THE WALL

@One

"Well now that you mention it. I will make a correction. We don’t need courtrooms. It’s simply a paperwork process. It is a yes or no. If there is a grievance or an appeal. It is handled at the Embassy. You really don’t need judges for this."

Interesting concept.

Is it an intern who says YES or NO?

Who is the person who makes the decision?

How do you handle the 150k applicants that show up during the first week that this is implemented?

I also think that there are some other reasons why this has to hit a judge. I don't think you can 'outsource' this to an intern or anyone at an Embassy. Hell, the first thing I would think of is Bob Menedez dropping out of Congress and wanting to sit in an embassy allowing people in or out. He'd make way more money that way.

@One

Just like TBR mentioned, putting courtrooms in 3rd party countries will not go over well. Telling them how to handle their borders will be even worse. How well has it gone when we have tried to impose OUR will on other countries? There is a line that we can hit, but crossing it, well that goes over shittily. We tried that in Iran, we tried that in Libya, we tried that in Iraq, we tried it in Afghanistan.

Your analogy is off a little :)

Really what you are saying about that drunk . . . :)

Imagine you own a bar in a mall. You happen to own the building. The parking lot and the entry to your bar is owned by another company. You are telling the owner of the parking lot, the land, that he has to change who he lets in, because, there may be a drunk that wants to enter your bar.

But going back to the logjam. Last I looked into this, there are about 300 to 400 judges that handle ALL the asylum seeker cases. Now let's do some math :)

2000 working hours per year for that judge. 3 minute ramp up time between cases. 12 minutes per case. How many cases can a judge hear per year? That judge can hear ~8,000 cases a year. Again it has been a while since I looked into this, but the reality was I think they were hearing about 4000 to 5000 cases per year. So let them hear 8,000 cases, make it BETTER. If there are 1.6mm asking for asylum, how many judges do we need? We only need 200. The problem with that? The influx is not constant in the amount. You could see 300k in one month. Do you build out the 'infrastructure' based on peak expectancy or force flows to be level? This is why a thousand new judges doesn't seem that far off. And then, again, what do you do if the case lasts longer than 15 minutes? Do you need people from the government fighting AGAINST it, while an immigration attorney fights for it? How do you handle those that can't afford an attorney? Do you supply an attorney for them? What do you do if the person doesn't speak English? Technically there are 5 main languages in India, but over 700 are spoken. These minor details are why I keep saying that this is a LOT more nuanced and complex than people want to admit to. I get it, I really do. Somehow we think we can solve all the problems in SEVEN paragraphs of law :) The reality is that we can't :( It is hard for some to accept that.

“That way we don’t have XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX waiting in line and they can pass where there is not an entrance.”

Should read:
That way we don’t have XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX waiting in line, and others can pass where there is not an entrance.

“So you want to establish courtrooms in other countries?

That will go over well in thise countries...”

Well now that you mention it. I will make a correction. We don’t need courtrooms. It’s simply a paperwork process. It is a yes or no. If there is a grievance or an appeal. It is handled at the Embassy. You really don’t need judges for this.

“Mexico doesn't want a fuck ton of people just sitting along the border in their area creating a shitshow either. This situation has created scenarios where a person can keep trying for MONTHS to ask for asylum at the port. Again, Mexico doesn't want them either :)”

Yeah. That is why I suggested WORKING with Mexico to strengthen their border. I was chastised for such an idea.

“That situation, IMO, is the main reason why we have what we have now.”

Thanks for saying that.

Let me fuck with your head.

The easiest way to get a drunk out of your bar is by not letting them in in the first place. Once they’re past the bouncer it’s harder to get them out.

We stop the metering at the border. Do it someplace else. That way we don’t have XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX waiting in line and they can pass where there is not an entrance.

"Exactly why I proposed the asylum process does not start here. It starts in the county the person lives in."

So you want to establish courtrooms in other countries?

That will go over well in thise countries...

@One

"We can only process as many as we can. No one is guaranteeing entry or a time frame."

Thanks for saying that.

That situation, IMO, is the main reason why we have what we have now.

Again, as I stated to my wife, you can guarantee an outcome by getting your foot on the soil. Metering is what you are talking about. In a very crude definition of how that works, is if you are a person wanting asylum, you come into a port of entry (say TJ) for example.

Here is the structure of how the border actually is.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX -> ZZ

The X is 10 people in a line. The Z is ONE guard. That number is really not exaggerating. There is a huge fence system that it has a ~6' opening with two guards standing there. They check if you have a sentri/global entry card, or your paperwork trying to get inside the fence. Then past that entry, you have about 1000' of concrete before you get to the building entrance. There are two more guards that 'route' to the two/three lines There is the normal line. Then there is a sentri/bus line. The same people that handle sentri handle buses. Now you can be processed. Here it looks like Walmart on Black Friday. Lots of lines with 'cashiers' who take your photo, ask a few questions, and then unlock the gate to let you go to the NEXT step. If you have a bag, you have to stand in a line to have it scanned (think TSA) and if no bag, you can walk out and be in 'Murica.

