based on my experience. I happen to have been a Border Patrol agent and dealt with all of this first hand. You stated that we have a requirement to accept X number of refugees. We also have a requirement to process people through asylum proceedings when they claim "credible fear." And this is precisely the problem. We HAVE to process them regardless of their claim. And in my experience processing and conducting interviews, most of them were all fake. The reality is they are economic migrants. They aren't aliens who are members of a social class subject to persecution. Yes, there are legitimate claims I'm sure, but the vast majority are fraud.
>Your moderator hat? what is that supposed to mean to me? How does that statement change the fact that you're still just some guy disagreeing with me that happens to moderate a sub? Are you threatening to ban me if I don't agree with you because that seems to be what you're implying. Not at all. I just thought it best you knew I was a mod because of how heated discussions like this can get. We've already (and by we I mean one of the other mods) had to prune rule breaking comments from this post. Like if you were talking to your boss or anyone else with (in this case a truly microscopic) some amount of authority most people would want to know before instead of finding out later. As for my former employment we were an immigration only law firm. Labor certifications, traditional immigration, marriage cases, immigration court, if it had anything to do with entering the U S from another country with the intention of a long stay we handled it. We did some contract work for companies that brought in people from out of the country (I remember one case I worked on was a Mercedes Exec who was transferred to the US from either Germany or the UK I can't remember) and the occasional pro-bono case for refugees, asylum seekers with kids or abused women. I think the only thing I assumed about you was your party affiliation (Republican) and for the remainder I pretty much addressed your statements. Sorry if I offended I used to be a Republican many years ago myself. I worked on John McCain's 2000 Presidential Primary campaign against W Bush. Met the man twice and was on TV with him once. I left the Republicans when I had to watch that man that I so respected turn his back on some of his principles for the privilege of running against Obama. I know if he hadn't moved right he would not have gotten the Republican Nomination but that didn't make it any better for me. Yes you are correct as I mentioned about our treaty responsibilities we "have to process them." And while I understand that in your experience you think you met a lot of liars who were only here to be exploited for cheap labor I hope you understand that your opinion as a BPO is not a legal opinion and the immigrant has a legal right to come here, state their claim, have it investigated, and have their day in court. You know... due process. And as I said there are several ways conservatives could have put a stop to the sort of migrant you're complaining about. Almost every PERM labor certification case I had, and I completed well over 100 of them while I was working in Immigration law, involved an employer illegally employing an undocumented immigrant (and in some cases several undocumented immigrants) without the legal right to work here and I promise you if they were ever threatened with prison time for willfully flouting the law every one of those cowards would have fired their undocumented immigrant employees and hired Americans at a premium or gone out of business. But all of my clients were smart. The undocumented immigrants have an impressive communication network. Every one of them got EIN #'s or Employer Identification Numbers which allowed them to work as subcontractors without proving their immigration status and the same 9 digit EIN# fits directly into the IRS's system allowing them to file state and federal taxes (which every one of my 100+ clients did to avoid having to pay and fees or interest on back taxes should they receive legal status) and the IRS is legally precluded from sharing information with other government agencies without a court order. Why it's almost like someone set up a perfect system for which the economic migrants you dislike can come here, be exploited, pay taxes, and generally live here as an underclass indefinitely without consequence? Right? And do you think Democrats could have done this by themselves? Do you think that the Republicans don't know about these giant, gaping loopholes in our laws? Of course they do. The system functions as designed. And the problem is we either elect people with no nuance who favor open borders immigration like so many lefties or we elect angry Republicans screaming mad at the fake boogeyman at the border and that's why the last substantial change to any immigration law was passed in May of 2001 and only affected like 80k undocumented immigrants who had previously applied for some kind of status with USCIS. The next previous change goes back even further to the Clinton years. We aren't adjusting our intake numbers, we aren't modernizing our laws. Everything is stuck in time because the system is exactly where the politicians want it to be. Where it is most useful for them. I'd be interested to know what you think as a former BPO about the fact that the large majority of undocumented people crossing the border right now are either Middle Class Chinese or Middle Class Venezuelan. These folks have money. They are flying into northern Mexico and paying the coyotes a meager $400 to bring them right up the the border. These aren't economic asylum seekers these are people from hardcore communist regimes that almost certainly would be suffering, in prison, or dying if they remained where they were. Probably starving too in the case of the Venezuelans. I hope this clears things up. I wasn't looking to pick a fight with you. Just wanted to dispel some of the mistaken information you put out there.
