Dan refutes Ben

[Rain]

@smac97 Let be clear and make this simple.  I'm am not arguing for open or closed borders.  It is a complicated matter and I think it is a distraction from more important matters.

Many people don't realize that our (the US) refugees were once someone else's illegal border crossers or someone else's asylum seekers who once crossed borders illegally.  Some of those people who qualify to be refugees by experience, but not yet legally, will cross our borders illegally.  

The only thing I was curious about (and curious is the right word as I had no wish to argue with you on this) was if you would feel that people who have the choice between life or crossing a border (any border) illegally should disqualify them from being in the US.

You can just answer "yes" or "no" and I'll be satisfied and will say nothing more along the line.  Honestly, I wouldn't judge you if you said "yes" though I would be curious of why we feel differently on it.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Rain

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I wonder where all of these people got the idea that the border was open, so they could flood in? 

Years and years of lax/non-existent securing of our borders and enforcement of immigration laws.  As I have said previously:

Quote

Living in the United States is a wonderful opportunity that many, many people would like to have.  I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here.  This justification is a huge part of how we have ended up with such massive immigration issues.  It incentivizes breaking the law, and therefore invites all the downstream consequences which follow.
...
If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

So yes, we have tacitly invited violation of our borders and our laws by having many years of Powers-that-Be abdicating their responsibilities regarding such borders and laws.

51 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

It certainly wasn't from the previous administration, which from day one repeatedly said "don't come here/over." 

It certainly was "from the previous administration," which mouthed platitudes but otherwise required ICE to step down, adopted "catch and release policies," etc., such that we saw "about 8 million c{o}me over the southwest land border with Mexico."

 

51 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

It wasn't from the previous administration's border policies, which resulted in record numbers of expulsions, border apprehensions, and criminal arrests.  

Yes, it is odd that Bad Orange Man had, in his first term, fewer deportations than both his predecessor (who deported 3.16 million) and his successor (4.44 million individuals in 2021 and 2022).

Apparently deportations are one of those "It's only bad when a Republican does it" sort of things.

51 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

It's almost as if certain people lying repeatedly about the border being open influences global perceptions about the border.  Dishonesty will always be a more effective communication tool than the truth, which is why it's such a popular tool of the unethical.

Not sure what you are referencing here.

51 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

There was definitely a crisis.

One that could have been addressed and mitigated, but it wasn't.

One that was created by calculation and design.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

U.S. Border Patrol has encountered more than  5.6 million people crossing the Southwest border illegally during the Biden presidency, and it has released more than 2.3 million of them into the country. 

Why is the Biden administration allowing this? 

A possible answer can be found in an executive order that President Biden signed on the first day of his presidency. It reverses former President Trump’s memorandum that excluded undocumented immigrants from the decennial census that is used to determine how many seats states will have in the House of Representatives. 

Undocumented migrants tend to settle in Democratically controlled cities that have adopted sanctuary policies that protect them from the threat of deportation, so any additional seats are likely to benefit the Democrats. 

And here (from May 2023) :

Quote

After years of stabilizing or even declining numbers of undocumented, unauthorized, or illegal migrants (pick your term) crossing the southern border, the influx has recently exploded and remains at stratospheric levels. The Migration Policy Institute estimated that around 79% of the undocumented immigrant population in the United States in 2018 originated from Mexico and Central America, including countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

And here:

Quote

The border plan President Biden put in place nearly five months ago is at risk of collapse amid a new wave of illegal crossings, intensifying strains on U.S. cities and leaving authorities struggling to care for record numbers of families arriving with children.

U.S. agents along the southern border are making more than 9,000 arrests a day, a near record, including a fast-rising number of families, a group that is far more difficult for the government to manage than adults traveling solo.

More than 103,000 parents traveling with children crossed the southern border illegally in September, the highest number ever, according to preliminary government data obtained by The Washington Post.

The influx has left some migrant families sleeping on the streets, turning them into a landscape of the nation’s policy failures.

Here:

Quote

In fiscal year 2022, a record 2.7 million illegal aliens crossed the border according to the US Customs and Border Protection. That number is more than a million higher than last year, which was also a record breaking year. And it keeps getting worse.

And so on.

51 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

It was real, and it was partially caused by the very people who use it as a tool to further their own power consolidation.

