Is Trump blowing it?

Author: dylancatlow

Posts

Total: 78
#31
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@dustryder
Huge numbers of past asylum applicants found that entering the U.S. without permission was their only or best way to get to safety and flee the persecution they faced at home.
To me this clearly shows that the author has interpreted the law as being purposefully constructed in order to protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible which is what you'd hope from a law designed to protect asylum seekers. In which case it is a feature and not a loophole.
I would agree with you if said asylum seekers could also prove that entering this country illegally was their only or best way to get to safely and free persecution by checking all of their options for coming in legally and making sure that none of those options were actually viable. Otherwise, anyone could come here illegally and then claim that it was "their only or best way" even though it could have also been just as easy to just go to a port of entry. Not only that, but that still isn't a good excuse to come here illegally. You still risk introducing foreign diseases to the country since you are coming from a different country with it's own set of germs and bacteria. You could be smuggling foreign/dangerous items. You could be part of a gang. It isn't worth it. When you come to the port of entry, you can be taken care of, receive treatment, and be confirmed to be safe to enter the country and that you are not in a gang or are smuggling any people or objects. That's why I dislike these laws. They are easy to exploit, they give too much power to illegal aliens, and people can just lie and make up something to get past it. Trump is trying to fix this and he is being held back from doing so.

To me this clearly shows that the author has interpreted the law as being purposefully constructed in order to protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible

How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when they are exploiting these loopholes and coming in illegally?
How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when we can't even confirm that they are genuine asylum seekers and not wanted criminals or gang members who are just trying to escape the police in their own country?
How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when we can't even check them for any illnesses to make sure that they aren't a threat to themselves or to anyone else?

"to protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" we have to first protect our borders, protect our country, and protect our own people, BEFORE we start protecting others. You can never take good care of others when you don't take good care of yourself first.
#32
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@DapperMack
Ask mummy what my words mean.
#33
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
I would agree with you if said asylum seekers could also prove that entering this country illegally was their only or best way to get to safely and free persecution by checking all of their options for coming in legally and making sure that none of those options were actually viable. Otherwise, anyone could come here illegally and then claim that it was "their only or best way" even though it could have also been just as easy to just go to a port of entry. Not only that, but that still isn't a good excuse to come here illegally. You still risk introducing foreign diseases to the country since you are coming from a different country with it's own set of germs and bacteria. You could be smuggling foreign/dangerous items. You could be part of a gang. It isn't worth it. When you come to the port of entry, you can be taken care of, receive treatment, and be confirmed to be safe to enter the country and that you are not in a gang or are smuggling any people or objects. That's why I dislike these laws. They are easy to exploit, they give too much power to illegal aliens, and people can just lie and make up something to get past it. Trump is trying to fix this and he is being held back from doing so.
So several points here.

1. You have brought up several downsides to asylum seekers entering illegally and then claiming asylum. Are those downsides actually a problem? For example, are there any stats to support your fears that asylum seekers who have entered illegally bring and infect others with foreign diseases or traffick other humans?

2. I'm unsure if you're aware of this but asylum denial rates are rather high, ranging from 42% to 65% in an 18 year span. To me, this indicates that the process for asylum is actually rather stringent and not the loopholey and exploitative mess that you seem to have implied that it is.

3. It seems counter intuitive to me that a person would cross over illegally, smuggle in contraband or be a gang-member, and then declare yourself to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected when you've already crossed over illegally and clearly have little moral inhibitions. This goes back to my first point. Are these situations actually likely and do they present a significant enough of a problem as to threaten the people who legitimately seek asylum and have little choice but to cross over illegally?


How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when they are exploiting these loopholes and coming in illegally?
How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when we can't even confirm that they are genuine asylum seekers and not wanted criminals or gang members who are just trying to escape the police in their own country?
How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when we can't even check them for any illnesses to make sure that they aren't a threat to themselves or to anyone else?
These aren't really arguments against the idea that the law was constructed and are adhered to in order to protect the maximal number of asylum seekers. The point of this law is that asylum seekers can cross over illegally if needed in order to protect themselves, and then subject themselves to the asylum process where they will then need to follow the laws. Which I believe is when checking if they are criminals/gang members/deathly ill/contagious kicks in.

Topic's author
#34
dylancatlow
dylancatlow's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 97
0
0
3
dylancatlow's avatar
dylancatlow
0
0
3
-->
@Christen
First I have to ask: are you really a black Trump supporter? If so, let me congratulate you on your high level of intelligence and rationality :)

I'm sorry if I incorrectly assumed that Trump is able to build the wall without the approval of any other branch of government. This is what I've heard from many different sources, including Ann Coulter. 
#35
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@dylancatlow
@dustryder
1. You have brought up several downsides to asylum seekers entering illegally and then claiming asylum. Are those downsides actually a problem?
Maybe they aren't really a problem, but I would rather stay safe and have people come in legally than take my chances so that it doesn't BECOME a problem in the future. If it's not "actually a problem" like you said, then why not try our best to keep it that way?