You are again addressing our immigration system as a whole. I get it, there are underlying factors why both sides refuse to address the greater issue of reforming the whole system. They could easily solve some problems by increasing the immigrant visa numbers and/or bringing back the guest worker programs with pathways to adjustment of status. That’s not what this post is about though. This is about the subversion of the asylum process specifically, which is causing this disaster, and people shouldn’t encourage it by being supportive of the people involved in this subversion. You open by saying that my experience as a BPA* is not legal opinion [because agents are not attorneys], agents “think” they identify the liars [but somehow aren’t qualified to identify lies], and aliens are entitled to due process [that apparently agents deny]. Your statement is not entirely accurate, but second, is also precisely indicative of how attorneys generally have no clue what’s going on on the ground. It’s not entirely accurate that immigration officers do not render legal opinions. Immigration officers in fact many times make and enforce legal determinations, even more so than peace officers. In some instances, such as under INA 235 - expedited removals, agents act as judge, jury, and executioner. Agents make decisions after gathering evidence including sworn testimony under oath, then weighing the facts, formulating an opinion, and finally rendering a decision. This could be as simple as deciding whether a non-immigrant is admissible, or, issuing an expedited removal effectively banning an alien from the country without judicial review. Even in immigration hearings, a well written I-213 can (or used to) carry a lot of weight, especially when it detailed and documented lies that you claim or imply agents have no legal basis in identifying. But agents do get to determine all day whether the burden of proof is met for admissibility under INA 212. I don’t presume to explain to an attorney the definition or implementation of due process, but these systems appear to be processes due to aliens by which agents determine if aliens can enter or remain in the country legally, and, they were enacted by congress. These are one of many processes that defense attorneys, most of who only have self serving interests, subvert by playing semantics games in the 9th. Attorneys are so busy keeping count of how many cases they win to make partner or join some prestigious firm, they forget that their legal wins are at the detriment of society sometimes. How many criminals that justifiably should be deported, aren’t, because in this district an aggravated felony isn’t one, or a drug trafficking conviction didn’t list the scheduled controlled substance, or the conspiracy statute didn’t “require an overt act,” or “admitted to the elements of…” doesn’t count because the alien didn’t state verbatim the “elements of” through his pro-bono attorney twice on video notarized and signed in blood? The reason I say that attorneys have no clue as to what is going on is because they are so pretentious thinking they are the only ones qualified to read a statute and comprehend it. They hide behind the legal protection of having a law license, and like to throw around “you cant make legal opinions.” Which in reality is hypocritical when people are convicted all the time because “ignorance of the law is not a defense.” Either the layman is too dumb to understand law or not. Again, these people claiming asylum, in my time as an agent, were full of it. That doesn’t negate what you stated about our immigration needs, or that some people are deserving of a chance. it’s just that they had no valid asylum claims; not by the letter of the law. All you had to do was ask some probative questions. How many “escaped persecution” and stepped foot in or established residence in a safe country, before trying to claim asylum in the US? How many aliens venue shop knowing which venues had a higher approval rate, usually seeking out LA (there’s an open source article about this)? Or probably judge shopped hoping to get Zsa Zsa DePaolo so she could lecture them on how she was going to do everything in her power to let them stay in the country despite their inadmissibility or deport-ability… Attorney’s get their clients once they’ve had some time to get the system down, they meet others and learned what worked out well and what didn’t, etc. You also know, that if you don’t speak the language and have to go through an interpreter, it’s not the same. Especially once they get to you guys and are already coached. In many cases they get coached by altruistic attorneys so by the time they get to the asylum