Comment by estearum
13 hours 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.
lol breaking asylum laws is bad but breaking immigration laws is fine.
“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.
>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.
1 reply →
> 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.
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.
> 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.
1 reply →