Trump Plans To Dismiss Hundreds of Thousands of Asylum Claims To Boost Deportations
Dismissing asylum applications for migrants who entered the U.S. unlawfully would boost immigration-related arrests, but have little impact on public safety.

The Trump administration is planning to make hundreds of thousands of migrants immediately deportable by dismissing their asylum claims, CNN reported on Wednesday. The move would likely boost already historically high immigration-related arrests to meet the Trump administration's quota of 3,000 immigration arrests per day.
According to two sources familiar with the matter, the administration plans to close the cases of migrants who entered the United States unlawfully and later applied for asylum. Based on self-reporting, at least a quarter of a million asylum seekers in the last decade entered the U.S. unlawfully. Those whose cases are dismissed will be subject to expedited removal, a process that allows immigration authorities to deport an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge.
Asylum is a pathway to citizenship available to migrants considered "refugees" who arrive at the border or have entered the U.S. within one year. To win asylum, a person must provide evidence that they are a refugee, defined as someone unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted "on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion," explains the American Immigration Council. Any individuals "found to pose a danger to the United States, who have committed a 'particularly serious crime,' or who have persecuted others themselves, are barred from asylum."
Under the Refugee Act of 1980, entering the U.S. without proper authorization does not disqualify an individual from seeking asylum—which reflects the reality that those fleeing persecution may not have the resources to navigate an immigration legal system before migrating. Asylum eligibility has been restricted over time to dissuade unlawful immigration, and in January, President Donald Trump blocked access to asylum for anyone unlawfully crossing the U.S. southern border.
As of December 31, 2024, there were approximately 1.45 million asylum applications filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that oversees lawful immigration. An additional 1.48 million asylum applications were pending as part of immigration removal proceedings. Because of the backlog in both the immigration courts and at USCIS, the asylum process can take years. In FY 2024, those who were ultimately granted relief, such as asylum, from an immigration court waited an average of three and a half years for their outcome.
At any time during the asylum process, if USCIS finds that someone is ineligible for relief, they can be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Generally, enforcement actions, like ordering deportation, fall under the authority of ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. But recently, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem gave USCIS the authority to fast-track deportation proceedings and "take additional actions to enforce civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws," according to a memo obtained by CNN.
Such a change in process puts USCIS at the center of Trump's deportation campaign, and experts warn it will likely have a chilling effect on migrants seeking relief and remaining in the United States. "They're turning the agency that we think of as providing immigration benefits into an enforcement arm for ICE," Sarah Mehta, deputy director of government affairs for the American Civil Liberties Union's equality division, told CNN.
Matthew Tragesser, a USCIS spokesperson, told CNN that the agency had "nothing to announce at this time," and added that the "screening and vetting of all aliens seeking to come, live, or work" in the U.S. continues to be the agency's top priority.
The vast majority of those affected by Trump's planned policy have been navigating the immigration system and working and contributing to their community for years. A move to dismiss asylum applications for anyone who entered the U.S. unlawfully and expedite removal through USCIS may aid in Trump's immigration crackdown goals, but it will have little impact on the stated aim to rid the country of dangerous, violent criminals.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He's so incompetent at finding illegals that he has to create them by revoking parole and revoking visas for people who have been following the rules.
False asylum claims are not following rules.
That cook in Missouri that her rural town was supposedly so "angry" about getting detained, broke her visa and started claiming asylum because her mother abused her.
This kind of bullshit claim for asylum is why most of these cases need to be dismissed outright. It's the poisonous aspect of the Open Society philosophy that deserves rejection, that simply having icky feelings should be grounds for admission to a country.
This is also why the Soros family need to go.
Yup, I don't know how they are allowed the level of influence they've been given. Tim Walz bowing in submission in Alex's apartment is telling of who actually controls the DNC. Should it be renamed the Soros Auto Pen?
Soros wasn't even a top 10 contributor last cycle.
You sure about that?
He funneled it through NGOs and other political groups so it would appear as if he was the top donor.
It doesn't matter - he's a European Jew, and so is doubly suspect in the eyes of the cultists.
Such a weird comment from the team of anti semites screaming death to Isreal.
Do yoi ever think through your retarded thoughts?
Americans vacation in Mexico. Only 16% of asylum requests for Mexico are denied?
You do understand that Mexico, like most large countries, is a very diverse place? The touristy parts where Americans go is quite different than the rest of the country.
The touristy parts where Americans go is quite different than the rest of the country.
So, you inadvertently acknowledged the good people of Mexico have somewhere to go in Mexico to get away form the bad people and don't need asylum in the US?
You are too worked into a frenzy of idiocy to continue to argue with.
Well of course - if the dirt poor Mexicans who are being oppressed by drug lords, or their own government, suddenly transform into relatively wealthy American tourists, then they can stay at American tourist destinations on the Mexican riviera. That's a brilliant idea!
Seethe harder Fatfuck. You lost big today, again.
Falsely claiming asylum isnt following the rules leftist retard. Using false sponsors isnt following the rules leftist retard. Asylum shopping isnt following the rules leftist retard.
How do we know the claims are false until the claims are adjudicated according to the asylum process?
Are you saying everyone is from a shithole country?
Jeff, like most leftists, believes foreign countries are shitholes due to his own racism.
Jeffy is very racist. But he always makes room for the kids.
Dude, that sounds suspiciously like due process. Can't allow that.
What is a concept jeff and sarc refuse to educate themselves?
Anything related to the constitution?
Why do we give a shit about their claims if they entered the country and remained here illegally?
The law permits individuals to apply for asylum even if they entered the country illegally.
Besides, most of the current crop of applicants entered via a port of entry and applied for asylum when they entered.
The law permits individuals to apply for asylum even if they entered the country illegally.
Your half-truths are more insidious than your outright lies.