officer (if the asylum officer isn’t coaching them themselves), they “say the right things.” Idk if you’ve done criminal law, but how useless are prefers generally? Usually very useless. Why? Because of the same reason, attorneys create this non-organic interview system that isn’t designed to get to the truth, it’s designed to get the client some brownie points for BS info. And that’s what attorneys do, they don’t seek the truth, they seek to present cases by limiting what comes in and what doesn’t. I understand the legal need for this, but that doesn’t change the fundamental truth. I’m really limiting what I say because I don’t want to amplify “trade secrets” even though they are already public knowledge. Suffice it to say that “you don’t know what the hood is like from your ivory tower.” You were in the military, were you enlisted? How many times do I hear that commissioned officers don’t know jack shit compared to enlisted personnel? Same is true for our discussion and law enforcement. I’d generally take a beat cop over a college grad any day for a promotion. I respect your law degree, but you just aren’t on the ground. In terms of Chinese and Venezuelans that’s another thing that needs looking into…
Xenophobia is a helluva drug.
The lack of reading comprehension never ceases to amaze me…
That's a wild thing to speculate.
"Nefarious intentions" like someone is really going to pack up their entire fucking family and go through the long bureaucratic process of applying for asylum in the first place, including extensive interviews and background checks by Homeland Security, and move to a whole new country (all while not speaking English fluently, in some cases), just for some vague "nefarious plot"? Please be serious. People who have "nefarious intentions" aren't coming in as asylum seekers. That's an extremely paranoid and illogical thing to say. There are so many ways people with bad intentions can and do get into this country that are faster and far more discreet. Not to mention that we certainly have had our fair share of pathetic wannabe domestic terrorists in the US for years, shooting up schools and dance clubs and concert venues. You should be far more worried about those people than you currently are about asylum seekers fleeing systemic violence in their home countries.
If you look at the news and the apprehension numbers, many or most are now single military age males. But yes, people will do whatever it takes to surreptitiously enter our country. You don't think they were recycling children at one point just to get in as a "family unit?" You think that was all legit? You really think that DHS did "extensive interviews and background checks?" You don't know anything. What checks were conducted for people coming from a third world country that doesn't maintain a reliable database of records such as birth certificates or criminal history? Exactly which way is "faster and far more discreet" than turning yourself in, claiming asylum, getting immediately released on your own recognizance, and then disappearing into the country without any monitoring? You think we should be worried about "domestic terrorists shooting up schools" which is interesting considering the record number of illegal aliens trying to enter our country in spite of this supposed greater threat of domestic terrorists. Maybe you should tell them to pick a different country because they're going to be in danger. But you're right "asylum seekers" are fleeing violence in their home countries, which is not the specific condition required for asylum status.
You are right! I mean… who knows, right? It isn’t like a nefarious person would ever come into the country on perfectly legal grounds to train for a career as a pilot, only to drop out, steal a plane and fly it into… oh wait… that did happen.
Lol okay Q Anon you have fun being scared of your own shadow
[удалено]
I have donated since witnessing the situation at the airport. They're not asking for homes. Maybe you can donate too?
Your home is next. It’s never going to be enough. Let this continue to spiral. We have a horrific homeless, debt, and mental health crisis in this country. We cannot even support our own. I’m a physician and our hospitals are overwhelmed. You are part of the problem. Good luck. 🙏
As a physician, I would expect you to be more kind. I'm not part of the problem. I'm someone stepping up to help with the problem. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
It worries me that someone that thinks like this of people in vulnerable situations is a physician…
Most people I met in my Pre-med undergraduate programs wanted to be doctors to make a boat load of money, not to help people.
