6 ms·

> Biden has deported vastly greater numbers and a higher share of crossers, but it has not deterred people from crossing. ICE and Trump seem to be enough deter

> Biden has deported vastly greater numbers and a higher share of crossers, but it has not deterred people from crossing. ICE and Trump seem to be enough deterrent now, considering how the land encounters have reduced. > The logistics are such that once arrivals exceed the deportation machine’s capacity, people will find out and even more will come. This explains the huge ice funding increase.

estearum 1y ago
Yes, breaking asylum and due process laws will be a deterrent. The question was always how to deter immigration legally, which prior POTUSes thought they had to care about. Re the funding increase: People to put handcuffs on wasn’t the bottleneck, so no it doesn’t. Immigration courts are the bottleneck, and actually jamming more low-level or non-offenders into the system exacerbates that problem.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  lol breaking asylum laws is bad but breaking immigration laws is fine.
  - estearum 1y ago
    “lol” no one said it’s fine to break immigration laws. I’d suggest though that our government breaking laws is in fact worse than random individuals breaking laws. That’s true for pretty obvious reasons, I’ll add.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      >That’s true for pretty obvious reasons Illegal immigration can best be thought of as a slow-moving constitutional crisis. An increasingly large portion of the electorate wants decisive solutions to illegal immigration and will vote for the person who gives them that, regardless of the constitutionality.
      - estearum 1y ago
        This argument can be raised by anyone seeking to undermine the Constitution as it relates to any pet cause they care most about. “Wealth inequality is… therefore property rights don’t matter” “Climate change is… therefore freedom of movement doesn’t matter” “Foreign influence is… therefore freedom of speech doesn’t matter” “School shootings are… therefore the second amendment doesn’t matter” All the same seditious, un-American attitude. We have a system for resolving these disputes! It’s all laid out in the Constitution.
- Izikiel43 1y ago
  > Yes, breaking asylum and due process laws will be a deterrent. Unfortunately, TPS is up to the executive branch, not congress, so changing the duration is up to the executive branch discretion.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Which is not related to the closure of borders to asylum seekers nor the withholding of due process rights for people who are suspected of breaking immigration laws — neither of which is at the Executive’s discretion.
    - Izikiel43 1y ago
      > the closure of borders to asylum seekers I'm pretty sure the executive has power over border policy, the INA is very broad and gives a lot of power to the executive, also it would be crazy if the executive can't decide on border policy, congress is too slow/deadlocked to do anything meaningful. Second one yes it's iffy.
      - estearum 1y ago
        It’s not “iffy.” POTUS has absolutely no ability to curtail due process rights. It is a blatant violation of a right that undergirds every single other right in the Constitution. Without due process right, there are no property rights, no gun rights, no speech rights, no religious rights — all of them can be taken away by the state simply declaring that you have been found guilty of such an offense that those rights are stripped from you. The solution to Congressional deadlock is called “electing new representatives.” The executive in fact does not have the ability to “shut off” asylum processing, no matter how dysfunctional Congress is. And even under the INA. Read INA § 1158(a)(1). We could have a clause in the Constitution that says something like, “if Congress is deadlocked, POTUS can do whatever they want.” Alas we do not have such a clause, and so he cannot, even if you feel there is deadlock.

estearum 1y ago

Yes, breaking asylum and due process laws will be a deterrent. The question was always how to deter immigration legally, which prior POTUSes thought they had to care about. Re the funding increase: People to put handcuffs on wasn’t the bottleneck, so no it doesn’t. Immigration courts are the bottleneck, and actually jamming more low-level or non-offenders into the system exacerbates that problem.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
lol breaking asylum laws is bad but breaking immigration laws is fine.
- estearum 1y ago
  “lol” no one said it’s fine to break immigration laws. I’d suggest though that our government breaking laws is in fact worse than random individuals breaking laws. That’s true for pretty obvious reasons, I’ll add.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    >That’s true for pretty obvious reasons Illegal immigration can best be thought of as a slow-moving constitutional crisis. An increasingly large portion of the electorate wants decisive solutions to illegal immigration and will vote for the person who gives them that, regardless of the constitutionality.
    - estearum 1y ago
      This argument can be raised by anyone seeking to undermine the Constitution as it relates to any pet cause they care most about. “Wealth inequality is… therefore property rights don’t matter” “Climate change is… therefore freedom of movement doesn’t matter” “Foreign influence is… therefore freedom of speech doesn’t matter” “School shootings are… therefore the second amendment doesn’t matter” All the same seditious, un-American attitude. We have a system for resolving these disputes! It’s all laid out in the Constitution.
Izikiel43 1y ago
> Yes, breaking asylum and due process laws will be a deterrent. Unfortunately, TPS is up to the executive branch, not congress, so changing the duration is up to the executive branch discretion.
- estearum 1y ago
  Which is not related to the closure of borders to asylum seekers nor the withholding of due process rights for people who are suspected of breaking immigration laws — neither of which is at the Executive’s discretion.
  - Izikiel43 1y ago
    > the closure of borders to asylum seekers I'm pretty sure the executive has power over border policy, the INA is very broad and gives a lot of power to the executive, also it would be crazy if the executive can't decide on border policy, congress is too slow/deadlocked to do anything meaningful. Second one yes it's iffy.
    - estearum 1y ago
      It’s not “iffy.” POTUS has absolutely no ability to curtail due process rights. It is a blatant violation of a right that undergirds every single other right in the Constitution. Without due process right, there are no property rights, no gun rights, no speech rights, no religious rights — all of them can be taken away by the state simply declaring that you have been found guilty of such an offense that those rights are stripped from you. The solution to Congressional deadlock is called “electing new representatives.” The executive in fact does not have the ability to “shut off” asylum processing, no matter how dysfunctional Congress is. And even under the INA. Read INA § 1158(a)(1). We could have a clause in the Constitution that says something like, “if Congress is deadlocked, POTUS can do whatever they want.” Alas we do not have such a clause, and so he cannot, even if you feel there is deadlock.