What did Democrats do wrong?

[P.J. Denyer]

My first thought is that it's to stop the "If they break the law we can send them away" shennanigans that some have touted and have countries abrogating responsibility by not allowing them across their border

And because under many circumstances it may not be possible to leave an oppressive country legally or apply to another country safely, making an illegal entry into another country the only possible way to leave, for example by stowing away, desserting while a military/merchant vessel is in another country or simply sneaking across a border.

In the case of the UK all legal routes were closed under the Tories (and I'm not sure how many, if any have been reopened) so people with particular reason to want to get here, for example because English is their native language or they have family already here had no other option. Contrary to popular opinion, our benefits for asylum seekers are pretty much subsistance level, other countries are more generous.

 

[Random]

You are trying to get out of China by plane to escape oppression there. You can speak fluent English and have family who can support you in Hawaii, so you take a flight there with plans to apply for asylum. Mid-flight, your plane suffers a technical fault and has to land in Japan.

Can you gat a connecting flight to Hawaii, or are you stuck in Japan?

 

[Mongrel]

You are trying to get out of China by plane to escape oppression there. You can speak fluent English and have family who can support you in Hawaii, so you take a flight there with plans to apply for asylum. Mid-flight, your plane suffers a technical fault and has to land in Japan.

Can you gat a connecting flight to Hawaii, or are you stuck in Japan?

Get the flight to Hawaii as I'm reading it, the "directly" Thermal mentions in #3,097 isn't meant to be some form of Gotcha!

 

[d4m10n]

I do think the Bidens handling of immigration was less than helpful if for no other reason than it helped get Trump elected.

Both Josh Barro and Matthew Yglesias have made the case that the Biden Administration seriously fumbled on this issue; neither of them support the heavy-handed mass-deportation approach being undertaken by the current administration. David Frum indirectly predicted this awful outcome.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You are trying to get out of China by plane to escape oppression there. You can speak fluent English and have family who can support you in Hawaii, so you take a flight there with plans to apply for asylum. Mid-flight, your plane suffers a technical fault and has to land in Japan.

Can you gat a connecting flight to Hawaii, or are you stuck in Japan?

To use a somewhat less hypothetical example: are Masalit refugees limited to Chad as their sole asylum option, because that happens to be the only country they could safely reach? Any other country they move on to gets to deport them right back to Sudan?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

To use a somewhat less hypothetical example: are Masalit refugees limited to Chad as their sole asylum option, because that happens to be the only country they could safely reach? Any other country they move on to gets to deport them right back to Sudan?

Or to make it more relatable to Trumpists. Those Boers fleeing South Africa should only go to Namibia, Botswana, Zimbambwe or Mozambique?

 

[carlosy]

Candid discussion about the Dems. And it's hard to see any chance of going back from MAGA, oligarchs and autocracy when they now hold all the cards.

MAGA+Money+Tech/AI = Endgame for democracy

 

[Tero]

Rural America

https://forsetti.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F153181757500

 

[Segnosaur]

Both Josh Barro and Matthew Yglesias have made the case that the Biden Administration seriously fumbled on this issue; neither of them support the heavy-handed mass-deportation approach being undertaken by the current administration. David Frum indirectly predicted this awful outcome.

Lets get something straight here...

There was no real "fumbling" of the issue in practical terms. There was no "foreign invasion". There were statistics that showed the number of violent/property crimes was lower for illegal immigrants than for natural born Americans (on a per-capita basis), so no "crime problem". They were net providers to the American economy (providing a pool of necessary labor, and often paying more in taxes than they get back from the government in terms of social services.

The system wasn't perfect (it could be argued that processes needed to be streamlined, or that perhaps the number of legal immigrants should be increased so fewer people would have to come in illegally), but it (mostly) worked.

A rational person would look at the immigration system and say "no problem. Lets talk about other issues". Unfortunately not all voters are rational.

