re: How the hell is the Race so close?

quote:

---

I think what we need is 1) more detention facilities and 2) more immigration judges.

---

This makes sense. Part 2 was essentially exactly what I was thinking. More judges (and accompanying required staff to adjudicate these proceedings) means you can more efficiently process the incoming aliens...

quote:

---

The issue we are having is we don't have enough detention space for the aliens claiming asylum at the ports of entry. So what's happening is that Customs Officers are giving aliens ankle bracelets and notices to appear (NTAs) at an asylum hearing. Most aliens actually do not remove their ankle bracelet and flee (maybe 10-15 percent do). However, immigrant rights attorneys have been challenging the due process of the NTAs, usually because the alien is never told when or where the hearing will be. They have a point because these aliens are on their own recognizance, without a mailing address. However, the solution to this is to keep them locked up until their hearing, but we simply don't have the facilities.

---

This makes sense... I wouldn't generally think that more detention facilities (functionally more prisons) would be the best course of action, but you make some compelling points for it.

quote:

---

Also, we don't have enough immigration judges. We need more. The asylum laws are actually pretty good as they are, and the vast majority of aliens who claim asylum don't qualify. Simply being from a poor, violent country isn't enough; you have to show you are basically a persecuted minority. The problem with the law is we can't immediately repatriate aliens to countries that don't border the United States. So aliens from Central America languish and take up jail space for months while we arrange to fly them back to their countries. We need to force Mexico to take them back since Mexico allowed them into their country in the first place.

---

This seems to be something that could have legs... Obviously, they got to our border somehow... if they crossed over from Mexico, there should be some sort of a "chain deportation" process... pass them back to the last country they exited for land border crossings at least? Dunno the legality/foreign politics behind that, but I could see Mexico being a hell of a lot more amenable to this than "funding the wall". Particularly if we can find a way to effectively penalize/tax them for land border crossings of Central Americans that come in via Mexico. If they don't want to police their own borders, fine... but if you let them cross through, you can have them back if we catch them.

As far as the laws as they stand, there seems to be some inconsistent application of the laws. I've seen several pieces on asylum seekers who upon being refused entry were killed within weeks or a couple of months upon being sent back to where they are from... with little to no justification for why they were refused. Maybe these are few and far between relative to the number of cases processed, but they obviously are headline grabbers.

quote:

---

Also of note, the "zero tolerance" policy didn't work. It doesn't appear to have deterred alien families who fear that their children will be taken from them. And logistically, it means that aliens who are criminally prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney's Office will have alot more due process (which means more time taking up space in jail) than they have in administrative deportation courts.

---

Out of curiosity, why do you believe this to be the case? I thought the Trump Administration was claiming this as a win generally due to decreased entries?

quote:

---

I'm not sure on the breakdown between aliens who seek asylum at the ports and those who hop the fence and claim asylum when they are caught by BPAs, but the result is the same.

---

Yeah... I know that by and large, the numbers skew toward more refused than granted asylum, just seems like if the process was more efficient at the ports, that you might have more people taking their shot there... even if they ultimately attempt to jump the fence later, we may have a more effective/efficient means of kicking them back out if they attempted at a port first... ie: you were denied entry, and you then attempted to sneak in... boom. gone. Simplistic view from someone obviously not living that life every day, but just seems like an easier way to "give out the warning" so that you can actually book them for "speeding" on round 2 for those that don't take no for an answer.

quote:

---

From what I hear (by no means claiming this to be certain fact, just anecdote), is that illegal immigration from Mexico, specifically, has dropped precipitously because Mexican illegals fear having their lives uprooted by ICE a few years down the road. Trump's aggressive ICE policy is certainly to credit.

However, unlike Mexico, which has a much improved economy and is relatively safe (excluding a handful of cartel cities), Central America is dangerous AF, and families are willing to risk separation from their children to escape.

---

Makes sense from a logical perspective at least... correlation =/= causation re: family separation policy... Reward still equal or greater than the risk for the central american immigrants.

quote:

---

Exactly. An alien who is deemed inadmissible due to a past immigration offense may be turned away at a port of entry by a Customs Officer. No judge required.

---

Always helpful to be more informed and confident in that knowledge when I tell people they're wrong... on both sides of the political spectrum.