Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "Mexican President blames Biden for border crisis" video.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@butttalker1 I've looked at those numbers. Southern border apprehensions were decreasing for 17 years prior to Trump. From 2007 to 2017 they went from 800,000 per year to under 500,000, the lowest point in 50 years, all prior to Trump. The in 2019 Trumps "caravan started and numbers increased starting in February of that year. He had about 4 months in a row with apprehension numbers over 100,000. That started to decline in August of 2019 around the time of year it always slows due to the weather. By 2020 those numbers were reduced due to covid and title 42. In September of 2020 we had 58k apprehensions, that increased to 72k in October. That's when this current issue started. Apprehensions continued in to increase during the winter months when historically it slows down. We had the highest apprehension numbers for November and December in the last 20 year. By January the apprehensions were at 78k. Since then Biden has had 701 days to fix the problems due to Trump unilateral decision to ignore US immigration law. Does this data correspond with your feelings and guess work?
Trumps policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers was a violation of 1980 US INA laws and forcing asylum seekers that used a port of entry to remain in Mexico for their hearing is also a violation of 1980 INA immigration laws. It had nothing to do with an agreement with Mexico. You clearly do not have a clue about the policies and you don't know immigration law. stop listening to fake news and do some independent research of the law and court transcripts that over turned Trumps policy.
(IV) Mandatory detention
Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.
(2) Inspection of other aliens
(A) In general
Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title.
Article 31 of the 1951 Convention
84. Asylum seekers arriving in the United States of America without proper
documents are now subject to 1996 legislation which makes provision for
‘expedited removal’. The relevant provisions, which went into effect on 1 April
1997, permit the immediate removal of non-citizens arriving at ports of entry
with false or no documents. If they express a desire to apply for asylum or a fear
of persecution in their home countries, they will be detained and referred for an
interview with an asylum officer to determine whether they have a ‘credible fear’
of persecution. If they are found to have a ‘credible fear,’ they are scheduled for
an immigration court hearing and are theoretically eligible for release from
detention. A ‘credible fear’ is defined as a ‘significant possibility’ that the
individual would qualify for asylum in the US.
85. If they receive a negative credible fear determination, they may request a review
by an immigration judge which must be conducted whenever possible within 24
hours and in no case no later than seven days after the initial negative credible
fear determination by the asylum officer. No further review is available. Under
earlier legislation, individuals seeking entry at border points were placed in
exclusion proceedings and had access to a hearing before an immigration judge,
an appeal to the BIA and to the federal district.
86. In practice, and depending on the availability of detention space and the equities
in individual cases, some asylum-seekers are released pending their removal
hearings and final decisions. This includes asylum-seekers who have been
placed in expedited removal and have been found to have a ‘credible fear’ of
persecution
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ricstick3541 Yes I would like to see what in Biden's executive order actually takes an action to directly change a policy, that has had a marked effect of what's happening at the border in Biden's 60 to 80 days in office. And what the Right would like for him to do differently that is within immigration law. I'm not concerned for most of the executive order that call for committees, task forces, or studies. Biden kept title 42 in place that was the only policy Trump used to reduce immigration that was legal.
Federal courts, one with a judge that Trump appointed, ruled the use of that third country policy was in violation of our 1980 INA asylum laws and violation of our Geneva Convention international treaty obligations. Even if Mexico is a member of that treaty, the US needs to have a treaty agreement with Mexico that confirms the ability of Mexico to be a safe haven country for the acceptance of asylum seekers. Mexico and those other south American countries do not qualify and we do not have a treaty with them that we have with Canada, for that provision that is rarely enforced throughout the world.
Federal courts also ruled against Trumps separation policy and Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Both policies violating INA asylum laws and international treaty and both were far more of a contribution to creating this current issue of unaccompanied minors, than Biden claim to invite them by stating his administration was going to be welcoming to legal asylum seekers, stated in a debate, over a year ago.
1
-
1
-
1