One. More. Time.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
And this provision is the root of the problem and needs to be changed (and apparently Trump has managed to do that administratively for the time being). Those seeking to enter the country with legitimate claim of affirmative asylum based on “demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution due to one or more of five protected characteristics: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group” should have no problem doing so at a port of entry since there’s 52 of them along the southern border.
Of the pending asylum cases, about 85% are defensive asylum petitions. Defensive asylum applies to those in deportation status claiming asylum to avoid deportation. Less than 20% of defensive asylum petitions are granted. The vast majority of these claims sure appear to be nothing more than illegal aliens intentionally gaming the system.
Now, look at the five protected characteristics qualifying for asylum (they are why the common term used to be “Political Asylum”). Seeking a “better life” is not grounds for asylum, being a victim of drug gang violence is not grounds for asylum, getting shaken down by a gang is not grounds for asylum, being a victim of domestic violence is not grounds for asylum as unfortunate as all those things may be. If these claims were grounds for asylum, I guess US citizens living in the projects in any city should be eligible to claim asylum.
(and apparently Trump has managed to do that administratively for the time being).
That's was the point of "No Kings". A President enforcing his own rules his your own reasons, laws be damned, is Facsist.
He is forcing the laws passed by congress to be followed you retarded leftist fuck.
And there are definitely no exceptions. Right? Right lying Jeffsarc?
So? Then the claims get turned down and they get the boot.
No, most of them applied illegally via the CBP One app.
The number of fake sponsors on those parole applications is stunning.
I also like how the government never holds sponsors responsible for costs the parolees incurred despite that being the law.
Hopefully Bondi gets around to that. Although considering the number of law of Democrats, she really does have her work cut out for her.
Let's see how honest jeff is.
Jeff... since you think these claims are legit.... you'd be find with immediate deportation and disallowing of reentry if claims determined to be false, right?
I think asylum should be reserved for people who are fleeing genuine oppression. Not just for people seeking economic opportunities elsewhere.
For people seeking economic opportunity (but not fleeing genuine oppression), I think they ought to be given a work permit and have the legal permission to live here. Not a green card, not citizenship, just legal residency.
The major reason why so many people file false asylum claims is because there is no other legal way for these people to come here in a reasonable time frame. Yes yes they can apply to immigrate here in the "usual way" but the wait time can be up to 30 years. That is not a "reasonable time frame". Create this system of work permits, and the abuse of the asylum process largely goes away.
You didnt answer the question.
We start from fundamentally different premises. I favor the free movement of goods and people around the globe. You favor strict restrictions on who can travel where, all to be approved by the state. I reject your entire premise as being consistent with libertarian values at all. Your question is tantamount to asking me if I think people should be punished for breaking the rules that I largely don't think should exist in the first place, and I'm not going to play that game. You might as well ask, "should a person convicted for marijuana possession a second time receive a harsher sentence?" It's a bullshit question from a libertarian perspective.
Skepticism of authority the law has always been an American hallmark. Progressives are authoritarians who have zero tolerance for anyone who questions authority or the law.
Looks like another thing to add to the long list of things Trump defenders have in common with the leftists they hate.
What happened to nobody is above the law as you defended novel legal construction buddy? Almost like it is about the who with you which you claim not to do.
Weird how unprincipled you and jeff are.
But that's typical of leftists.
They’ve never had principles. They’re just open borders Marxists who want their way any cost and through any means.
That point has been made many, many times. The response is always to attack the person and to attack made-up arguments the person never made. Don't need to unmute Jesse to know this.
I didnt attack jeff. I asked him a question he refuses to answer retard.
I addressed your question. The problem is that we start from fundamentally different premises. So I am not going to answer your question that implicitly assumes the validity of your premise, because I disagree with your premise. Instead of insulting me, you could try to address the substance of my response. Or does your NPC programming permit that?
Instead of insulting me, you could try to address the substance of my response.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Whew! I'm out of breath!
What insult was in the comment buddy? Look at how much a liar you are.
You did not address it. It was a simple yes or no. You deflected and tried to insert other rationales not pertinent to the question. More dishonesty from you.
This is why people attack you jeff. Youre a completely dishonest sophist.
But at least your sophist tools and dishonesty work on other leftist retards like sarc.
So if the time frame is inconvenient for them, just break the law. Yeah, that’s about what I expect from you.
So because the legal route is not convenient people should be able to use some illegal route and thumb their noses at the people applying legally?
Your name should read radical idiot.
No, that's not at all what he said.
Because the legal route is beyond inconvenient, people who want to better their lives, but can't wait until they're dead to do it, are skipping the line. Nobody said that they should do this. Just that they are, and it's not entirely unreasonable from their point of view.
Since these people are going to do this anyway, and understandably so, what we should do is make it easier for those who just want to come her and work to work come here and work. Not come here to go on welfare. No, to come here and work. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who disagrees is a xenophobic racist.
So beyond inconvenient 1.5M do it every year.
How retarded are you open border marxists?
so, what we should do is make it easier for those who just want to come her and work to work come here and work. Not come here to go on welfare.
Yet yoi and jeff constantly defend 80B a year on benefits to illegals. Youre lying. Youre trying to pretend to be principled when you're not.
If what you stated was true you'd deport any illegal on welfare or receiving assistance. You are against that.
Like most leftists you lie.
1.5M a year come here legally. But you pretend the process is impossible. You pretend you're against welfare but raged against DOGE and government cuts to illegals.
Youre so full of fucking shit sarc.
Yet yoi and jeff constantly defend 80B a year on benefits to illegals.
Not true. What I do oppose, is you continually bringing up this $80B figure (which is an inflated figure), while downplaying or ignoring the much larger amount of welfare going to native-born citizens. Why is THIS $80B so worthy of excessive outrage? What about all the other trillions spent on everyone else? The disproportionate outrage over this indicates that this is a disingenuous argument. You're not upset that they are collecting benefits per se. You are upset that they are here AT ALL, and them collecting any amount of benefits is just a convenient way to attack them. I oppose your disingenuous argumentation.
