(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

The asylum system is being used to short circuit the entire system of immigration. I dont see what is so hard to understand about this.

Step 1: make sure everyone in every 'caravan' and every group spouts 'asylum'. This is precisely what I have seen being 'taught' at pro-bono clinics. Once you spout 'asylum' -- there is a 90 percent chance you arent on the overnight bus to Reynosa. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

Beats the fing crap out of me 'who' specifically wants to short circuit the deportation system. I have some good guesses. But this *is* what is being specifically taught.

Step 2: once you are in the 'lets assess' asylum, there is a big push to make sure that as few people are held as possible. i.e. 'catch and release'. In fact, the tutorials I have seen explicitly mention this aspect. If you arent claiming asylum, the track is no more than 10 days in detention, a fairly quick hearing, and the outbound bus. If you claim asylum, as illini reported, 90 per cent of those claiming this are out into a different track -- released on recognizance.

Illini also mentioned that the effort to curtail this 90 percent rate was met with fierce opposition in court.

I dont see what the confusion is. There is active participation to make sure that as many people spout the asylum line to avoid that quick trip back. When word gets back to the base population that there is a 'short circuit' available, do you expect the numbers of people making that trek to increase or decrease?

The caravans are a direct offshoot of of the 'asylum' short circuit.

If you cant put two and two together, not my problem. (well considering you vote, it actually is to some extent....)