For example, are there any stats to support your fears that asylum seekers who have entered illegally bring and infect others with foreign diseases or traffick other humans?
Here is an article from 2018 about the spread (or potential spread) of various disease and illness within the caravans of people trying to apply for asylum in the United States. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/tijuana-authorities-seek-help-sickness-spreads-migrant-camp/

ijuana’s authorities are increasingly concerned about the spread of diseases in the city, as 5,000 members of the migrant “caravan” camp in temporary shelters, awaiting the chance to apply for asylum in the United States.

Here is another one from fox news, which describes "respiratory infections, tuberculosis, chickenpox and other serious health issues," "three confirmed cases of tuberculosis, four cases of HIV/AIDS and four separate cases of chickenpox," "lice and multiple instances of skin infections," and "a threat of Hepatitis outbreak". https://www.foxnews.com/world/caravan-migrants-suffer-from-respiratory-infections-tuberculosis-chickenpox-other-health-issues-tijuana-government-says

There are also several instances of people from a gang called MS-13 being found and deported while trying to enter this country. https://www.foxnews.com/world/25-ms-13-gang-members-deported-from-caravan-in-mexico-officials-say

That article only reports 25, but for all we know, there could be dozens, if not hundreds more, that have gone unreported and/or are yet to be reported.

asylum denial rates are rather high, ranging from 42% to 65% in an 18 year span. To me, this indicates that the process for asylum is actually rather stringent
Good. I like when it's "stringent" because then, it will be even harder for bad people and infected people to come into this country and cause problems for us. If it isn't stringent and strict, then people will obviously find loopholes such as simply lying when they say that coming in illegally was their only option, or lying about fleeing persecution just to gain easy access to the country.

It seems counter intuitive to me that a person would cross over illegally, smuggle in contraband or be a gang-member, and then declare yourself to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected when you've already crossed over illegally and clearly have little moral inhibitions.
I agree, and that's why criminals and other bad people AREN'T going to declare themselves "to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected" if they're smart. Once they come in illegally, they will likely just hide out somewhere such as a friend's place or something rather than immediately turn themselves over to authorities, forcing said authorities to play this annoying "catch-me-if-you-can" cat-and-mouse game in order to get them out of the country. Said friends will sometimes even ACTIVELY DEFEND illegal aliens from being captured and deported.

The other day, ICE agents (Immigration Customs Enforcement) were unable to capture and deport someone who was, and I quote, "a convicted criminal alien ICE fugitive with an outstanding removal order in metro Nashville" https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/neighbors-human-chain-ice-arrest-nashville-hermitage

This was because his friends were literally chaining up and blocking his car, while also giving him stuff like gas to refill the car, as well as other supplies. The ICE agents were forced to leave, and those friends of his weren't arrested for defending the illegal alien, because it, for some stupid reason, is legally okay to block ICE agents from capturing and deporting their targets.

There is even a website dedicated to exploiting our current laws and protecting illegal aliens: https://unitedwedream.org/heretostay/know-your-power/

That's the problem with our law. It is too easy to exploit. At least 2000 illegal aliens were supposed to be deported, but officials were only able to catch... 35? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/us/ice-raids-apprehensions.html

Until our laws change to make it easier for agents to do their job and get rid of illegal aliens, Trump is facing an uphill battle that is not in his favor.

This goes back to my first point. Are these situations actually likely and do they present a significant enough of a problem as to threaten the people who legitimately seek asylum and have little choice but to cross over illegally?
Even if they didn't "present a significant enough of a problem," there's still nothing wrong with trying to stay safe. We also have very little way of knowing for sure if the asylum-seekers really had little choice but to cross over illegally, or if they are just lying about it.

The United States isn't responsible for every single immigrant out there and can't accept such a responsibility. Many of these illegal aliens are going to continue to remain in the country until they are caught and deported, instead of voluntarily turning themselves in. These laws either give too much power to illegal aliens and potential criminals, or have all of these loopholes.

Also, to dylancatlow, yes, that is me in the profile picture, and not some fake bogus picture. It was taken, like, a year ago.
#36
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
Maybe they aren't really a problem, but I would rather stay safe and have people come in legally than take my chances so that it doesn't BECOME a problem in the future. If it's not "actually a problem" like you said, then why not try our best to keep it that way?
There are some problems which are not problems yet, but can be reasonably be predicted via scientific study to be problems later on. Obvious examples include climate change and antibiotic immunity. In which case it's reasonable to enact policy to prevent or mitigate these future problems and the resources spent on those policies are probably worth it depending on the severity of those future problems.