You are referencing . . . Biden?  

"Undocumented migrants tend to settle in Democratically controlled cities that have adopted sanctuary policies that protect them from the threat of deportation, so any additional seats are likely to benefit the Democrats."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

[...]

You are referencing . . . Biden?  

[...]

No.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A statute of Limitations is a limitation on government. 

Right.  It's not supposed to be a tool to incentivize breaking the law.

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

the "downsides" of a SOL for someone here illegally would be an increased urgency in enforcement. The current law encourages the enforcement to be lazy, take their time, there is always tomorrow, and someone else can do the job.

Other "downsides" include . . . incentivizing breaking the law.  Cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it.

I think this is a very bad public policy argument for an SOL in this context.

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A SOL would put the government in a position of "put up or shut up".  It would allow the government to focus on those who have recently come across the border, making the border secure.

I think the better approach to securing the border is . . . to secure the border.

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

How does deporting someone who has been here for 30 years actually contribute to border security anyway?

I'm not sure.  National sovereignty is the ends, and securing our border and enforcing immigrations laws are the means.

And as I noted previously: I would be open to revising (as in, easing the criteria for) "Cancellation of Removal for Non-Permanent Residents (Undocumented Individuals)" noted above, so as to facilitate the retention of contributing members of society.

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Right now, because there is no SOL, no deadline for government action, government bureaucrats can just do their job another day.  Another day becomes another month, another month, becomes another year,  another year becomes another decade.

Yes, we have ample room to improve.  Removing incentives for illegal entry, and strengthening disincentives, are good ways to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

No.

So Biden and his party have not used illegal immigration as a "tool to further their own power consolidation"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As a practical matter, it seems difficult to get away with that for 10 years.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, in my role as a forensic accountant, I have seen many, many cases of U.S. Citizens failing to file their tax returns for 5-10 years. It's quite doable.

[ttribe]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Years and years of lax/non-existent securing of our borders and enforcement of immigration laws.

The notion of "lax" enforcement is certainly debatable, but the idea that there is or was "non-existent securing of our borders" is laughably absurd. Steuss has shown you stat after stat on enforcement. Nowhere does it approach zero. Anecdotally, of my 53 years in existence, I have spent all but three years living in Arizona...you know, one of those actual border states. I see Border Patrol on the roads doing their thing every time I travel south of the Phoenix area to Tucson or any other Southern AZ town/city. Hyperbole does not serve your argument.

Edited January 29, 2025 by ttribe

[Doctor Steuss]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So Biden and his party have not used illegal immigration as a "tool to further their own power consolidation"?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, not in the way that I was specifically referencing (i.e. increasing migration by spreading the lie that there is no border enforcement, and it's "open").  He/They is/are partly responsible for the border crisis (and our prolonged need for immigration reform), and using it for maintaining and gaining political power for different reasons.

[Danzo]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  It's not supposed to be a tool to incentivize breaking the law.

Other "downsides" include . . . incentivizing breaking the law.  Cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it.

I think this is a very bad public policy argument for an SOL in this context.

I think the better approach to securing the border is . . . to secure the border.

I'm not sure.  National sovereignty is the ends, and securing our border and enforcing immigrations laws are the means.

And as I noted previously: I would be open to revising (as in, easing the criteria for) "Cancellation of Removal for Non-Permanent Residents (Undocumented Individuals)" noted above, so as to facilitate the retention of contributing members of society.

Yes, we have ample room to improve.  Removing incentives for illegal entry, and strengthening disincentives, are good ways to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

You really don't deal very much with statutes of limitations do you?

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So Biden and his party have not used illegal immigration as a "tool to further their own power consolidation"?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

This is your problem, you make everything about politics.  If Biden is for something, you are against it. If Trump is for something, you are for it.  Other people decide for you what your opinions are.

You don't spend any time actually looking into what the law is and how it actually works.  Facts are only important if they advance your opinion, they are never used to create your opinion. 

 

People don't immigrate here to support, Biden, or to oppose Biden or consolidate anyone's power.  Something you could discover for yourself if you actually had a conversation with an immigrant. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

This is your problem, you make everything about politics. 

Not really.  I think political malfeasance and nonfeasance as to immigration policy is a bipartisan failure.

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If Biden is for something, you are against it. If Trump is for something, you are for it. 