1.5M a year come here legally. But you pretend the process is impossible.
Strawman, no one claims that the legal process is "impossible". It is however excessively difficult. Besides, always bringing up the traditional immigration process, leading to citizenship, is a bit of a red herring anyway. I'm quite certain that a large number of these migrants don't even really want citizenship here anyway, they just want to have the legal ability to work and then to go back home to their families in their native countries. Why not have a path for legal work permits in addition to a path for citizenship?
Citizens versus non-citizens. Apples and orangutans. Also, fuck you cut spending on citizens too. You are the one who doesn't want to cut welfare/entitlements, and wants to let everyone in.
That's the level of "thought" we expect from lying Jeffsarc.
No matter how many times I've told jeff, I'm against all welfare. But he doesn't give a fuck about what people say.
Ironically he claims to not want to spend on illegals below yet he continues to defend welfare for everyone.
Just a dishonest filthy leftist. Fat too.
No matter how many times I've told jeff, I'm against all welfare.
In the last election, we had three choices:
A. One candidate wanted to expand the welfare state.
B. One candidate wanted to abolish the welfare state.
C. One candidate wanted to preserve the welfare state for the "right people", but go after the "wrong people" using welfare.
Guess which one Jesse chose? Hint: Not candidate B.
You give nothing more than lip service to ending the entire welfare state. Yet when it comes to those damned furriners using welfare, you pop a gasket. You are not fooling anyone.
Citizens versus non-citizens. Apples and orangutans.
Why? If welfare represents money stolen from taxpayers through taxation, what does it matter to whom the proceeds of that theft are distributed? Why is the theft worse if it goes to an immigrant, vs. if it goes to a non-immigrant?
But thank you for unintentionally revealing your true motive. When it comes to welfare, what really pisses you off is not the what (tax money stolen from you), but the who (where that tax money goes).
It's not really about the welfare. It's about the people getting it.
The time frame for me to get my next million is pretty inconvenient. May as well start stealing.
Dismantle the welfare state, and then let's talk.
“migrants who entered the U.S. unlawfully”
Bye!
They knew all along that the number of illegal immigrants who actually were the violent thugs and criminals that they portrayed them all to be, were only a small minority of the population. This is the inevitable consequence of reality hitting them in the face. They are now going to deport people who are fleeing genuine persecution because they have to satisfy the demands of their base who thinks that ALL of the people seeking asylum are liars and violent thugs.
They are now going to deport people who are fleeing genuine persecution because they have to satisfy the demands of their base who thinks that ALL of the people seeking asylum are liars and violent thugs.
Fallacy of composition. Some protesters are rioters therefore all protesters are rioters. Some immigrants are criminals therefore all immigrants are criminals. Some of Trump's critics are leftists therefore all of his critics are leftists. Trump and his defenders sure love to fellate fallacies.
The expression of this fallacy is a requirement for any sort of nationalist/populist movement. There MUST be some "other" that is holding back "the people" and depriving them of what rightfully belongs to them. For other populist movements, it was "the elite". In Germany, it was "the Jews". Here, it is "the foreigners". There MUST be some Emmanuel Goldstein-type figure otherwise the movement doesn't work.
More strawman arguments.
Emmanuel Goldstein was not real. There is no question there are real criminal gang members that enter the country illegally. They have them on video going door to door to extort people.
The portrayal of illegal immigrants that your team presents is fiction. They are presented as, alternatively, violent criminal thugs, lazy welfare cheats, or weirdos who eat cats and practice cannibalism. THAT is your team's Emmanuel Goldstein, this fictional view of illegal immigrants. ACTUAL illegal immigrants are just people, like any other ordinary group of people. Like with any group of people, some are violent thugs, some are welfare cheats, some are weirdos, but most are just normal ordinary people trying to seek a better life for themselves.
ACTUAL illegal immigrants are just
peoplecriminals, like any other ordinary group ofpeoplecriminals.I had to fix that for you. Perhaps this is what you meant to say:
"Those people using your social security number are not hurting you."
Yes, they are guilty of the misdemeanor crime of illegal entry. That is NOT equivalent to being guilty of much more serious crimes like murder or identity theft. That is the problem here. You see them breaking one law, and therefore you conclude that they have the mens rea to break ANY law. Is everyone guilty of jaywalking a "criminal" equivalent to rapists and murderers? Of course not.
We do not wish to put them in prison, which would be a criminal penalty.
We just want them to go home. That is a civil solution.
Yet you defend sending illegals to foreign torture prisons without any due process.
Methinks you're lying.
Torture prisons. Lol. Sit down Maddow.
No due process? Fucking hilarious how retarded you are.
Sit down Maddow.
Exactly. They all work from the same fucking script and simply deflect and distract to maintain the illusion they have an argument other than "FEELZ RIGHT".
Why aren't you and jeff saying they should all be shot in the face for trespassing? Seems like the law you two believe in depends on the who. Weird.
Fallacy of composition.
Strawman argument. It would be a fallacy if you were not lying about the premise.
Crossing the border without authorization is a crime therefore all illegal immigrants are criminals.
And according to JeffSarc. All must be shot in the face. Even if they don’t present an immediate physical threat. So we must kill illegals on sight under the JeffSarc Doctrine.
How many times have jeff and sarc yelled due process, dont deport for even illegals given final deportation orders? If they dont leave within 90 days they are guilty of a felony. Yet sarc and jeff demand they stay here.
fleeing genuine persecution
Which means nothing and everything.
That's why there is an asylum process, to decide upon such things.
I think we can eliminate most countries automatically. Mexico, for example, is not killing politically unpopular people. So all asylum claims from, Mexico are automatically rejected.