The immigration "crisis" was one that was completely manufactured by the pro-fascists in the republican party, who need a scapegoat. And trying to respond to a fake crisis is a problem, if it causes you to do something that ultimately makes things worse.

 

[Tero]

MAGA-voter Men are Cavemen

MAGA-voter Men are Cavemen

Trump was seen as a tough guy, Biden (after the debate for sure) as a wimp. Trump bragged about all the things he will do. Who would imagine...

esapolitics.blogspot.com

 

[d4m10n]

There was no "foreign invasion".

Are you actually quoting someone here or just refuting political hyperbole?

They were...providing a pool of necessary labor

Thereby driving down the labor rates of the sort of working class whites who recently realigned behind the GOP after generations of backing the Democrats.

perhaps the number of legal immigrants should be increased so fewer people would have to come in illegally

This is a fantastic idea, but it would need to enjoy popular support in order to work.

A rational person would look at the immigration system and say "no problem. Lets talk about other issues".

A rational person who has enough educational or technical credentials not to worry about competing with an influx of highly motivated unskilled labor, sure.

 

[Donal]

Immigrants don't drive down the cost of labor. the people hiring them do.

The reality is, people across the political spectrum love love LOOOOVE illegal immigration. At least, we love how it benefits us. We love how we can have cheap food, cheap clothes, cheap oil, cheap electronics, etc. What we object to is seeing the people performing this labor and being force to acknowledge their humanity. Or think about how our lifestyles contribute to the conditions in the countries they are fleeing.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Immigrants don't drive down the cost of labor. the people hiring them do.

The reality is, people across the political spectrum love love LOOOOVE illegal immigration. At least, we love how it benefits us. We love how we can have cheap food, cheap clothes, cheap oil, cheap electronics, etc. What we object to is seeing the people performing this labor and being force to acknowledge their humanity. Or think about how our lifestyles contribute to the conditions in the countries they are fleeing.

"Man hat Arbeitskräfte gefördert, und es kamen Menschen." (We requested a labor force, and a bunch of human beings showed up). Originally said about the Turkish laborers that poured into Germany post-War, but it works for here, too.

 

[Segnosaur]

There was no "foreign invasion".

Are you actually quoting someone here or just refuting political hyperbole?

Not really sure what your point is here.

Trump himself has labelled the issue as an "invasion". But that is not what the issue is. There is no organization behind the influx of immigrants, no attempt to alter the politics of the U.S. So calling it an "invasion" is just scare tactics he is using to justify fascist tactics.

They were...providing a pool of necessary labor

Thereby driving down the labor rates of the sort of working class whites who recently realigned behind the GOP after generations of backing the Democrats.

Ah where to begin...

First of all, as is commonly pointed out, illegal immigrants often do the jobs that natural born Americans (even unemployed ones) are unwilling to do. In other words, its a separate labor market.

Secondly, in the last year of Obama's tenure (before Trump torpedoed the economy in his first term), the unemployment rate was below 5%, real weekly earnings and median household income were both increasing by over 4%, and job openings were increasing. (See: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/) And all this was done under "lenient" immigration rules (at least compared to the TrumpReich). If illegal immigration were driving down wages, it didn't really look like it.

Thirdly, can I point out the stupidity of a working class white voter deciding "I don't like illegal immigrants driving down wages, so I will vote for a republican party that is against minimum wage increases and wants to stick tariffs on things that will drive up my personal costs"?

Fourthly, even if you could somehow justify the claim "illegal immigrants drive down wages for hard working americans", they also drive down prices. It is thought by many economists that Trump's anti-immigrant policies could drive up inflation. (See: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-deporting-many-immigrants-could-090000185.html). So those "working class whites" will see their expenses go up, likely by more than their incomes would.