Nope.  I have, for many years now, been in favor of border security and enforcing immigration law, regardless of who is in power.

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Other people decide for you what your opinions are.

Again, nope.  I have been my own man on this issue.

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You don't spend any time actually looking into what the law is and how it actually works. 

Yes, I have.

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Facts are only important if they advance your opinion, they are never used to create your opinion. 

Not so.  I have done a lot of examination of this issue.

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

People don't immigrate here to support, Biden, or to oppose Biden or consolidate anyone's power. 

I agree.  I think Biden (or whatever Behind-the-Scenes actors who were using him as a sock puppet for the last few years) allowed mass migration because it was seen as politically advantageous and/or ideologically appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The system of "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years (until you're past the applicable SOL), then you're home free!" is unsustainable.  It creates a massive incentive to break the law.  

 

Only if it’s significantly harder to come here legally.

It would not be an incentive if it was relatively easy to get legal permission to come.

So make it easier to get here legally and deport someone for actually breaking the law significantly/maliciously (case by case basis) once here no matter how long they have been here (may need to wait till after they serve their sentence and get back in ICE custody) if they haven’t been naturalized.

And place a relatively short statue of limitations on those currently here (it’s not an incentive to come since they are already here) in order to free up courts so they can timely deal with the problem illegals immigrants (those who committed crimes before or after they came).  And perhaps ten or fifteen years for newcomers once the courts are back under control and can handle the small numbers that still choose to come illegally even though legal immigration is accessible.  If someone has managed to stay off the radar for 10-15 years, my guess is they haven’t been committing crimes and have been able to care for themselves.  And if they committed crimes, the statue doesn’t count anyway, they can be deported if past the deadline as long as they are immigrant status, legal or illegal.

[Danzo]

 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  I think Biden (or whatever Behind-the-Scenes actors who were using him as a sock puppet for the last few years) allowed mass migration because it was seen as politically advantageous and/or ideologically appropriate.

Thanks,

When trump was president the last time, did trump (or whatever Behind-the-Scenes actors who were using him as a sock puppet for those  few years) allow mass migration because it was seen as politically advantageous and/or ideologically appropriate?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

@smac97 Let be clear and make this simple.  I'm am not arguing for open or closed borders.  It is a complicated matter and I think it is a distraction from more important matters.

I think immigration is an important matter.  How we address is likewise important.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Many people don't realize that our (the US) refugees were once someone else's illegal border crossers or someone else's asylum seekers who once crossed borders illegally.  Some of those people who qualify to be refugees by experience, but not yet legally, will cross our borders illegally.  

Sure.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

The only thing I was curious about (and curious is the right word as I had no wish to argue with you on this) was if you would feel that people who have the choice between life or crossing a border (any border) illegally should disqualify them from being in the US.

I have previously noted the distinction between applying for "refugee" status and applying for "asylum."  Those who have entered the U.S. illegally can apply for the latter.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

You can just answer "yes" or "no" and I'll be satisfied and will say nothing more along the line.  Honestly, I wouldn't judge you if you said "yes" though I would be curious of why we feel differently on it.

The law in its present form allows for asylum seekers - including people who have entered illegally - to square themselves with the law.

From ChatGPT:

Quote

Can Someone Who Illegally Entered the U.S. Still Apply for Asylum?

✅ Yes. Under U.S. law, a person who has entered the United States illegally (without a visa, without inspection, or by crossing the border unlawfully) can still apply for asylum as long as they meet the eligibility criteria.

---

1. Legal Basis for Applying for Asylum After Illegal Entry

• 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (INA § 208) explicitly states that any person who is physically present in the U.S. may apply for asylum, regardless of their manner of entry.
• Even if someone entered without inspection (EWI) (i.e., crossed the border illegally), they are still eligible to apply for asylum.

🚨 Exception: If the person was previously deported and reentered illegally, they may face immediate removal without an asylum hearing.

---

2. Requirements for Asylum Eligibility

To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that:

1. They have a well-founded fear of persecution.
2. The persecution is based on:
   • Race
   • Religion
   • Nationality
   • Political opinion
   • Membership in a particular social group (e.g., LGBTQ individuals, victims of domestic violence in some cases).
3. The government of their home country is either responsible for the persecution or unable/unwilling to protect them.
4. They have not firmly resettled in another country before coming to the U.S.