Allowing them to stay in the US for years with no adverse outcome for filing a false claim other than being deported, which was going to happen anyway. Perverse incentives.
What would you prefer? Should people who file false asylum claims be put in jail instead?
No, immediate deportation is fine.
The problem is the extreme leftists promoting sanctuary to these denied asylum seekers and thwarting ICE from removing them.
And folks like you crying as if these denied asylum seekers deserve an additional round of due process or better yet, just let they stay anyway mentality, while providing them with free housing, food, clothes, medical care and education paid for by citizens and legal migrants who are not entitled to these "benefits".
while providing them with free housing, food, clothes, medical care and education paid for by citizens and legal migrants who are not entitled to these "benefits".
See, this is exactly the mentality that I was talking about. You think that these migrants are taking something away from you that rightfully belongs to you. This is a fixed-pie, scarcity mentality. You see them getting some benefits, and instead of asking "why can't I have those same benefits?", you want those benefits taken away from them.
Money ain't infinite. All of the money spent to "take care" of illegals was stolen at the barrel of a gun by the state.
Never figured you'd be as profoundly pro-taxes as you are.
But that's not the argument. The argument isn't, "migrants shouldn't get benefits because the benefits represent theft of taxpayer money". The argument is, "migrants shouldn't get benefits because those benefits rightfully belong to citizens". It's not about the theft. It's about the supposed unworthiness of those getting the benefits.
"You say it, but you don't really mean it" is not an argument, it is a deflection. You are hopeless.
No, I don't want to be forced to pay for those for ANYONE, citizens or illegal aliens alike. But there is obviously a hierarchy: I care more about my family than other people, I care more about my friends more than other people, and so on down to I care more about the rest of my fellow citizens than foreigners. The farther down someone is on that stack, the less I care about their problems and damn sure the less I want to be forced to pay to solve their problems.
Like when COVD was all the rage, if someone in my family died, it was a tragedy. If a friend died, I would be deeply saddened. If someone I knew to say hello to died, it might register a bit. Someone dying in another state that I never met, that's too bad. Someone dying in India or China or Sweden or Italy or Tajikistan, it's merely academic.
I would almost certainly donate a kidney to save the life of a family member. I would strongly consider donating a kidney to save the life of a close friend. I might ponder donating a kidney to save the life of someone I know by name. A moment of altruism might make me consider whether I should donate a kidney to help someone I don't know in another state. Someone needing my kidney in India or China or Sweden or Italy or Tajikistan, nope, sorry.
Well well, there is a lot of truth revealing in this comment thread.
I agree that there is an obvious hierarchy of "caring". I too care more about my family than about random strangers. However, coercion is coercion. Money stolen from you in the form of taxation is still theft regardless if that money winds up in your relative's pocket or if it winds up in the pocket of some random stranger.
Furthermore, there is a limit to the extent of this hierarchy. If you ask me if I oppose the torture of my relative, I would answer an emphatic yes. But if you asked me if I oppose the torture of some random stranger, I would also answer yes. There is a minimum level of "care" that all of us ought to have for every human being regardless of our personal connections, and from a libertarian perspective, that minimum standard ought to be respect for everyone's individual natural rights. And from a humanistic perspective, I would include some minimal level of respect for the dignity of everyone as sentient rational human beings. So I don't want migrants treated horribly even if I don't know them, even if they are not citizens, because no one ought to suffer like that.
It’s called deportation, dipstick. You deport them immediately.
How about repercussions for their sponsors?
What exactly do you think is going on here?
An asylum applicant's sponsor could be a family member, or it could be a church organization that has a mission to help all in need regardless. What type of repercussions do you think they ought to suffer?
If they said they'd financially take care of the illegal but do not, they should be fined. Heavily.
They violated their agreement.
Jeff only said that because it never happens. He has never advocated for fining sponsors prior. But if Trump decided to go after sponsors you already know what jeffs response would be.
Hint jeff. They've talked about doing just that lol.
Nah, just shoot them in the face as trespassers.
Wrong, you must enjoy being wrong.
Too chickenshit to post in the Roundup anymore?
He is.
Over 80% of asylum - refugee claims are denied because the reasons do not meet the criteria. 10 million enter and claim asylum, 8 million need to be removed...
Figuring that out would require due process, which Trump defenders oppose.
They had due process, idiot. Their applications were reviewed and rejected.
You know, arresting people for breaking and entering would boost arrests for breaking and entering.
Where do they find these imbeciles?
They are here illegally, get them out
Good. NGOs trained the hundreds of thousands to falsely claim asylum. Biden lowed hundreds of thousands to claim it without push back.
Same broad bases policy out as it was in.
>Dismissing asylum applications for migrants who entered the U.S. unlawfully would boost immigration-related arrests, but have little impact on public safety.
Except, you know, for all the criminals fleeing their home country to come here to commit more crimes.
Like our 'Maryland Man'. Or the dude who set someone on fire on the subway.
That didn't happen. Reason tells me illegals are magic unicorns incapable of committing crimes. Stop being a xenophobe.
Is there some reason why these people can't stay in Mexico while waiting for their application to be processed?
Is there some reason these people, having come through Mexico, can not request asylum in the country that speaks their own language?
Failing that, is there some reason they're not asking Canada for asylum?
I agree that Biden's policy of allowing them to wait here was wrong. And it has been changed. However the people who were allowed to stay due to Biden's policy didn't do anything wrong. They just followed the rules that existed at the time. Why should they be punished for that?
Hey retard.
https://www.nyic.org/2024/10/advocates-outraged-by-president-bidens-refusal-to-extend-humanitarian-parole-for-immigrants-in-the-u-s/
And yes. Falsely claiming spinsors and asylum is fucking wrong no matter how ignorant you and jeff are. Forum shopping for asylum is wrong no matter how ignorant you two are. Demanding free hand outs is wrong no matter how ignorant you two are.