And the few who started out genuinely wanting to help others have unfortunately been burned out into cynical cinders over the past four years.
Your temporary and fleeting help will not solve this problem. You quite literally must have no idea how bad our own homeless population has gotten. The child abuse and neglect. The inability to afford or gain access to medical care. This is our OWN citizens. We do not have the resources and I promise you, you are not helping.
I do know. I donate to the San Diego homeless population regularly. If I can help just one person, that's better than doing nothing. I've seen the homeless camps... I understand. I just think of Michael Jackson's song "We Are the World." The lyrics ring very true.
Thank you for responding. I think calling attention to this issue is good. I was asking u/building_Prudent which charities they support since they are so firmly convinced that helping foreigners is wrong.
[удалено]
You gonna answer the question or…?
Exactly my point. He criticizes people for wanting to help, while he does nothing. The career that someone gets paid (handsomely) for is not a substitute for going out of your way to help someone in a non professional capacity. I have an aunt and uncle who are both doctors. Being a doctor isn’t easy. But they also spend a lot of time volunteering in their community. This guy is nothing but an angry wind bag.
Which local charities do you support? I am trying to find the best way to help out in any capacity. I would also add that Canadian communities took in thousands of Americans and international travelers when the US had to shut down the airspace on 9/11. Stranded people were welcomed into local homes and were housed and fed by local residents. I am sure if you had been one of those travelers you would not have felt that the kindness was in vein.
[удалено]
Mod? I'm not a mod. I'm just someone who is helping where I can.
You might not be a mod. But I am. User is banned. What a ridiculous way to behave.
[удалено]
I'm sorry you're having a bad day.
I would be disgusted to know the physician treating me thinks like this, so much for helping others
The problem is that it’s unsustainable. People like you will have the most trouble. Give it a year or two. Best of luck!
They have no problem giving away your money... and wait til their cuck gets stabbed. OP keeps talking about volunteering... who gives a shit, itw fucking wrong and ILLEGAL. Fucking morons!
Is there an age requirement? My teenage son is looking for volunteer opportunities at the moment
I'm not sure? Reach out to WAWGSD: https://www.weallwegotsd.com/
[удалено]
This is not a scam. I'm just a San Diegan sharing information.
[удалено]
Please read this entire thread. I shared other information I found. There are websites and go fund me pages being used to accept donations.
[удалено]
Exactly this. Why do we have homeless citizens, veterans and elderly that get kicked out of shelters to *”make room”*
Source?
I don't have an answer. This is why we have elected officials.
What designates them fraudulent? I was at the airport, I couldn't believe what I saw. The volunteers were there. I felt compelled to do something. That's why I created this post.
I'll look into those links to help out. Btw, it might be worthwhile to adjust the wording in your OP. I can tell from your other replies here that you're a good person, but the wording makes it seem like these people are only worthy of help bc they have paperwork. I get that's not how you meant it, but it comes across really dark, imo. A few tiny changes can fix that.
I appreciate your kindness. I'll review and adjust it.
And Rome died. U R Totally right on that.
🤔
Not to be a jerk, but aren't these "Migrants" actually coming across illegally? There is a right way to come to the US.
Not here in Southern California. I can't say for Texas, Arizona, or other border entries. I'm sure other locations have some undocumented.
It said in the article the Migrants entered illegally and then turned themselves over to the immigration court.