In this case there doesn't seem to be a reasonable predicted problem. The basis for these policies seems to be "I don't want these extra people in my country". I don't think it's reasonable to allocate resources to such policies when there is no overarching tangible benefit and there are downsides in terms of refugee endangerment. Plus, the current policies seem to be working fine.

Here is an article from 2018 about the spread (or potential spread) of various disease and illness within the caravans of people trying to apply for asylum in the United States. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/tijuana-authorities-seek-help-sickness-spreads-migrant-camp/
~~~~
There are also several instances of people from a gang called MS-13 being found and deported while trying to enter this country. https://www.foxnews.com/world/25-ms-13-gang-members-deported-from-caravan-in-mexico-officials-say

That article only reports 25, but for all we know, there could be dozens, if not hundreds more, that have gone unreported and/or are yet to be reported.
This doesn't have all that much to do with asylum seekers who enter illegally initially and then claim asylum afterwards though right which is the focal point of your topic right? The caravan migrants were prospective asylum seekers who sought to enter the US via legal channels in which case they can be screened first for disease and/or gang affiliation.

The other point to note is that the migrant caravan is a fairly unique situation and having so many people travelling in poor condition means that disease spread within the caravan isn't really unexpected. This probably wouldn't be the case for an average family seeking asylum and it's not very accurate to model situations based on extremities such as the migrant caravan.

Good. I like when it's "stringent" because then, it will be even harder for bad people and infected people to come into this country and cause problems for us. If it isn't stringent and strict, then people will obviously find loopholes such as simply lying when they say that coming in illegally was their only option, or lying about fleeing persecution just to gain easy access to the country.
My only point was that it's not sufficient to spin up a lie and a sob story to be accepted into asylum which is how you seemed to describe it. It's actually rather difficult judging by the denial rates.

I agree, and that's why criminals and other bad people AREN'T going to declare themselves "to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected" if they're smart.
~~~~
Until our laws change to make it easier for agents to do their job and get rid of illegal aliens, Trump is facing an uphill battle that is not in his favor.
Two points to note here:

1. You seem to have switched topic from loop holes in asylum laws to immigrant/illegal immigration in general
2. Just to be clear, before you were saying that there could be criminals among asylum seekers and therefore they should not be able to enter illegally before claiming asylum and now you are saying that asylum seekers are unlikely to be criminals?

Even if they didn't "present a significant enough of a problem," there's still nothing wrong with trying to stay safe. We also have very little way of knowing for sure if the asylum-seekers really had little choice but to cross over illegally, or if they are just lying about it.
No-one would have an issue if it didn't impact anyone except yourselves. For example, you could build a bunker inside your house and have guns pointing out in every direction. You could think that it keeps you safe, I would think that you're being silly and no one is impacted. However these policies that Trump is attempting to implement impacts other peoples lives for no tangible benefit.

Also why would someone lie about needing to cross over illegally? What does someone have to gain by crossing over the border illegally but then going to the authorities to claim asylum anyway?

If they legitimately need asylum they would go through legal ports of entry. If they didn't need asylum, they would cross over illegally. If you cross over illegally and you need asylum, the logical conclusion is that you couldn't go through legal ports of entry.

#37
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@dustryder
The basis for these policies seems to be "I don't want these extra people in my country".
I mean, we already have several parts of the country where there is massive poverty, massive violence, massive drug-addiction, and massive homelessness, such as Chicago and Seattle, so it kinda makes sense to not "want these extra people in my country" when we are already having such a difficult time taking care of our own people, which would probably also explain why our asylum process is so stringent to begin with. I don't dislike all immigrants in general, I don't mind them coming in legally and going through the legal process and contributing to our economy, and i'm pretty sure the basis for immigration laws and having a border wall are safety and trust. We just wan't to be safe and make sure these people are not part of a gang or are carrying any disease. We wan't to be safe and make sure we aren't letting serial criminals into this country.

the migrant caravan is a fairly unique situation and having so many people travelling in poor condition means that disease spread within the caravan isn't really unexpected. This probably wouldn't be the case for an average family seeking asylum
You're right. This probably wouldn't be the case, but at the same time, it could very well be. We don't know where these so-called average families are coming from. They may not be fortunate enough to have their vaccines/immunizations. Maybe, back home, their area could be filthy and infested or something. We don't know. They could be carrying something that may not be affecting themselves, but could drastically affect us. You could look at them and assume that they are healthy, when they really aren't.

Do you know about the "Virgin soil effect"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

There have been times throughout history where people from foreign countries traveled to new countries, but the foreigners either intentionally or unintentionally would end up bringing diseases with them, something that they themselves may have been used to and/or immune to, but the people within the new country would not be immune to that disease because they were never exposed to them, and then those new people would get sick.

