3 ms·

Legitimate asylum seekers can seek asylum at the border. They do not need to run across the border, unless they actually have no valid claim for asylum and are

Legitimate asylum seekers can seek asylum at the border. They do not need to run across the border, unless they actually have no valid claim for asylum and are simply jumping the border. You see, as a legal immigrant who was stuck in the dreaded green card queue for years and many of whose family are still stuck in that queue because (a) the immigration system is overwhelmed by illegals and (b) because there is political lack of will to fix legal immigration I do have a vested interest and authority to complain about illegals.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Legitimate asylum seekers can seek asylum at the border. Not when the executive directs that they be prevented from doing so, even to the extent of closing border crossings and launching cross border armed attacks to prevent it. The “crisis at the border” is deliberately and unsubtly manufactured to sell the response. > the immigration system is overwhelmed by illegals No, it's not. Both because the systems legal immigrants use don't deal with illegals and vice versa, so that simply doesn't happen in any cased because illegal immigration has been dropping for a long time to the point where there is no longer even a net inflow. > because there is political lack of will to fix legal immigration That's not really an accurate statement. Portraying the problem as lack of will suggests that there is a broad consensus on what it means to “fix legal immigration” but people are just afraid to stand up and vote for it, while the truth is pretty much the opposite: plenty of people are willing to stand up and vote for things that are (in the view of particular factions) “fixig legal immigration”, but there is no consensus on which of the mutually incompatible fixes to adopt, because people have diametrically opposed view of what the problem with legal immigration is and what the goals are any fix should address (and that's even before disagreements on approaches between people sharing the same view of the problem/goals.) > I do have a vested interest Perhaps, but clearly not much understanding, and > and authority Beyond the universal “authority” inherent in free speech, no.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Legitimate asylum seekers can seek asylum at the border. Not when the executive directs that they be prevented from doing so, even to the extent of closing border crossings and launching cross border armed attacks to prevent it. The “crisis at the border” is deliberately and unsubtly manufactured to sell the response. > the immigration system is overwhelmed by illegals No, it's not. Both because the systems legal immigrants use don't deal with illegals and vice versa, so that simply doesn't happen in any cased because illegal immigration has been dropping for a long time to the point where there is no longer even a net inflow. > because there is political lack of will to fix legal immigration That's not really an accurate statement. Portraying the problem as lack of will suggests that there is a broad consensus on what it means to “fix legal immigration” but people are just afraid to stand up and vote for it, while the truth is pretty much the opposite: plenty of people are willing to stand up and vote for things that are (in the view of particular factions) “fixig legal immigration”, but there is no consensus on which of the mutually incompatible fixes to adopt, because people have diametrically opposed view of what the problem with legal immigration is and what the goals are any fix should address (and that's even before disagreements on approaches between people sharing the same view of the problem/goals.) > I do have a vested interest Perhaps, but clearly not much understanding, and > and authority Beyond the universal “authority” inherent in free speech, no.