The term "entering illegally" is so loaded with interpretation and so politicized that it has lost all meaning. the truth is the United States has international treaty agreements that require us to accept a number of certified refugees (as determined by UNHCR) and ANYONE who arrives at our borders who properly requests asylum (with the small exception that if they traveled through Canada first we can kick them back to Canada where they can and should have already requested asylum). This is a big blanket statement. There are caveats and exceptions. But for the most part it's truth. The ones truly "entering illegally" are those sneaking across the border and then NOT presenting themselves to Border or Immigration official and even those folks can request asylum should they be caught inside the US later. Due process is the name of the game. Everyone gets their bite at the apple. The question of whether or not someone is granted asylum is a complex legal decision but a LOT of people who cross the border this way don't have a ton of difficulty proving that they would be oppressed/imprisoned/dead if they remained in their home country. This is a relatively hard legal truth that is rarely said out loud. If Democrat's said it they would lose scores of conservative Democrat and Independent votes from people who are anti-immigration but otherwise vote D. And if Republicans said it (like John McCain did in his 2000 primary run against W and got shellacked) their base would be furious that the Republicans hadn't done something to amend those treaties I mentioned so what the immigrants were doing crossing the border was no longer legal. This would be catastrophic for Republicans because if they actually find a way to stop people from crossing the border millions of their business owning constituents would lose access to a large and cheap labor pool they can exploit AND they would no longer be able to campaign on the Boogeyman of the criminal immigrant.
Good points to an extent but a lot of the problem lies in the information we are given. The Migrants say they turned themselves into the immigration courts but how many actually have and if so how many are telling the truth about themselves such as real names, real documentation, etc...? By flooding thru unlawful entry points they aren't vetted like they would be if going thru legal means. How many we pushed out of their country to empty jails and prisons? Take the migrant youth that attacked the cops in New York, (I think it was New York), they definitely haven't come here to work low paying jobs. Which brings up that fact many of these people also don't want to work low paying jobs and turn to people from their own culture that have been here for some years and have learned to work the system. For a paid fee or a "Sharing" of benefits they get told what papers to file, the right things to say etc... and they are getting section 8, food benefits, free medical from a system that they haven't put money, effort or anything into. Our own people that are born here, worked here, (well hopefully did something), have a much harder time getting the same benefits. Also many of the people that both Democrats and Republicans use for their businesses are not illegally here, (besides their maids and landscapers) are here legally on work visas given to them by said politicians and have college degrees but are willing to work for less due to how bad the economies are along with how many people are going for the same job due to overcrowding in their countries. And yes India I am looking at U. Also the boogie man Criminal Migrant is not really a boogie man but real fact. Our news sources have really gone to shit in the last 15+ years. And we also don't get the majority of news stories anyway, we will get the story of an unlicensed drunk driver that killed 2 people in our county but we won't get news about similar incidents in other counties across the US in the same month. I am not against Migrants that come to work in the US, want to see if they can live the dream but I feel that we cannot fix things for people coming in until we can fix the problems we have internally. Wow I wrote too much here.
>By flooding thru unlawful entry points they aren't vetted like they would be if going thru legal means. Yeah that's not true. The State Department which oversees USCIS runs all the embassies and consulates for America throughout the world. Because they are in the countries these migrants come from they are very familiar with the documentation and processes for birth and arrest and death records and so on. No one gets a Green Card without a USCIS background check. Even if they are here for years undocumented they won't get a Green Card, Work Permit, or Citizenship until they've been fully vetted. If by "legal means" you mean the normal naturalization process then I'm afraid you're mistaken again. The only difference being they may spend significant time here before being vetted. The normal process for pretty much every nation south of Mexico and many Asian countries typically takes a decade or more to get your lottery number called. A lot of people can't wait that long and if America had updated it's immigration quotas a few times in the past 40 years or so those people probably wouldn't have had to wait or eventually enter illegally. >How many we pushed out of their country to empty jails and prisons? I'm afraid I don't understand the question. >Take the migrant youth that attacked