🚫 Disqualifications:

• Having a serious criminal record (e.g., aggravated felonies).
• Being a security threat or engaging in terrorism.
• Firmly resettling in another country before coming to the U.S.

---

3. How to Apply for Asylum After Illegal Entry

A person who entered illegally must apply for asylum by filing Form I-589 (Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal) within one year of their arrival in the U.S.

🔹 Application Process:

1. Submit Form I-589 to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
2. Attend an Asylum Interview (for affirmative asylum cases).
3. If in removal proceedings, present the case in Immigration Court (defensive asylum).

🚨 One-Year Filing Deadline:

• The asylum application must be filed within one year of entry unless:
  • The applicant can prove extraordinary circumstances (e.g., medical issues, legal disability).
  • They can show changed country conditions that justify late filing.

---

4. Risks of Applying for Asylum After Illegal Entry

• Expedited Removal & Credible Fear Interview:

  • If a person is caught entering illegally at the border, they may be placed in expedited removal.
  • They must pass a credible fear interview with an asylum officer before they can proceed with an asylum claim.

• Denial of Asylum & Deportation:

  • If asylum is denied, the person may be ordered removed (deported) unless they qualify for other forms of relief.

• No Automatic Work Authorization:

  • Asylum seekers must wait 180 days after filing Form I-589 before applying for a work permit.

---

5. Special Cases & Policy Considerations

• Title 42 Expulsions (During COVID-19):
  • The U.S. previously used Title 42 to expel migrants at the border, even those seeking asylum. This policy ended in May 2023.
• Safe Third Country Rule (Rescinded):
  • Under the Trump administration, asylum seekers were required to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reached before coming to the U.S.
  • The Biden administration rescinded this rule, but asylum restrictions are still debated.

---

6. Conclusion

Yes, someone who illegally entered the U.S. can still apply for asylum under U.S. immigration law. However:

• They must apply within one year of arrival.
• They must pass credible fear screenings if caught at the border.
• If asylum is denied, they could face removal (deportation).

Despite illegal entry, asylum remains a legal option for individuals fleeing persecution.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  I think political malfeasance and nonfeasance as to immigration policy is a bipartisan failure.

Nope.  I have, for many years now, been in favor of border security and enforcing immigration law, regardless of who is in power.

Again, nope.  I have been my own man on this issue.

Yes, I have.

Not so.  I have done a lot of examination of this issue.

I agree.  I think Biden (or whatever Behind-the-Scenes actors who were using him as a sock puppet for the last few years) allowed mass migration because it was seen as politically advantageous and/or ideologically appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you ever talked to an immigrant to ask why they came to the US?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would Jack get to both A) avoid criminal prosecution for this theft, and also B) keep the artwork he stole?

What if he sold it?  Doesn’t say how much he sold it for, maybe even says he gave it away or it was stolen from him so he can’t return it.  How does the law handle profit from crime post SOL?  Serious question, curious about that.

Edited January 30, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

.  I think Biden (or whatever Behind-the-Scenes actors who were using him as a sock puppet for the last few years) allowed mass migration because it was seen as politically advantageous and/or ideologically appropriate.

Have you looked at the numbers published by the Border Patrol on enforcement?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Well, in my role as a forensic accountant, I have seen many, many cases of U.S. Citizens failing to file their tax returns for 5-10 years. It's quite doable.

Happened to us.  We were in Canada at the time and I didn’t realize we needed to file when we weren’t getting income from the US.  My husband did some work for a US organization about 5 or 6 years after getting there, so we filed a return that year and we shortly thereafter received notice of back taxes due.  That was when we got an accountant who knew the law because no one had informed us. (Canada screwed up too and didn’t tell us our minor children needed student visas for 6 years iirc).

If he hadn’t worked for a US organization, my guess is our error wouldn’t have been discovered till we moved back to the US 13 years later.

My brother got way behind on paying my mom’s taxes after Dad died.  I think the only reason he caught up was 1) we linked him up with our accountant so I could run errands and 2) Mom died so he had to catch up to settle the estate.  I am positive hers were at least 3 years past due, likely 4 and maybe even 5.  Mom didn’t owe much that I was aware of, so if there hadn’t been much of an estate to worry about and my brother just forgot like he forgot to pay her tithing, I wonder if anything would have happened when she died as she didn’t own a house or car at the time. 