The way metering works is that the port will announce how many that day they are willing to see. Sometimes it is zero, sometimes it is a hundred, it is an unknown. This is why you saw the HUGE group of people at the port of entry trying to get in. This is WORSE than the deli that gives you a number on that little piece of paper and says 'Now serving number 35' on the wall. Mexico doesn't want a fuck ton of people just sitting along the border in their area creating a shitshow either. This situation has created scenarios where a person can keep trying for MONTHS to ask for asylum at the port. Again, Mexico doesn't want them either :)

This is why, to guarantee the outcome, they cross away from the port of entry. Now you claim you want asylum and boom, you are being processed.

So for the fiscally conservatives . . . what is cheaper? Putting more workers at the port of entry and hiring 1000 new judges or building a fence, hiring enough people to cover the 2000 miles, knowing that you have to legally have holes because of Indian nation issues. I know this is the 'automation' in me speaking, but IMO, I think it would be cheaper to do the judges, have more Krome detention centers, and process a person within 10 days of getting on the soil. At that point, then you would no longer hear the phrase, "Illegal immigrants." You would just hear the hatred for immigrants. Welcome to 1902 all over again.

“it doesn't scale. Immigration is dynamic from countries. In the 90s, how many were coming from India?”

I hate this saying with a passion. “It is what it is.” We can only process as many as we can. No one is guaranteeing entry or a time frame.

Fine, fuck it. Let them all in. IDGAF. But in a generation of two, we will let history judge what the best actions could have been.

Until then, I'll just start towing vehicles, calling ICE on every one I find and arresting instead of ticketing (read up on that for a fun time) and maintain our little bubble of sunshine for as long as possible.

“Not sure we can do that. I really am not sure if we can do 'judicial' work not on our soil that is not military. I kinda want to say no, but have a feeling, not confidence in it.”

I honestly do not know the answer to this question either.

But if you think about it. It is an administrative type hearing. These are not criminal actions that are being adjudicated.

“Again, I know and realize I keep harping on South Florida experiences. Ever wonder why Cuban baseball players NEVER requested asylum in Cuba, but when they were on the road in a different country, they did? That should help you re-think your position.”

I doesn’t really make me re-think my idea. But there are going to be one off’s. The players are in a country legally on a tour or at a tournament. So where would they go? Your nearest Embassy.

:)

“Lastly, think this through :) Imagine you are in North Korea. You go to the US Embassy (we don't have one there, this is hypothetical) you request asylum. You are denied. Walk out the door, get captured and go into the prison system. If you are claiming asylum from the country you are in, what happens if you fail?”

Not hypothetically speaking. A person from NK has to be out of the county now to claim asylum. So like I said. At your nearest Embassy. :)

@One

Not sure we can do that. I really am not sure if we can do 'judicial' work not on our soil that is not military. I kinda want to say no, but have a feeling, not confidence in it.

Secondly, it doesn't scale. Immigration is dynamic from countries. In the 90s, how many were coming from India?

Lastly, think this through :) Imagine you are in North Korea. You go to the US Embassy (we don't have one there, this is hypothetical) you request asylum. You are denied. Walk out the door, get captured and go into the prison system. If you are claiming asylum from the country you are in, what happens if you fail?

Again, I know and realize I keep harping on South Florida experiences. Ever wonder why Cuban baseball players NEVER requested asylum in Cuba, but when they were on the road in a different country, they did? That should help you re-think your position.

@Marion

"I think most of us are ok with the traditional immigration process to become a citizen. Surely all of us are ok with work Visas, even if most overstay. The problem most of the people have with the current border situation is the "here I am, I can't go back, gimme my 2K and bus ticket now please." Situation we've got down there. These people aren't being vetted & are using finite resources. How can ICE, DPS, DHS patrol the border and at least try to stem the flow of drugs and criminals into the country, if they are working overtime handing out sprites & chicky nuggys to foreign nationals who only know "I seek asylum" in English."

Here is the huge difference. The mentality that YOU and people similar to you have, I have seen before. I lived it. Again, all the shit you are screaming about was shit that was said about Cubans in the 1970s and 1980s. What do you think the old southern crackers said about the cubans? They called it an invasion. They screamed "FUCKING LEARN ENGLISH," "Assimlate," "Our way of life." et al. Now the irony . . . you guys suddenly LOVE Cubans because they are voting R.