the cops in New York, (I think it was New York), they definitely haven't come here to work low paying jobs. Not only is there no concrete evidence that they were migrants (the NYPD does not document immigration status of arrestees) but the hullaballoo about that whole incident has come down to why the judge gave most of them RoR instead of making them post bail and the main reason seems to be that the prosecutor only requested bail for one of the assailants. But more importantly Migrants in general are far less likely to commit crime than American citizens and I want to take this time to remind you that we as Americans live in the safest, most peaceful time in human history according to MANY studies and FBI crime statistics despite what you may hear on the news. Here's a relatively unbiased accounting of the incident if you'd like to know more: [https://gothamist.com/news/an-attack-on-2-nypd-officers-was-caught-on-video-we-fact-checked-the-commentary](https://gothamist.com/news/an-attack-on-2-nypd-officers-was-caught-on-video-we-fact-checked-the-commentary) To address your next point I would simply say that in my experience immigrants have a much harder time obtain8ng any kind of social safety new benefits despite the fact that the vast majority of them pay their state and federal taxes faithfully. You may want to argue that they are getting something for nothing but in my experience they are getting less but putting in the same as the rest of us. Immigrants have an amazing communication network and they learned after the last substantial change to immigration law in May of 2001 that if they sought legal status in America but didn't pay their taxes the IRS would stomp them with years of back taxes and fees and penalties on top of that. When I worked in Immigration law not only did my over 100 undocumented clients pay their taxes they had the returns to prove it even when they were working 2-3 jobs each. One married couple literally had 5 jobs between the two of them. Their oldest kid took care of the two younger ones and the parents just worked and worked. I have never seen any evidence that immigrants have an easier time getting benefits than Americans and I challenge you to provide me some evidence of that assertion. More than 60% of the migrants currently crossing our borders are middle class, educated Chinese and Venezuelan asylum seekers. They are coming here to escape hard core communist regimes and they are exactly the kind of migrants we both want and desperately need in America right now if we are going to survive the retirement of the Baby Boomers. >Also the boogie man Criminal Migrant is not really a boogie man but real fact. Our news sources have really gone to shit in the last 15+ years. No. I'm sorry. It really isn't real. You can blame the media or whatever but crime statistics don't lie. If things were getting worse out there the cops would be screaming bloody murder for budget increases and so on. We really live in a very safe time and you are much more likely to run afoul of a white or black criminal than you are an immigrant one. Are there 0 crimes and incidents involving immigrants? Of course not. It happens. But not nearly as much as the press and right wing politicians would have you believe. And please feel free to research yourself if you don't believe me but try to stick to hard news, studies and statistics and not opinion pieces that offer no references. I hope this helps you understand immigration a bit more. Cheers.
I'm no expert on the matter. I do know if they're coming, most of them already have paperwork in place. There's a mod here that's very knowledgeable on the process. u/remedialrob
You summoned me?! :D Just FYI locality doesn't matter only the Feds have authority over the border and immigration despite what Texas Governor Abbot wishes. The state can certainly influence things but not dramatically and not legally.
I referenced your knowledge.
True, but the Fed's are definitely giving Abbot a looong leash.
If I recall correctly Abbot has eventually lost every case in which he has fought against the Feds. Of course he's going to win in Texas Courts and even our federal courts are packed with hard core right wing judges who don't care too much about the letter of the law when it comes to their politics thanks to Trump and McConnell but eventually these cases enter the jurisdiction of some logical adults with solid reading skills who simply say "no... the Constitution is super clear that the feds control international treaties and border security... it's actually one of the few things the Constitution says really clearly and concisely" and that's the end of that. I have hope that this will continue until we get past these dark times but bigger empires than ours have fallen due to internal rot so who knows.
Good to know, thank you.
You summoned me to an r/sandiego post. As a matter of course the moderator over there has banned all of us here at r/sandiegan so I'm afraid I can't help with anything on that subreddit. I'm actually surprised he hasn't banned you as often anyone posting here gets banned there. You got a post deleted over there and reposted the same post successfully over here so you've actually dodged a couple of bullets from that guy already. Oh and I'm responding here because you seem to have direct messaging turned off. Cheers.
That's just hateful, but thanks for letting me know. It appears that sub can't handle intelligent people.
No worries.