Biden’s fuck up isn't my problem. If you democrats feel bad that we have to kick them out because of your fuck up, then you are free to give them your money as compensation.
So, in recent years, the asylum success rate has ranged between 20% and 50%.
https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/asylum/
So, if *all* of the asylum applications are revoked, that means that somewhere between 20% and 50% of the applicants will be sent back to the genuinely horrible conditions which led them to seek asylum in the first place. Do you think this is an acceptable outcome?
This is the type of senseless policy that inspires the charges of xenophobia. Because it demonstrates that the admin does not care one single bit about any of them, even the ones who genuinely deserve asylum. They just all have to go, regardless, because "they don't belong here".
There are about 50 different ways that Team Trump could have handled this which would have been more humane, not so overtly xenophobic, and still broadly consistent with his tough-on-immigration approach. He could have hired more immigration judges to more rapidly process the backlog of cases. He could have tightened the standards for what qualifies for asylum. But no, they chose the stupidest broad-brush approach which will lead to real harm going to desperate people fleeing real persecution.
But no, they chose the stupidest broad-brush approach which will lead to real harm going to desperate people fleeing real persecution.
The entire goal of this administration is to cause harm. Harm to foreign immigrants, harm to foreign asylum seekers, harm to foreign students, harm to foreign businesses, harm to consumers of stuff imported from foreigners, harm to Democrats, harm to his critics, harm to perceived leftists, harm to anyone who ever hurt his feelings... This has to be the most malicious administration we've had in generations.
Sort of - it is treating the world as a zero-sum game. To provide benefits to Americans, something must be taken away from someone else. For American to prosper, the Chinese must suffer, immigrants must suffer, Canadians must suffer, "librul elites" (who are not real Muricans) must suffer, etc. That is what I see as the guiding philosophy. America must take what is rightfully theirs away from everyone else.
You give them way too much credit. They don't think that hard. They're just mean spirited people with power who enjoy causing harm to anyone they don't like. And the list of people they don't like is very, very long.
No, I don't really agree. IMO that is falling into the same trap that a lot of the MAGA folks fall into - portraying their opponents as nothing more than cartoonish comic-book-level villains. I don't think they hate people for the sake of hating people. I do think that they are told to hate certain groups of people whom they are told are "taking things away from them". How many times have we been told around here that most problems in this nation are due to illegal immigrants? High crime, high inflation, high housing costs - it's all the fault of the illegals! That is not an accident. The propagandists on their team deliberately tell them that the reason why they can't get ahead is because "those damn illegals" are taking all of their opportunities and resources away from them. That is the problem.
These are people who see their neighbor get hurt and instead of helping them they point and laugh. They're not comic-book-level villains. They're just run-of-the-mill jerks.
It is a similar mentality as those who see that their co-worker is making more money than they are, but instead of asking for a pay raise for themselves, they demand that the co-worker take a pay cut. It is a scarcity mentality, rather than a growth mentality.
I love it when you two respond to each other like this. It perfectly illustrates that you have no interest in what arguments people actually make and just make up strawmen to fight.
20 years for parading. No bail. Shooting unarmed people.
Wait. Who is mean spirited again?
It’s hilarious to watch those two retarded faggots rave back and forth at each other. Amd it’s going to be even more hilarious when they react to today’s SCOTUS decisions.
No kidding. They also keep ignoring that every illegal woth deportation orders who stays past 90 days committed a felon.
They are the two most unprincipled assholes here.
Mike being a close third.
Reminder. Sarc and Jeff are open borders Marxists who demand the US take care of all foreigners whether here or abroad. They call it wrong to not spend tens of billions of taxpayer funds on their favored classes. It is wrong to hold foreigners responsible to the law. In their view foreigners have more rights than citizens.
JesseBot is a right-wing NPC who implements two main algorithms:
1. Repeat right-wing media talking points
2. Stalk and harass the people he hates
But don't try to ask JesseBot to think for himself. That will short-circuit his programming.
You said that not letting child molesters claim asylum is restricting their liberty and that diddling kids isn't as bad as "being oppressed."
You also said that it's not a big deal to flash kids walking past your house as long as you did it behind a window.
You don't really have any moral high ground to stand on here.
You have also said that you will oppose anything that I say or do. So you bring up these irrelevant past comments to distract and deflect and to try to slime me, rather than arguing the point.
you bring up these irrelevant past comments to distract and deflect and to try to slime me, rather than arguing the point.
Well, yeah. It's called arguing against the person. There's a Latin term for that particular fallacy, which is considered to be a logical and persuasive argument in these comments.
Where was all of the righteous indignation when Democrat presidents were deporting millions of brown people. Why is it only bad when Trump does it?
Why is it only bad when Trump does it?
It's not. Do you know where Obama got the nickname "deporter-in-chief"? Hint: it wasn't from Republicans.
Why does your team have to be such ruthless assholes about immigration?
Only when it's illegal immigration.
The people who jump through the hoops and embrace their new country are more than welcome. I hire them whenever I can.
The people who jump through the hoops
But that is a big part of the disagreement. WHY should the "hoops" be the way that they are? For example, for some classes of immigrants, the wait time for a green card can be as long as 30 years. Do you think that this is a reasonable set of "hoops" to expect immigrants to "jump" through?
Maybe a better idea is to make the legal immigration AND migration process easier so that the hoops aren't so onerous and people aren't incentivized to abuse the asylum process. What do you think?
Why are you conflating legal immigration with illegal aliens?
WHY should the "hoops" be the way that they are?
Due process is a double edge sword.
Only when it's illegal immigration
And the argument is ALWAYS that immigration per se should generally be illegal. See the threads re foreign students, H1 visas, etc
Yup, pretty much. They insist that they are only opposed to illegal immigration, then they move to try to redefine most types of migration as illegal.