We don't want something like that to happen to us, and that could very well happen when people come into this country illegally without first being checked and confirmed to be safe. History has shown us what can happen when we allow foreign travelers, illegal aliens with potential diseases, and/or criminal backgrounds to run wild and/or spread whatever disease they might have. We don't need history, especially that kind of history, to repeat itself.

before you were saying that there could be criminals among asylum seekers and therefore they should not be able to enter illegally before claiming asylum and now you are saying that asylum seekers are unlikely to be criminals?
What I'm saying is this: If someone comes into this country illegally, their options are to either surrender to authorities, or go hide out somewhere such as a friend's place and avoid authorities.

If they choose to surrender to authorities, they run the risk of getting deported immediately, thus undoing all their efforts to come in illegally, and they know this.

So it would be better and/or easier for them to simply go hide out somewhere and remain on the run while avoiding the ICE agents rather than immediately surrender. If they get caught, they can simply claim that they had no choice but to come in illegally. If they are asked why they didn't immediately turn themselves over, they can simply claim that they were fearful or whatever other dumb excuse they can come up with.... and our laws allow illegal aliens to do stuff like this and get away with it and still be able to obtain asylum. That is the loophole that Donald Trump needs to close.

The problem with having a law that allows people to come in illegally and still claim asylum and be protected from immediate deportation is that said law ASSUMES that all immigrants will tell the truth about why they had to come into this country (legally or illegally) even though immigrants can simply make up a story, read off of some script, repeat what some lawyer said to them, or lie and claim that they had no choice but to avoid authorities, or that they had no choice but to come illegally. On top of all that, they can still be legally protected from deportation by their fellow neighbors, like those people who chained up to protect that illegal alien in Nashville.

Also why would someone lie about needing to cross over illegally?
To improve their odds of getting asylum, of course. Illegal aliens know that while they can come here illegally, if that plan fails and they are caught crossing over illegally, they know that they have a backup plan such as lying their way out of trouble or simply evading authorities and then having their friends protect them when the authorities try to hunt them down.

People can and will lie for all sorts of reasons, even if they know they have nothing to gain from it. People can lie to avoid trouble. People can lie just to see if lying works. People can lie just to see if we're smart or if we're dumb. People can lie just because... they can, or because it's just fun for them or something. Who knows?

If they legitimately need asylum they would go through legal ports of entry. If they didn't need asylum, they would cross over illegally. If you cross over illegally and you need asylum, the logical conclusion is that you couldn't go through legal ports of entry.
Illegal aliens that cross over illegally aren't going to care if they have/need asylum or not. They just want to be in this country, and if that includes getting asylum, then so be it, but sometimes it's just easier if they hide from authorities as they remain in this country illegally. Other times they might take their chances and go get asylum and risk being deported, but at least they will be here legally in that case.

#38
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
I mean, we already have several parts of the country where there is massive poverty, massive violence, massive drug-addiction, and massive homelessness, such as Chicago and Seattle, so it kinda makes sense to not "want these extra people in my country" when we are already having such a difficult time taking care of our own people, which would probably also explain why our asylum process is so stringent to begin with. I don't dislike all immigrants in general, I don't mind them coming in legally and going through the legal process and contributing to our economy, and i'm pretty sure the basis for immigration laws and having a border wall are safety and trust. We just wan't to be safe and make sure these people are not part of a gang or are carrying any disease. We wan't to be safe and make sure we aren't letting serial criminals into this country.
It doesn't make sense to me because there doesn't seem to be a realistic underlining reasoning or an underlining problem you are addressing. I would totally understand if asylum seekers were a major cause of poverty/violence/drug-addiction/homelessness or were parts of a gang/carrying disease and impacted the American population significantly. But there doesn't seem to be any sort of data to support these claims nor any data to suggest that there will be such problems

You're right. This probably wouldn't be the case, but at the same time, it could very well be.
~~
History has shown us what can happen when we allow foreign travelers, illegal aliens with potential diseases, and/or criminal backgrounds to run wild and/or spread whatever disease they might have. We don't need history, especially that kind of history, to repeat itself.
But again, I hope you can see that you don't have any tangible reasoning here right? "It could be, therefore lets construct a solution for what could be". However there's no evidence to suggest your hypothetical is realistic or likely. So why construct a solution for it. Why not build bunkers in case of alien invaders? Why not wear wear tin-foil hats to protect against government mind control technology?

As far as the "virgin soil" effect is concerned, it doesn't really apply. No country is all that isolated with America being the least of all, and the only modern day scenario that this could apply to are remote uncontacted tribes, for example the Sentinelese.

So it would be better and/or easier for them to simply go hide out somewhere and remain on the run while avoiding the ICE agents rather than immediately surrender. If they get caught, they can simply claim that they had no choice but to come in illegally. If they are asked why they didn't immediately turn themselves over, they can simply claim that they were fearful or whatever other dumb excuse they can come up with.... and our laws allow illegal aliens to do stuff like this and get away with it and still be able to obtain asylum. That is the loophole that Donald Trump needs to close.
Is this a real problem thought? How many refugees have sought asylum in this manner? How many are able to successfully pass asylum screening?