In other words, my original point still stands: Illegal immigration was not a real problem. It is a manufactured one. And its hard to "do something" about a made up problem, especially since doing so can make things worse.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Looks like God has picked the next Democrat Nomniee:

Illinois Governor wins $1.4 million in Las Vegas

Billionaire JB Pritzker won the sum while on holiday with friends and family.

www.bbc.com

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure that it means you can't pass through another country to get to asylum? i mean, I can go directly to a town while passing through another first, right? Why should you have to seek asylum in an adjacent nation a stone's throw from where you were fleeing?

I think there's room for a rational interpretation here.

For example, someone fleeing Nigeria by land on the basis of religious persecution is going to need to cross several countries that are nearly as hostile before finding a safe country in which to seek asylum. It would be rational to allow those crossings to be considered direct.

Similarly, someone fleeing Nigeria by air who has a layover in Spain on their way to Belgium could reasonably be treated as direct, since they're not really entering Spain.

On the other hand, someone fleeing Nigeria by boat who makes landfall in Panama would rationally be expected to declare themselves seeking asylum in Panama. The characteristic that defines them as asylum seekers would not get them persecuted in Panama. And I think it's entirely unreasonable to think that they should be allowed to travel by land through five other countries on their way to the US without having made a declaration to any of the safe countries in their path.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think the idea is that if things are so horrible where you started, you should be glad to accept the next country you come to as being better.

The very reasonable and rational idea is that if you're being persecuted, you should declare that you're seeking asylum from persecution as soon as you're no longer at risk of persecution.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In practical terms though that would mean that almost all refugees, and certainly all the poorest, would end up in neighbouring countries regardless of their size and capacity to cope. I agree the language is ambiguous, but I'm not aware of any country that's taken a strick interpretation of it.

ETA: There's also matters of language, culture and family. One of the after effects of colonialism is that there are lot of poorer countries where English, French and other European languages are almost universally spoke , someone from an English speaking nation is obviously going to prefer, and find it easier, to settle in an English speaking host nation than a French one and vice versa. If they have family members already legally in another country they're going to prefer going there than to somewhere they know no one. And for European nations in particular colonies were encouraged to think of themselves as culturally linked to the 'Mother' country, it's hardly surprising that some people will consider it a less alien environment than a random country without such links.

I assume you are aware that many countries will coordinate with other countries to help find viable destinations for asylum seekers for just that reason? Nothing says you are permanently stuck in the country where you first declare - but you do need to actually declare yourself.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right. I'm reading the 'directly' as meaning you can't flee El Salvador, open a Bed and Breakfast in Mexico for a few years, then show up in the US seeking asylum from the conditions in El Salvador.

I'm going to assume that you have a reasonable understanding of what qualifies someone for asylum in the first place, so you're not working from the errant assumption of "my home country is poor and sucky" being an acceptable reason.

 

[Thermal]

I think there's room for a rational interpretation here.

For example, someone fleeing Nigeria by land on the basis of religious persecution is going to need to cross several countries that are nearly as hostile before finding a safe country in which to seek asylum. It would be rational to allow those crossings to be considered direct.

Similarly, someone fleeing Nigeria by air who has a layover in Spain on their way to Belgium could reasonably be treated as direct, since they're not really entering Spain.

On the other hand, someone fleeing Nigeria by boat who makes landfall in Panama would rationally be expected to declare themselves seeking asylum in Panama. The characteristic that defines them as asylum seekers would not get them persecuted in Panama. And I think it's entirely unreasonable to think that they should be allowed to travel by land through five other countries on their way to the US without having made a declaration to any of the safe countries in their path.

Ok, but someone fleeing Central America might well be right in believing that Mexico, while being safer, ain't exactly a safe port, especially if the cartels they were fleeing had significant power in Mexico.

Asylum, to me, means a safe harbor that you could reasonably intend to start over under the welcoming arms of a country that was built on that principle. Dropping into an utterly foreign culture (like a Nigerian in Japan) would likely make you a drain on the host nation. In the States, you have opportunity and a fighting shot at being a contributor.