Like I said in my first comment, Trump is creating illegals by revoking visas and parole. His defenders claim to support legal immigration, and at the same time support turning legal immigrants into illegal immigrants by presidential decree. The logical inconsistency suggests that they're lying about only opposing illegal immigration.
"I think the crime of illegal entry by peaceful migrants crossing a border"
A group of 10-15 fighting-age men on a flight from Paris to NYC get off the plane. They linger together as they approach the Customs gates, studying to determine the best moment. As one, they surge forward at a dead run, shoving people out of their way, forcing their way through the Customs area into the open terminal, where the ones not tackled by Customs agents sprint for the exits. An alarm sounds throughout the airport and police and other LEOs on the premises move to intercept them and to block the exits. A few of the runners go through security doors out onto the tarmac, hoping to be able to jump the fence. Canine units are loosed. At the end of the day, authorities are able to determine that all the violators have been apprehended (and are exceedingly lucky to not have been shot in the face). All are summarily deported.
Crossing the southern border and jumping the fence there should be no different.
As one, they surge forward at a dead run, shoving people out of their way, forcing their way through the Customs area into the open terminal,
Not exactly "peaceful migration" is it?
You're really going to play the "It's ok because you didn't complain when Democrats did it so that makes it ok" card? It's getting really old.
And there was plenty of outrage. The difference is that Obama didn't brag about treating illegals like subhuman animals to the wild cheers of his base. He was more discreet.
You mean the press ran cover for Obama?
Just own it. None of you leftists complained when your boys did whatever you're bitching about today.
I'd have some respect if you wailed about Clinton, Obama, and Biden like you wail about Trump. But no, you are just a partisan hypocrite.
Reason complained plenty, and the Obamabot trolls were all about calling libertarians like myself "hardcore conservatives."
And once again, fuck you for calling me a leftist. You don't even know what the word means, other than it being a catchall for anyone who criticizes Trump.
You will never gain my respect now that you've outed yourself as an authoritarian who will defend anything and everything Trump does. You have no principles other than Trump, Trump, Trump. The only difference between you and the Obamabots that plagued the comments when he was president is that instead of shouting "Hardcore racist conservative!" at anyone who criticizes your Dear Leader's policies you shout "Hardcore leftist with TDS!". Otherwise you're exactly the same. Just another worshiper at the alter of a cult of personality. Exactly like the people you hate.
None of you leftists
Which "leftist" specifically are you referring to? I don't see Tony or American Socialist in this conversation.
If you don’t know who the leftists are, it’s probably you.
Holding illegals to the law is treating them as subhuman animals. Got it.
You and jeff are fucked in the head.
Let me put it to you another way.
I think the crime of illegal entry by peaceful migrants crossing a border, should be punished as harshly as the crime of a pothead smoking a joint in his basement.
In both cases, I think it is wrong to enforce such an obviously unjust law, and I think that those who insist on enforcing the law even when told how unjust it is, exhibit a certain level of cruelty that goes beyond simply wanting to enforce the law.
I think the crime of illegal entry by peaceful migrants crossing a border, should be punished as harshly as the crime of a pothead smoking a joint in his basement.
Sure, 50 years ago when migrant workers would travel back and forth to work in the fields. This is not that. They never leave because the benefits (welfare) outweigh the risks. That is how a reasonable person becomes convinced that it requires interdiction.
You are not a reasonable person. I don't think you have ever lived around recent immigrants from the 3rd world. Their neighborhoods are not safe.
And not just brown people. You instantly know when you enter a suburban Russian neighborhood. They look like a downtown, they have so many stolen cars lining the streets.
Sure, 50 years ago
Thank you for unintentionally revealing the truth. Your real concern is not the what (breaking the law), but the who (the identities of the people involved). You don't want them here because you don't think they belong here regardless of the law.
We’re just exposing your perverse motivation. Although not in the same way you like to expose yourself to young children.
No it's not. Stop thinking you're intelligent. It is a comment based on jeffs hypocrisy since neither of you actually argue facts or what the law is. At best you appeal to emotion. Above you say the law isnt fair after saying nobody is above the law for attacks on conservatives and Trump.
So we point out how fucking big if hypocrites you are. You have zero principles.
It’s human nature. Push something too far, and it will be pushed back too far.
I think it is the right outcome. I'm all for having immigrants come if they work and support themselves and don't expect or receive any government subsidies or assistance. But we are not obliged to rescue the rest of the world from shitty conditions. A huge number of people live in terrible conditions. We can't fix that by letting them all move to the US. Asylum should be way more limited.
I don't think it's really debatable that there was massive abuse of the asylum system during the Biden admin. Doing something about that is part of what got Trump elected. It's not just about ejecting criminals. People didn't want this huge influx of new people, particularly when they are eligible for government support and assistance.
Over 287,000 people were granted asylum status in the US between 2013 and 2022
Let's round up and call it 300K.
300K in ten years. The rest of the 15M illegals need to be turned out.
There is a contingent of Americans who demand the rest of us accept illegal immigration no matter what the circumstances. Killers, terrorists, rapists, arsonists, pedos, and common tax leeches are defended no matter what. But this phenomenon only began with the election of Trump. Why is that?
160 Democrats voted against it.
https://yellowhammernews.com/moores-bill-authorizing-deportation-of-illegal-aliens-with-dui-convictions-passes-house/
U.S. Rep. Barry Moore’s (R-Enterprise) latest piece of legislation allowing for the deportation of any illegal alien who has been convicted or admitted to the offense of driving while drunk passed the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday.
“Today’s vote in the House sends a clear message,” Moore said. “If you are a guest in this country and you break our laws and put American lives at risk by driving under the influence, there will be consequences.”
Are you American? If so does that mean you are responsible to provide an expectable life for people who are not American and living in another country? is this your responsibility?