The problem with having a law that allows people to come in illegally and still claim asylum and be protected from immediate deportation is that said law ASSUMES that all immigrants will tell the truth about why they had to come into this country (legally or illegally) even though immigrants can simply make up a story, read off of some script, repeat what some lawyer said to them, or lie and claim that they had no choice but to avoid authorities, or that they had no choice but to come illegally. On top of all that, they can still be legally protected from deportation by their fellow neighbors, like those people who chained up to protect that illegal alien in Nashville.
I don't think the law assumes anything of the kind which is why there is such a large denial rate in the first place.
#39
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@dustryder
Whether or not asylum seekers are "a major cause" of these things is irrelevant. The point is that we want to make sure they are safe to come into our country, which we can do when they apply for asylum instead of sneaking in like a ninja turtle or something.

If the articles that I showed you, about how many of these migrants were found to have all sorts of illnesses and some were also found to be gang members, isn't enough "evidence to suggest" that maybe we should take some safety measures for our country, I don't know what else is.

Regarding your argument about bunkers and tin foil hats... I mean, we already have bunkers, border walls, border agents, and all sorts of security measures and lines of defense against foreign invaders and illegal aliens... and I don't know anything about any "mind control technology" so I can't comment on that.

The virgin soil effect may not apply today, but it's still an example of what happened to past civilizations that had no border security of any kind. You could argue that we aren't like those past civilizations anymore and that we have developed antibiotics, vaccines, and other cures in case we were to get another outbreak like that, which they did not have access to... so what's wrong with having that extra layer of security, and requiring people to apply for asylum legally instead of illegally?

The fact that at least 2000 illegal aliens were supposed to be deported and only like 35 were deported should be enough to show that this is a problem, and that ICE agents are fighting an uphill battle to get these illegal aliens out of our country.

I suppose you're right about the law not assuming that all people will tell the truth, but I'm still nervous that people are looking for ways to exploit our laws however they can, and it would be why we have strict asylum requirements in the first place.

#40
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
Whether or not asylum seekers are "a major cause" of these things is irrelevant. The point is that we want to make sure they are safe to come into our country, which we can do when they apply for asylum instead of sneaking in like a ninja turtle or something.
It's entirely relevant. Solutions are created to fix problems. The cost for the solution is justified by the fixing of the problem. There is no problem in this case, therefore your cost for the solution is unjustified. 

If the articles that I showed you, about how many of these migrants were found to have all sorts of illnesses and some were also found to be gang members, isn't enough "evidence to suggest" that maybe we should take some safety measures for our country, I don't know what else is.
None of those migrants are "sneaking in like a ninja turtle" so in the context of this discussion, they are irrelevant. If you have evidence of migrants sneaking in, infecting a town and then claiming asylum, by all means bring it forth. I would absolutely consider that relevant evidence. The problem is, you're constructing an argument based upon an imaginary problem without any sort of evidence. I don't find this kind of argument particularly compelling.

The virgin soil effect may not apply today, but it's still an example of what happened to past civilizations that had no border security of any kind. You could argue that we aren't like those past civilizations anymore and that we have developed antibiotics, vaccines, and other cures in case we were to get another outbreak like that, which they did not have access to... so what's wrong with having that extra layer of security, and requiring people to apply for asylum legally instead of illegally?
The point is cost vs reward. What is the reward in this case? What is the cost? Well the reward in the case is pretty minimal. You get to feel better about about the asylum system. The cost in this case is that you are endangering asylum seekers who had no choice but no cross over illegally as well as the associated costs of challenging existing law and allocating resources to account for the enforcement of the law. Also I do believe that Trump's law falls foul of international asylum law, so there's that.

The fact that at least 2000 illegal aliens were supposed to be deported and only like 35 were deported should be enough to show that this is a problem, and that ICE agents are fighting an uphill battle to get these illegal aliens out of our country.
What does this have to do with asylum seeking?

I suppose you're right about the law not assuming that all people will tell the truth, but I'm still nervous that people are looking for ways to exploit our laws however they can, and it would be why we have strict asylum requirements in the first place.
I mean.. this applies to all laws right? In that people are always looking for ways to exploit them. It just so happens that in this case there's no reasonable evidence to suggest that the asylum laws in particular are being exploited. Perhaps you could focus your energy on crusading against laws which are definitely being exploited such as tax law
#41
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@dustryder
As far as I can tell, there haven't been any reported cases of a migrant sneaking in infecting a town and then looking for asylum. Technically, this would be a good thing, because if something like that did happen it would be really bad.

However, there have been several cases of illegal aliens finding their way into this country and killing people before getting caught by ICE agents or other officials.

