It really goes back further than Presidents Obama and Clinton. The democrats have been making hay over immigration for a while. To them, it's a way of tilting the voting scales on election day. Dems feel by pandering to immigrants and potential immigrants they can get to power and stay in power for generations. That translates to socialism and socialism for all. No way can we afford unlimited and unregulated immigration. Someone's gotta pay for their food, housing, and education of their children.....

Obama wasn't successful in fully socializing our way of life. The European model is what Obama was going for. Dems have been incrementally and systematically socializing our life and that means taxes will and must continue to go up in order to support their social programs, social justice, and social agenda. A chicken in every pot really translates to much-much more. That means it's your job, and your responsibility to provide those chickens to each and every poor person, and illegal immigrant. It means you and your families American dream take second place to some stranger from Nicaragua, or some less fortunate persons two states over.


Recent history should also be examined. Likely the last Democrat President who "got it" was JFK. Likely the last responsible and law abiding Dem... Remember, JFK was a Naval Officer (hero) from WWII. I think his oath of office as an Naval officer gave him pause...

In 1897, Congress imposed a literacy test on immigrants, but it was vetoed by President Cleveland. Taft and Wilson vetoed similar bills; but in 1917, with war tension rising, Congress overrode Wilson's 2nd veto. By now, wrote JFK, "Those who were opposed to all immigration and all 'foreigners' were joined by those who believed sincerely, and with some basis in fact, that America's capacity to absorb immigration was limited."

Kennedy's stance is understandable, for in 1958, he was courting liberals and intellectuals in a bid for the presidency. And the political forebears of those liberals were progressives who had joined Negro leaders and union leaders in seeking to halt the waves of immigrant labor that were depressing wages and taking jobs from our native-born, both black and white.

This was a time, recall, when 156,700/year was the quota limit, and JFK did not seem to object: "There is a legitimate argument for some limitation upon immigration." And Kennedy reassured Americans that his proposal "does not seek to make over the face of America."

Part of making America great again is simply following the law....We should all be for following the law. Democrat or Republican, shouldn't matter, but sadly for democrats it's really all about European immigration, the progressive agenda, and unlimited socialism. That's the end goal.

 

A large number of these people are not just from a poor country. Some are fleeing for their lives.

Also a reality for all of them that is completely ignored, (probably because it would require volumes of books and research to fully grasp) is that there is no country in Central America that is completely sovereign in the sense that people raised in the states think of it. Their economies, (ie job opportunities, cost of food, availability of health care etc) are by and large a subset of what has been set up for them (IMF, trade agreements written by multinational corp, world bank, mining and logging rights...the list is long). Their governments have learned that they not only must be friendly, they must agree to whatever conditions that the US demands, so they agree. Any dissent that becomes organized will be dealt with; often with lethal force outside an official govt role.
(I have a friend from Guatemala whose mother bought he and his brother here some years ago in just such a situation...his father had been murdered and she was informed they were next when they got around to it)

It is complicated beyond my bits of knowledge and no one is saying making open borders. But it is ignorant and dishonest to pretend that the USA is not part of the reasons for why people are trying to migrate.

 

Drug cartels, gangs and bullets have a way of separating children from their parents. Many of these parents in Latin America face choices unimaginable for Americans.

 

I would agree that many are in harms way... but flee to the nearest country and ask for asylum... don’t go through three or four countries... waters down the harms way rationale.

 

It is you who need to get the facts. This humanitarian crisis is the result of the Trump Administration changing the rules in April. They took away US attorneys discretion about which immigration cases to prosecute, required asylum seekers to go to ports of entry vice turning themselves in to any CPB agent on the border while they are turning people away at the ports of entry.

Here is a description of what they did legally that caused this mess.


https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/b...sis-conscience

First, the response just doesn’t comport with reality. The number of illegal crossing arrests has drastically declined, from a high of about 1 million in 2000 to slightly more than 300,000 in 2018. In fact, we haven’t seen numbers this low since the Nixon Administration in the early 1970s. Yet the Trump Justice Department has been directed to respond as if hordes of immigrants were storming America’s ramparts like an invading force.

Second, implementation of the blanket zero tolerance policy threatens to overwhelm available resources. The Justice Department prosecutes a total of about 70,000 cases each year, including some 20,000 immigration cases. The overall number will explode to more than 300,000 if “zero tolerance” is applied literally. And if zero tolerance results in all 300,000 cases being prosecuted by the Justice Department, federal court will have to hold mass hearings, mass trials, and mass sentencing, and the whole affair could double the current number of incarcerations from approximately 200,000 to over half a million.

Zero tolerance may make a catchy bumper sticker, but it is the very definition of bad public policy. Context must be considered if we are to maintain our world-class criminal justice system. The clear majority of these cases will be misdemeanor offenses of “entry without inspection,” which carries a maximum one-year sentence.

Federal court traditionally has been reserved for prosecuting serious violators of federal law — drug traffickers, terrorists, white-collar criminals, and felons with firearms to name a few — not people who want to work in the United States without proper inspection or permission.

 

OMG. You might want to get a map of Central America out and review their choices. The fact that they are willing to literally risk everything is prima facie evidence that their asylum request are likely valid.

 

Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, Panama and Mexico should all get them out of harms way and are much closer.

Do you discount possibility that they are looking for the best economic conditions as well? Economic migrants are not granted asylum. These are the 5 conditions listed where asylum may be granted. Which category would you place them in?

Race.
Religion.
Nationality.
Membership in a particular social group.
Political opinion.

 

There are allot of countries in the world that can offer asylum, assistance, or a place to live. America doesn't have to be everyone's "one stop shopping" for a decent place to live.

If anyone wants to take in, or individually sponsor a family they are free to do so. Just go to the US Government and tell them what you want to do as a private citizen. You can sponsor folks. But, that's a personal choice for you and your family. You are free to spend you income any way you wish, and open up your home to anyone you feel comfortable with.

At some point your value based decision is driven by or effected by economics. Your personal wealth and your square footage of space to house and take care of folks is a limitation, even for those of vast wealth, they too are limited. Heck, Sally Struthers didn't sponsor the entire Continent of Africa, and even Oprah has limits.

Interesting though.....Most folks offer support to where the support is needed. Build a school, support democracy, dig a water well, doctors without borders, various charities. We, as a country do our fair share. Time for the rest of the world to step up.

The fleeing Syrians could be supported somewhere in the middle east. The Venezuelans could be supported somewhere down south. The Mexicans could patrol their side of the border. Not the USA's obligation to solve everyone else's problem...all the time.

 

No, but they are free to pick the country from which they choose to seek asylum as long as their fleeing is based on one of the legitimate reasons you listed.

 

A right and proper deterrent would be adequate border security and properly enforced immigration laws. We are either a nation of law and order, or we are in chaos.

If our country didn't provide a means or a pathway for hard workers to rise above, or offer opportunity to those willing to sacrifice and ultimately achieve a better life then people wouldn't want to come here. Our beacon of hope doesn't have to be akin to a lantern for all insects to be attracted to. People need to find solutions to their problems closer to home, or in their home towns and countries, and in their regions. We can't be a life boat for everyone who is suffering and/or in poverty around the world.