If you have that much compassion why don't you take your wealth and big heart and move to one of these countries and help these people to have a better life in their country? There's plenty of organizations you can join that do this.
So, if *all* of the asylum applications are revoked, that means that somewhere between 20% and 50% of the applicants will be sent back to the genuinely horrible conditions which led them to seek asylum in the first place. Do you think this is an acceptable outcome?
No, that's not the conclusion to make here. Think about it harder.
move to dismiss asylum applications for anyone who entered the U.S. unlawfully
Where's the part where anyone said "all asylum applications are being revoked"?
Why do you always have to lie about everything Jeffsarc?
We should stop all asylum. There are 194 other countries where they can go. We have zero obligation to allow any asylum seekers to enter our country. We're full and it's simply not our problem.
would boost immigration-related arrests, but have little impact on public safety.
It's not about public safety. It's about ending illegal immigration and deporting illegals.
Your framing is an attempt to distract, and work a narrative that it serves no point or purpose unless it does impact public safety.
You are ignoring the fact that deporting illegals IS the point and purpose. Whether it impacts public safety or not.
So, you want to strictly enforce the law for the sake of enforcing the law?
That is at least a defensible position, if you apply it evenly.
What about citizens who break the law, even trivially? Should they be punished strictly as well?
I'm willing to bet that the last time you drove your car, you exceeded the speed limit. How should that type of moving violation be more strictly enforced?
Poor analogy.
Last time you drove your car did you check for bears in the trunk? If not you just want immigrants to be mauled, racist.
Par for the course. Jeffy loves using false equivalencies.
We’re talking about getting rid of the illegals, Fatfuck. Not anything else. And we won’t discuss anything else. So none of your false sophist comparisons.
Or you can just admit that we’re right, and you’re wrong. Then beg our forgiveness and leave forever.
We’re talking about getting rid of the illegals,
Exactly. That is why Jeff and Sarc bring up asylum, racism, fallacies, anything to deflect and distract form their original lie.
Why would you change the punishment?
Nobody is changing the punishment for illegals.
I'm for DEI -- Deport. Every. Illegal. Every single one.
They entered the U.S. illegally. They broke the law. They aren't supposed to be here.
What do Reason's authors not understand?
They understand. They want our culture and nation destroyed.
Right, because creating a police state is a sure way to save the nation.
Enforcing any kind of set of laws requires a "police state," you disingenuous fatbody.
The term "police state" typically refers to the excessive and oppressive enforcement of the law. It doesn't refer to the mere existence of police to enforce ordinary laws. Stop being a disingenuous cunt.
Stop being a disingenuous cunt.
Somebody needs to post the "Bears in Trunks" thread where Jeffy lost his fucking mind when I directed that exact insult towards him. The disingenuous cunt can't even come up with his own insults.
Police as we know them today didn't exist until the Fugitive Slave Act authorized men to go around kidnapping anyone who they thought was a runaway slave. That's what you're defending.
You mean bounty hunters? You prove every day how ignorant you are.
How are you not a leftist again?
A huge reason why Trump was elected was to more fully enforce the immigration laws. I don't love what has to happen to accomplish that. But a lot of the blame lies with the previous administration who allowed it to happen. If the border had been properly controlled, there would be much less need for increased immigration enforcement. Is your argument that once people are in the country illegally there is no acceptable way to remove them?
Yes, that is the position of the anti-enforcement loons, but they will never own it.
Ooohhhh…. I knew this was coming. Now that he can’t wriggle his fat ass out of the argument, he starts making shrill cries of ‘police state’ and how we’re a nation of big meanies if we enforce the law.
Yeah, we’re not having that stupid discussion you pedophilic tub of goo.
It works on leftist reddit and retards like sarc.
I will again point out both jeff and sarc demanded full use of the law, no bail, etc for citizens, even the non violent for J6.
They are hypocrites.
I seem to recall that being shot in the face as an unarmed mostly peaceful protester was considered justice served, according to them.
The law permits individuals to apply for asylum even if they entered the country illegally. That application grants them temporary, limited legal status to be here while their application is pending.
And time is up!
Pedo Jeffy is really flailing. I’ll bet he’s getting really pissed off too. We need to keep pushing him hard. Especially. Since he will get really wound up with the SCOTUS announcements.
Yep, all out of time.
Controlling our borders and immigration is not about "public safety", retard. Stop with the bullshit.
Even then you can look at the Lott study of prisons and see illegals have higher rates of incarceration from violent crimes. So yes it is a public safety concern. The DHS just had to round up over 100 Iranian illegals last weekend, many of them threatening to shoot the officers.
Your Lott study is garbage. He deliberately overcounted the number of people he claimed to be "illegal" so as to pad his statistics.
Cool story bro. Got any other democrat fan fiction for us? Or are you seething over the SCOTUS decision?
It’s turning into a very bad day for you. Better hit the Ben & Jerry’s early. I can just picture you elbows deep into your 55 gallon drum, while angrily sobbing amid outbursts of “goddamn Jesse and Trump”.
You call other people disingenuous cunts? Are you searching for other birds of a feather?
It's not? What is it about then, creating a pure society?
Is it completely illegitimate for citizens of a country to be concerned about big changes to the culture and demographic makeup of the country?
For the *entire* country? Yeah, I do kinda think it is illegitimate. Especially nowadays when people have more power than ever to choose their own cultural milieu and their own associations. If a bunch of peaceful migrants want to practice their own micro-culture in their own community, why should the rest of America care?
I continue to think that the idea that there is some type of real "national American culture" is a myth. I doubt you could find one cultural practice, that is considered typically American and not a universal human cultural practice, that even 80-90% of Americans would agree upon. *Maybe* it is celebrating Independence Day, but how many people treat it as anything more than just another day off? In my view, America is a land of thousands of microcultures. And that's totally fine. We don't all have to agree on one thing.