These were just a few examples of illegal aliens doing bad things when they should have been deported. How can you still say that "There is no problem"?? Does something like this have to happen to you, to someone you love, or in your area for you to see how bad this is?

The "cost" that you're referring to would be the amount of time, energy, resources, money, and manpower invested into catching and deporting these illegal aliens, processing asylum applications, and securing our border. The reward would be... just that, less illegal aliens to worry about, asylum applications processed, and a more secure border. None of these security measures are absoutely perfect though, and even with all of these safety measures in places, some determined bad guy could still find a way around all of this.

We want to require asylum seekers to seek asylum at a legal port of entry and actively encourage them to do so. If that involves "endangering" them somehow, then so be it. They shouldn't be coming in illegally anyways. In fact, if we simply allowed them to just cross over without checking in at the port of entry, especially if they simply choose to evade authorities instead of turning themselves over and applying for asylum, and hang out in the country, then wouldn't we be endangering OUR people? Our people should come first, if you ask me, not a bunch of illegal aliens.

Why would a genuine asylum seeker have "no choice but to cross over illegally" anyways? Are these asylum seekers being chased from their home country all the way to the United States by some monster that they have to bypass the border wall and border security to escape it? Can't they just go to the darn port of entry? You yourself said that it would be counter intuitive to cross over illegally "and then declare yourself to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected when you've already crossed over illegally". So if you're trying to escape some monster chasing you something, then it would actually make more sense to actually go to the port of entry, rather than come in illegally, get deported, and be sent right back to said monster, right? In that case, we wouldn't be endangering them at all; they would be endangering themselves!
#42
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
As far as I can tell, there haven't been any reported cases of a migrant sneaking in infecting a town and then looking for asylum. Technically, this would be a good thing, because if something like that did happen it would be really bad.

However, there have been several cases of illegal aliens finding their way into this country and killing people before getting caught by ICE agents or other officials.

These were just a few examples of illegal aliens doing bad things when they should have been deported. How can you still say that "There is no problem"?? Does something like this have to happen to you, to someone you love, or in your area for you to see how bad this is?
So to be clear, there is a distinction between an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker who initially crosses the border illegally. We are discussing asylum seekers. Your examples are about illegal immigrants.

The "cost" that you're referring to would be the amount of time, energy, resources, money, and manpower invested into catching and deporting these illegal aliens, processing asylum applications, and securing our border. The reward would be... just that, less illegal aliens to worry about, asylum applications processed, and a more secure border. None of these security measures are absoutely perfect though, and even with all of these safety measures in places, some determined bad guy could still find a way around all of this.
I mean sure, if you mean border security in general. If you mean requiring asylum seekers to go through legal ports of entry then you haven't actually done anything except waste resources.

We want to require asylum seekers to seek asylum at a legal port of entry and actively encourage them to do so. If that involves "endangering" them somehow, then so be it. They shouldn't be coming in illegally anyways. In fact, if we simply allowed them to just cross over without checking in at the port of entry, especially if they simply choose to evade authorities instead of turning themselves over and applying for asylum, and hang out in the country, then wouldn't we be endangering OUR people? Our people should come first, if you ask me, not a bunch of illegal aliens. 
Well I don't know if you would be endangering your people. That's for you to argue. My guess would be not, because there is no evidence to suggest that have been endangering your people in the past, or will in the future. My argument is just that human well-being is worth more than baseless feelings.

Why would a genuine asylum seeker have "no choice but to cross over illegally" anyways? Are these asylum seekers being chased from their home country all the way to the United States by some monster that they have to bypass the border wall and border security to escape it? Can't they just go to the darn port of entry? You yourself said that it would be counter intuitive to cross over illegally "and then declare yourself to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected when you've already crossed over illegally". So if you're trying to escape some monster chasing you something, then it would actually make more sense to actually go to the port of entry, rather than come in illegally, get deported, and be sent right back to said monster, right? In that case, we wouldn't be endangering them at all; they would be endangering themselves!
There could be multiple reasons. The most logical reason I can think of is just ignorance. Realistically, how many asylum seekers are familiar with US asylum law really and how many might think that it's just ok to just pop over the border? Are their situations any less deplorable than those who are familiar with asylum law? 


#43
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Controversy won't beat Trump. It hasn't worked in the past so it won't work in the present. Personally I think Trump would win if Bernie becomes the democrat front-runner. Warren, Biden are I think the only people with a chance against Trump and the most likely to occur. If lets say the polling wasn't bad on other candidates I would also include Yang. 

Bernie will lose because:
Too radical. Wants to eliminate private insurance.

Pete will lose because:
He is gay and we know where the dislike for gays lie.

Kamala will lose because:
Most recent debate she was bad at making Biden look bad. It worked in the first Round but not this one.