Edited January 30, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

The notion of "lax" enforcement is certainly debatable, but the idea that there is or was "non-existent securing of our borders" is laughably absurd.  Steuss has shown you stat after stat on enforcement. Nowhere does it approach zero.

A border that in recent years has has 10+ million people cross it illegally cannot be reasonably described as "secure."

Governmental supervision of border security and immigration law that has resulted in 10+ million illegal border crossings is reasonably described as "lax."

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Anecdotally, of my 53 years in existence, I have spent all but three years living in Arizona...you know, one of those actual border states. I see Border Patrol on the roads doing their thing every time I travel south of the Phoenix area to Tucson or any other Southern AZ town/city. Hyperbole does not serve your argument.

Arizona?  The same state referenced here?

11/06/2024: Troubled by illegal border crossings, Arizona voters approve state-level immigration enforcement

Quote

Arizona voters have approved letting local police arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the state from Mexico, an authority that would encroach on the federal government’s power over immigration enforcement but would not take effect immediately, if ever.

With the approval of Proposition 314, Arizona becomes the latest state to test the limits of what local authorities can do to curb illegal immigration. Within the past year, GOP lawmakers in Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma have passed immigration laws. In each case, federal courts have halted the states’ efforts to enforce them.

The only presidential battleground state that borders Mexico, Arizona is no stranger to a bitter divide on the politics of immigration. Since the early 2000s, frustration over federal enforcement of Arizona’s border with Mexico has inspired a movement to draw local police departments, which had traditionally left border duties to the federal government, into immigration enforcement.

The state Legislature approved an immigrant smuggling ban in 2005 that let then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio conduct immigration crackdowns, a 2007 prohibition on employers knowingly hiring people in the country illegally, and a landmark 2010 immigration law that required police, while enforcing other laws, to question the legal status of people suspected of being in the country without authorization.

Arizona voters have been asked to decide matters related to immigration before. They approved a 2004 law denying some government benefits to people in the country illegally and a 2006 law declaring English to be Arizona’s official language. They also rejected a 2008 proposal that would have made business-friendly revisions to the state law barring employers from hiring people who are in the country without authorization.

Arizona GOP lawmakers say the proposal was necessary to help secure the border, as they blamed the Biden administration for an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration. Record levels of illegal crossings have plummeted in recent months, following moves by the White House to tighten asylum restrictions.

Sure sounds like Arizona is finding illegal immigration to be a big problem, so much so that your state is authorizing state assistance with border security efforts.

Also, per Politico, Trump won Arizona based on his policy positions on immigration:

Quote

Donald Trump won the battleground state of Arizona, completing a sweep of all seven swing states in this year’s election.
...
He campaigned heavily on border security, immigration and crime committed by illegal immigrants on the trail, all issues that resonated in a swing state with a record influx of migrants last year.

Arizona was "a swing state with a record influx of {illegal} migrants last year."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Just now, Calm said:

Happened to us.  We were in Canada at the time and I didn’t realize we needed to file when we weren’t getting income from the US.  My husband did some work for a US organization about 5 or 6 years after getting there, so we filed a return that year and we shortly thereafter received notice of back taxes due.

I have, on several occasions, been involved in a case where someone is trying to prove damages and when pressed for tax returns to back up their historical income claims have suddenly had their accountant prepare and file multiple years of back tax returns to have something to use in their case. All those penalties and interest on back taxes makes their litigation even more expensive. In other cases, they simply threw up their hands and said they had nothing, which made countering their loss calculations quite easy because all I had to do for the court was point out that there was no documentary evidence to support how much money they said they used to make.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It certainly was "from the previous administration," which mouthed platitudes but otherwise required ICE to step down, adopted "catch and release policies," etc., such that we saw "about 8 million c{o}me over the southwest land border with Mexico."

While your graph does show increased encounters, how do you know that is a result of lax enforcement (why are there more encounters if enforcement is more lax) and increased numbers of migrants and not increased numbers of border patrol officers who are more active in enforcement than they used to be? (I am not saying it is, my guess is it’s a combo of more people and more enforcement)

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A border that in recent years has has 10+ million people cross it illegally cannot be reasonably described as "secure."