I see a large part of the MAGA movement that rejects this line of thinking, they want to believe that America ought to be this unified cultural space where most people agree on most things. And I just fundamentally disagree with that. Social pressure to conform to some cultural norm can be just as bad as government coercion to conform to some unjust law. People ought to be free to express who they truly are, and neither the government nor some oppressive culture should prevent that. Of course that means people with wildly different ideas of "expression" will strongly disagree with each other, which means that we all also ought to be free to associate with whom we choose.
So, to you, the US is just a large economic zone for making money. There’s no history, no culture, nothing but money.
As written above. Jeff is an open borders Marxist who thinks your tax dollars should fund the world.
JesseBot screams MARXISM! because that is what his programming tells him to say. JesseBot wouldn't know what actual Marxism was if it hit him in the head with a hammer and sickle.
JesseBot wouldn't know what actual Marxism was if it hit him in the head with a hammer and sickle.
It's funny because it's true.
Do you two open borders Marxists need the link to your beliefs again from marxist.org?
There is not a sliver of daylight between them and you. Youre just too fucking stupid to realize it.
People can have their own culture and traditions, but there are also more universal cultural things that define even a country like the US. And there are a lot of traditional American individualist values that other countries just don't have in the same way. It worked when immigrants knew they had to sink or swim and wouldn't get any official assistance if they failed. But I don't think that is the case now. I once would have largely agreed with you, but I have come to understand that culture really does matter, the US has had something special, and you really can't have immigration like we had in the past when there is a big welfare state and people have figured out that you can vote to take other people's money for whatever purpose you can get popular support for.
Here is the problem though. How does one go about enforcing any sort of cultural uniformity? There is no way to do it *effectively* in anything but an authoritarian manner. And, at the end of the day, prioritizing national culture over local micro-cultures means placing the collective ahead of the individual.
People around here often say something to the effect of, "Why should I want my neighborhood to look like *that place*?" where *that place* is considered some hellhole. Well, by what means can a person stop his/her neighborhood from looking like *that place* without violating someone's rights? Should the entire neighborhood get to have a say on whether a particular homeowner can sell his/her house to the "wrong people"? Should the entire neighborhood get to have a say on whether a group of people can start an organization which advocates for the "wrong things"?
How does one go about enforcing any sort of cultural uniformity
Completely tangential to what Zeb just wrote. You just can't engage honestly for even one minute.
Dissemble. Deflect. Distract. It is all you know.
You can't enforce it. You just try not to break it when it's working pretty well. There really are people who want to tear down our culture and values of independence and self reliance. If it really was just organic migration of people who want to take a risk on starting something new in a new place, that would be one thing. But I don't think that is what has been happening in recent years. If we're going to have a huge government with tons of favors to hand out, then it's going to have to control things like immigration too. It's not my ideal world, but it's where we are.
C'mon Zeb, do you really believe the claptrap of some organized Soros conspiracy to "import" migrants into America so as to undermine and destroy it? That is conspiracy twaddle.
Of course there are people who don't like my values or your values. The solution to that is to not grant them power over everyone so that they don't get to impose their values onto everyone. That goes just as much for MAGA conservatives as it does for Marxist radicals.
You're describing the one-way ratchet that inexorably leads to bigger and bigger government. "Well, government fucked this one thing up, guess we need more government to fix the previous fuckup." Repeat as needed. Government fucked up immigration by placing all of these needless restrictions and labyrinthine regulations on it. THAT is why so many people abuse the asylum system. THAT is why there are illegal immigrants in the first place. The solution to that problem is not to create another government program to "solve" the illegal immigrant problem, the solution is to get rid of the original source problem and liberalize immigration rules broadly.
Recent dem primary in NYC proves this point.
You really have no concept of the rule of law, sovereign borders, or citizenship, do you? You’re just a pure global Marxist.
3000 per day is @1,000,000 per years. Four years of Trump would be 4000000 - not enough. We need to at least double that, so yes, this is what I voted for. Asylum is a lie - they're just migrants. Asylum is a fake news loophole that has been used to destroy out country. Every one of them needs to go - and never come back.
Why would any native-born tax-paying american be opposed to this?
Taxpayer money should absolutely not be funding this.
Where can I donate?
That's known as "defensive asylum". Anyone can openly apply for asylum at the border checkpoints, but you have people sneaking across the border, who have been taught to shout "asylum" if they are caught, to halt deportation and get a "do-over". It's blatantly exploiting our asylum laws and using them against us. If you are opposed to any kind of border restrictions (as Reason.com is) then you probably don't care. But plenty of us DO care that the system is being abused like this. It also means that the few genuine asylum seekers are getting drowned out in the noise and they have to wait years to get a court date.
The whole asylum system is BS anyway because most migrants are traveling through Mexico, which is also a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and is obligated to take their asylum claims. They should all be turned around unless they have at least tried that first.
Asylum was NEVER intended to be a major source of immigration to this country, but that's how it's turning out because migrants are using it to get around immigration laws (not just here but in Europe also). It was intended for people truly fleeing religious or political persecution, like Jews from Nazi Germany. Instead, we are allowing anyone to recycle the same stories about gangs, which btw exist in the US also. BTW you would be shocked how many of these fakers later return to their home countries to go shopping, attend family events, etc. They aren't hiding it either, they even come back to work and show everyone the photos.
At a minimum, asylum should be a serious, last resort effort and returning to your native country should immediately disqualify your asylum claim.
Most of the so-called "asylum" claims are bunk anyway. "my neighborhood sucks" is not a cause for asylum. "I was in a gang and now the enemy gang is after me" also not cause for asylum.
"My government is committing genocide against my people" would be valid but how many of those are there?
"My government is committing genocide against my people" would be valid but how many of those are there?
There's white South Africans.