Does anyone know what the law actually says about illegal aliens applying for asylum? I can't find the actual law so don't know if Trump has the power to prohibit illegal aliens from applying for asylum. I agree with him that asylum shouldn't be granted to anyone here illegally but I'm wondering what the law actually says about it.
'Took all of 5 seconds... 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
"Any alien who is physically present..." seems to reward illegal entry. Congress has punted this football for way too long. It's time they did the job we're paying them for and come up with a comprehensive immigration law and procedure.
If congress won't change the asylum laws then we need a high strong wall. But congress won't approve a wall either. It seems as if Americans have lost our fucking minds. People actually want more illegals to come into the country and I'm not talking about businessmen looking for cheap labor. I don't get it. As soon as these hordes of people are granted asylum they sign up for benefits, how does that help Americans? They also have the right to bring the rest of their families and they get benefits too. I keep thinking that it's obvious that most of these people do not qualify for asylum but I don't have any faith that once in the country they will ever leave no matter how their asylum cases work out. I'm thinking of investing in concertina wire but it wouldn't surprise me if they made it illegal to put concertina wire on the border as it may hurt some asswipe from another country while they are trying to sneak into mine.
No, the border is about 200 miles south of me. I bet you don't have a problem with people sneaking into Ireland, eh?
We don't really, no-one seems to want to come here. They all seem to want to go to the UK. There are a few here alright but not many.
The benefits in the UK must be more generous than yours in Ireland. It's like how the caravans of people fleeing Central American were offered a haven in Mexico but they are holding out for a better deal.
I don't know what benefits are available to illegal migrants in the UK. Here they're not entitled to the standard welfare payments, these are reserved for citizens and citizens of other EU countries. Illegal immigrants if they apply for asylum are housed in centers here while being assesed where they are fed and have their medical needs met. They also receive a payment of €21 a week ($25). They're not allowed work during this time.
The right to apply for asylum is reserved to anyone regardless of status, as it should be. Whether or not they qualify is another story. Out of those who are in the country illegally, the people who entered legally and overstayed a visa vastly outnumber those who illegally crossed the US/Mexico border. So, money could be spent on trying to stem the flow of [mostly] economic migrants trying to illegally cross the border, but it wouldn't be stopped because no problem was actually fixed. It is a universal economic fact that people are going to migrate to where opportunities are if they have none. We must find ways to improve the situation in their home countries by investing in their economy so they don't need to come over here. Illegal crossings wont really stop unless extreme measures were taken, such as militarizing and fortifying thousands of miles of the border, which raises a number of concerns about the type of country we are. personally it reminds me of somewhere like East Berlin, or the Korean border, and people still risked their lives to cross those for similar reasons that people cross into US. I would also wonder if, by establishing such an infrastructure, we are not signing away the rights of future generations given an increasingly authoritarian, corrupt government.
There's a tendency, especially among the more idealistic (both on left and right) to ignore consequence in favor of partisanship. These oh-so-noble people who are against borders and all for mass migration have not been paying attention to Europe. The aggressive, short-sighted pro-migration idealists got their way for a year here, despite blaring warnings - now Europe has never been more against migration, and hasn't been this right-wing in my lifetime. Ultimately, they lost hard. I think America will go through the same process, if the migration thing is thrown wide open by, say, a reactionary anti-Trump candidate in 2020; An initial period of moral superiority, followed by a cover-up of the consequences of mass migration, until that becomes impossible, then a smearing of critics, then finally a shuffling, step-by-step turnaround of policy when power is threatened by a democratic base in revolt of their migration policy. That's exactly what happened here over the last five years.
What benefits do they sign up for Ed? They’re not legally allowed to receive almost any federal welfare. They may send their kids to schools and use emergency rooms but illegal aliens can’t actually receive any welfare from state or federal governments directly. Most often when you see these reports on illegal aliens use x number of tax dollars they’re referring to illegal aliens who have children in the US that are legally citizens and are eligible for welfare such as CHIP or local benefits like schools, ER’s, etc. If you really want to change the usage of benefits by legal children of legal aliens change the constitution.
A common trend in several segments of the modern left on both sides of the Atlantic whom are driven mostly by their distaste of Trump, not the issues themselves. If Trump has position A, position A becomes corrupted, and position B must be assumed, where position B is the opposite of Trump's position.
I’m being a little bit of a grammar Nazi. But reactionary doesn’t mean someone who’s policies are purely a reaction to someone else’s policies. In the English language reactionary generally refers to a conservative traditionalist world view. Someone who wants to go back to the status quo of the past and often idealizes past social order. Generally due to the policy prescriptions of the left and right right wing politics are reactionary and call for a return to traditional policies/social order/etc. I can agree that certain segments of the left, especially the center left, take this position of say adopting militarism as a means to rebuke trump and abandoning traditional left positions. But I would say those on the further end of the left spectrum tend to be fairly consistent in their criticisms of Trump. You get a lot of centrist liberal media types who will jump all over themselves to criticize trump, but these people often have very little in terms of strong political principles. They’re looking to push outrage and scandal plus they hate trump for constantly shitting on them (sometimes legitamate criticism). I think like with most political things it’s easy to paint an entire political side as reacting a certain way when there’s a broad spectrum of reactions.
When they are granted asylum they have the right to bring their spouse and children into America, they get cash, housing assistance, health care, and food stamps. Rights and Available Benefits After a Grant of Asylum
"Lost hard" is a gross exaggeration, the far right are certainly rising but apart from Hungary, Italy and in part Sweden have not gained control. The vast majority of Europe is as it has always been centrist.
I would think that politicians everywhere would be nationalist. Why vote for a person if he isn't working for the best interest of his country?
Politicians only serve themselves. When they claim to be serving the best interests of the country that's code for their back pocket.