And now, NO one is happy with the traditional immigration process. That is the ROOT cause. The last time it was adjusted was when . . . come on . . . prove my point that CONGRESS has failed here.

So you want to bring 158 on the terror list. Interesting. Out of the MILLIONS that crossed. Did THOSE 158 (a) actually get into the country and NOT found (b) did they actually cross the border and not an airport?

“The administration needs an alibi for closing the border.”

Jr didn't close the border after 9/11.

“"here I am, I can't go back, gimme my 2K and bus ticket now please."

You’re believing bullshit.

I think most of us are ok with the traditional immigration process to become a citizen. Surely all of us are ok with work Visas, even if most overstay. The problem most of the people have with the current border situation is the "here I am, I can't go back, gimme my 2K and bus ticket now please." Situation we've got down there. These people aren't being vetted & are using finite resources. How can ICE, DPS, DHS patrol the border and at least try to stem the flow of drugs and criminals into the country, if they are working overtime handing out sprites & chicky nuggys to foreign nationals who only know "I seek asylum" in English.

I think it's was like 158 people that were allowed in as asylum seekers that were later identified as being on the terrorists watch list. The process is completely ineffective at screening out the bad actors with bad intentions.

I'm afraid we're gonna see the results of that process on the news before long. The war machine needs a boost, the economy does great in wartime. The administration needs an alibi for closing the border.

Works for me too.

@one: I agree with you.

“simple, they wanted to guarantee an outcome.”

Exactly why I proposed the asylum process does not start here. It starts in the county the person lives in. Paperwork is processed at US Embassy’s world wide. If there is not an Embassy in the county you live in? The closest Embassy is fine. Immigration Judges/Magistrates would be in each Embassy.

Here's a really good idea for ya ea. Take your statistics and do a little traveling. Maybe NY and Chicago to start off. Show those folks there the numbers and tell em it's all just propaganda. Tell em everything is just fine for them because it is where you live.

It's not a problem where I live "YET". I don't want it to become one either.

I’m screwing with you EA. :)

“My wife, who knows little about this shit, well, we talked a little during a 200 mile drive. She never knew why people crossed 'illegally' instead of through the port of entry. I said it was simple, they wanted to guarantee an outcome.”

WTF?

You didn’t tell her: “Today it is an issue? WHY?”

“the NUMBER of 'illegal' crossings was HIGHER under Bush, Jr. than they are TODAY…. It was ALMOST as high under Reagan. I mean under Reagan it was 99.5% of what it is today.”

“You and the ignorant people on the situation have no clue how the immigration system works.”

“Learn how our immigration system works. It is an UTTER SHITSHOW. You have fucking republicans who will NOT fund judges. An asylum case can take up to SEVEN years to get through the system because of the backlog. Every time someone says, "Hey, hire more judges." The Republicans scream, "That is making GOVERNMENT BIGGER! FUCK THAT,"

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

This is from the last article:
"The net result is that ­workers are sending roughly $150 billion out of the U.S. economy each year.[2] That money is not spent on goods or services in the United States. As a result, it is not subjected to sales taxes, excise taxes, restaurant taxes, etc. In addition, neither the vast majority of states nor the federal government impose a tax on overseas money transfers. The loss of tax revenue – that could be used to pay for a large number of public services consumed by aliens in the United States – is staggering."

First off . . . WTF is a restaurant tax? An excise tax? What moron wrote this article.

And here we go AGAIN . . . you are talking about IMMIGRANTS sending money out. What does that have to do with people crossing 'illegally?'

In MY industry that I have spent most of life in, we have TONS of H1B visas. There are close to 400ish thousand of these employees. They are highly paid, but generally 15-30% cheaper than a US citizen. Who do you think is sending most of the money back?

BUT wait . . . the more ignorance on the subject. THEY PAID SS, THEY PAID TAXES, they paid everything a person had to do on that income.

Now the argument is that they didn't put it in a bank? Think this through. The money is EXCESS money from their NET income. If they took it and buried it in a jar in the backyard, that would have the same impact that you are bitching about. If they took it in put it under the matress, again, same impact as to what you are bitching about.

But here, let's have some fun.

You are complaining about 150bn in annual money, please, ask yourself, why you are pissed at this and NOT pissed at Microsoft who is looking at a 29 billion tax bill. Why would they have a 29 billion tax bill? Because they played games to move money OUTSIDE of the US to not pay taxes on it and . . . wait for it . . . Not have it in the US economy. Now, add in Walmart, Apple, Google, Oracle, HP, Exxon . . . I can keep going down the top 100 companies and bet that they have parked more than 150bn annually outside the US. You are probably looking at closer to 1.5tn. But hey, it's ok, scream at the working immigrant as if he is the problem.