#44
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@dustryder
@TheRealNihilist
Dustryder

I'm not sure if you can justify breaking certain rules/laws by saying that you didn't know about them.

At the same time though, sometimes you can be pardoned for certain offenses if it's like your first offense or something. I know my parents were caught speeding this one time and the officer was kind enough to let them go since they haven't commited any previously known offenses.

So maybe crossing the border illegally but then surrendering to border patrol would be okay if they decide that they're okay with it. They're the border agents after all, so it's ultimately up to them to decide whether to pardon the asylum seekers or not, since they didn't do anything too seriously offensive, but not all border agents will take it lightly.

I suppose I can agree with your other points, since they are fair enough.

You also said something about tax laws, earlier? i'll have to research that later so I can learn more about it.

Omar2345

I believe Ben Shapiro said in this youtube video that "Trump had a unique capacity to avoid the kill shot and the reason for that is because Trump is as I said many times a mud monster the guy is made of mud; there's just so much smoosh on him that if you throw more mud at him it doesn't show; it's like black socks; they never get dirty. It didn't matter what you did to the black socks; they were still black" https://youtu.be/rLt197TrAZ0
You'll have to go to 32:14 in the video because that is where he says it.

I think this is true regarding what you said. Controversy won't beat Trump because controversy gets old very quickly, and you can't beat a man like Trump with something that gets old so quickly. People are tired of hearing the same old "Trump is racist Trump is mysogynist" controversial hate comments over and over, to the point where they see that the people who keep saying this are just being ridiculous and annoying, so they just vote for him. So when people keep finding new "racist" things about Trump to stir up controversy, it hardly works because more and more people are getting bored of it. Relying on the same tactic over and over to bring Trump down and expect it to work meets Albert Einsteins definition of insantiy. People who support Trump do so because we want to start focusing on the good things about Trump and stop focusing so much on the boring old controversy.
#45
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Christen
Not because it gets old quickly. It is best his voters don't care when he is unfaithful to his wife, creates sanctions to make Americans pay more money for products, lie a lot and various other things.

I found when questioning a Trump supporter on why they like Trump. I fail to see a single claim I can't counter which is the problem. When the right says "policy" but can't support that with actual policy then you know they are full of sh*t.




#46
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Trump is failing in every single element of Presidency other than impressing his supporters. 

He is a pig-headed type who is in a game he is clearly now trapped in. Much like Bush Jr., these low IQ types are severely appealing to the Republican crowd and prove to be nothing short of utter shit in depth of thinking and general conduct in speech and on paper. Trump is most peculiar on that he doesn't even feign empathy or pretend to be anything other than the right-wing "haha I don't care, I'm a rich cunt" attitude that the right-wing do truly have.

To display just how pig-headed he is, read this very curious incident that highlights just how delusional and incapable of apologising he is:




#47
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,267
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
Many of these illegal aliens are going to continue to remain in the country until they are caught and deported, instead of voluntarily turning themselves in.
Yeah and in most case continue to provide services to USA citizens who want them, for lesser price if not a better job.

#48
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@RationalMadman
One think I like about Donald Trump is that he's actually a closet democrat who knows how to court the ignorant.  He Pro 2A, but also sane.  He is willing to use the military proactively, yet vehemently attacked John McCain on his death bead.  He assumed anti-Obamacare rhetoric, but supports some form of the ACA.  He brought DACA front and center on stage by not allowing it to go to court, and putting the responsibility on congress.  DACA is symbolic of the humanitarian aspect that needs to be put into effect to expect the law to be enforced in future crisis.

He isn't much of a leader, but he could have been a "great" president I think, if the republicans were able to install more competent leadership, and it would help if the democrats were not viscerally opposed to him.  

#49
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Snoopy
I do not know what exactly you're trying to convey but you're wrong. You clearly know little of economics of you think he hasn't brutally harmed the poor in many ways by his policies and their butterfly effects 

#50
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Snoopy
Dems should loathe him, why not?
#51
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Is Trump blowing it?
Don't be silly he had two great successes yesterday in El Paso and Dayton.
#52
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@RationalMadman
You would say that of any president who passed republican bills wouldn't you?

#53
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Snoopy
True. You were implying he was a closet Dem enacting pro-poor things on the sly.

#54
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,267
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@dylancatlow
Contrary to what he is allowed to claim, Trump *is* something very close to a White Nationalist and the Left is right to be terrified.
The wicked evil he speaks of starts in his own soul.  He has not not spoke-out against white national supremacist   ---because of his primarily white nationalist cultist base of Trump followers--- until  today.  He has seen the writing on the wall that it his own rhetoric that is major part of inciting this violence.

What this narcissists will never  do is admit his part in inciting this white national supremacist violence.

  He can only barely allow himself to equate white national supremacist with terrorism.  His words are meaningless dribble.