Governmental supervision of border security and immigration law that has resulted in 10+ million illegal border crossings is reasonably described as "lax."

Arizona?  The same state referenced here?

11/06/2024: Troubled by illegal border crossings, Arizona voters approve state-level immigration enforcement

Sure sounds like Arizona is finding illegal immigration to be a big problem, so much so that your state is authorizing state assistance with border security efforts.

Also, per Politico, Trump won Arizona based on his policy positions on immigration:

Arizona was "a swing state with a record influx of {illegal} migrants last year."

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, good grief. You really went there.

1 - How do you accurately quantify "10+ million" illegal border crossings, Spencer? If they are truly illegal, aren't they mostly unknown. The data to back that number is neither complete nor entirely reliable. You should know better.

2 - I'm well aware of the degree to which the general population of my state have been stirred up to hate and fear based on the immigration rhetoric from numerous politicians. When pressed on the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the actual data those same politicians engage in routine hand waving and pointing to low-volume anecdotal events to support their rhetoric.

3 - Were all these "illegals" let into my State by the Biden Administration to help shore up his power, or weren't they? It sure didn't work if that was the plan.

4 - You continue to ignore the CBP's data on enforcement during 2021-2024. Enforcement, including interceptions and deportations, were very significant during 2021-2024. That certainly does not support your "wide-open borders" narrative you're parroting.

The number of times you have now linked to inaccurate reporting based on biased reviews of data is starting to make me really question your critical thinking skills.

Edited January 30, 2025 by ttribe

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Only if it’s significantly harder to come here legally.

It will always be harder to "come here legally" than otherwise.  That's a natural consequence of the rule of law, which involves application processes, vetting, denials, and so on.

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would not be an incentive if it was relatively easy to get legal permission to come.

So make it easier to get here legally and deport someone for actually breaking the law significantly/maliciously (case by case basis) once here no matter how long they have been here (may need to wait till after they serve their sentence and get back in ICE custody) if they haven’t been naturalized.

I am in favor of improving the application and vetting process.  

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

And place a relatively short statue of limitations on those currently here (it’s not an incentive to come since they are already here) in order to free up courts so they can timely deal with the problem illegals immigrants (those who committed crimes before or after they came).  

I respectfully disagree with this.  As I have noted previously:

Quote

I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here.  This justification is a huge part of how we have ended up with such massive immigration issues.  It incentivizes breaking the law, and therefore invites all the downstream consequences which follow.
...
In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

I am assuming that your reference to SOLs is intended to be a part of this "Cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" / "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!" proposal.  If so, I cannot agree with it, as it creates the very incentives that perpetuate and encourage widespread violations of our borders and immigration laws.

That is not to say that we cannot find way to accommodate people who have been here a long time, and have been contributing members of society.  From the Church's statement:

Quote

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship. 

What do you think of this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A border that in recent years has has 10+ million people cross it illegally cannot be reasonably described as "secure."

Governmental supervision of border security and immigration law that has resulted in 10+ million illegal border crossings is reasonably described as "lax."

Arizona?  The same state referenced here?

11/06/2024: Troubled by illegal border crossings, Arizona voters approve state-level immigration enforcement

Sure sounds like Arizona is finding illegal immigration to be a big problem, so much so that your state is authorizing state assistance with border security efforts.

Also, per Politico, Trump won Arizona based on his policy positions on immigration:

Arizona was "a swing state with a record influx of {illegal} migrants last year."

Thanks,

-Smac

It would be most interesting to know if these lax border security advocates have a maximum number of undocumented border crossers that they would consider to be too many to be reasonably and responsibly absorbed into the nation? If so would that number be 20 million, 50 million, 100 million, 200 million, 300 million or even more? And if they do believe there’s a threshold number of undocumented immigrants that they would consider to be too many to take in, would it be fair for those who are even more “compassionate” than they are to label them as jingoistic xenophobes?

So come on you open borders advocates, how many million undocumented immigrants would you consider to be too many? Or do you believe there should be no limit?

Edited January 30, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

So come on you open borders advocates, how many million undocumented immigrants would you consider to be too many? Or do you believe there should be no limit?

Is this a rhetorical appeal thrown out into the ether or do you want posters who hold this position to respond?

Edited January 30, 2025 by Calm