HIs God blessing on Toledo and Texas   ---not El Paso--- rings so hollow it makes me want to puke on the ground that rascist like Trump walk.

All of the resources Trumpmention teh FBI and law enforcment are doing because they know what is moral thing to do.

Trump only feigns morality because the his immorality is so clearly spread with blood in El Paso an shouts of hate and violence at his Trump rallies.

Ban Trump Now!





#55
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ebuc
Well said.
#56
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
@TheRealNihilist
Omar2345

Just about every president/candidate has lied/cheated about something or another in their lives, so I won't comment on any of that.
I agree that people who like or dislike someone (whether it's Trump or some other candidate) should at least know why they do so. Some people, however, just don't feel like doing their own research... oh well.
If you want to see a list of Donald Trump's policies/accomplishments, you can check out these sites. https://www.promiseskept.com/# http://www.magapill.com/

RationalMadman

Trump is failing in every single element of Presidency other than impressing his supporters. 
I don't have a problem with people criticizing Donald Trump. I do, however, find it extremely childish and ridiculous when these people who criticize Donald Trump exaggerate like crazy and claim that he "is failing in EVERY SINGLE element of Presidency". He might be failing in some things, but he can't possibly be failing in everything! Just take a look at those two websites that I linked to and see his achievements.

He is a pig-headed type
Could you define what it means to be "a pig-headed type," explain how exactly Trump is pig-headed, and explain how "a pig-headed type" like Trump was able to make so much money in this businesses, defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections, make our borders more secure, defeat ISIS, and accomplish so many great things in his life?

who is in a game he is clearly now trapped in.
Being president of the United States is no "game". I don't understand this argument either.

Much like Bush Jr., these low IQ types are severely appealing to the Republican crowd
How do you know that Donald Trump's I.Q. level is low?

he doesn't even feign empathy or pretend to be anything other than the right-wing "haha I don't care, I'm a rich cunt" attitude that the right-wing do truly have.
Yeah, that's called being confident with pride, and there's nothing wrong with that.

To display just how pig-headed he is, read this very curious incident that highlights just how delusional and incapable of apologising he is:
My problem with Vox is that, like CNN, it's full of left-wing liberal bias, and they both heavily dislike Trump. They'll both take just about anything Trump says or does and use it against him, and they've been doing this for years now, to the point where it just gets really old.

Not to to mention, that "very curious incident" happened over a decade ago (13 years to be exact) and isn't all that relevant today.

Lastly, how exactly does this highlight how "incapable of apologising he is"? Trump has apologized for things that he did in the past, and here is just 1 video where he apologizes. https://youtu.be/FRlI2SQ0Ueg?t=770
#57
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Christen
His achievements as a president are all failures. First realise that I am not right-wing and then come back to me.

I am confidently with pride telling you that Trump is shit, is there an issue with my pride now? :)

Why don't you find more information about the Central Park 5 and Trump's verdict on them and involvement in their persecution? Go ahead, Google is there.

It's today he's still denying he was wrong or that they are innocent. Today, as President. Did you read the article?
#58
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Christen
In that video does he say sorry, or 'wrong' once? No. He makes excuses and says 'I love women anyway, it's hardly an issue' in other words.
#59
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Christen
I know that Trump's IQ level is abysmal and that he is reaching a critical stage in his decline into dementia from several clues, you will have to do your own research if you want to understand how to analyse that, I'm not going to waste my time.
#60
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Just about every president/candidate has lied/cheated about something or another in their lives,
Clinton's poll numbers went down when they found out he cheated on his wife after lying about it.
Trump cheated on his wife and the polls didn't go down after lying about it.
I agree that people who like or dislike someone (whether it's Trump or some other candidate) should at least know why they do so. Some people, however, just don't feel like doing their own research... oh well.
That is the majority of voters in general. Uniformed yet still able to vote. That is why you see such a divide between left wing politics online and polling on who is winning. If you simply read social media you would think Warren and Bernie are winning but when you see the polling Biden is actually winning.
If you want to see a list of Donald Trump's policies/accomplishments, you can check out these sites. https://www.promiseskept.com/# http://www.magapill.com/
Just by looking at it not a single thing is clearly sourced as in gives evidence to any claim here but even if with that Trump didn't start the economic growth. Obama did. Saying he had X growth leaves out the fact Obama started that growth.
Immigration part is utterly pointless given his most relevant thing he used in his run up to the election was build the wall yet it hasn't happened.
Trump foreign policy is bad due to the sanctions on China. It increases the amount Americans have to pay while not impacting China in a noticeable way.
Iran is not a national security yet Trump is increasing conflicts between them.

I could go out of my to clearly show how every single point is either not helpful or wrong but I doubt it would convince you if I did. Personally I think you used this to confirm your biases not use it as the start of your liking for Trump. Maybe I am wrong.