I "liked" your comment for its recognition of the abuses of the system. But I want to be clear: I don't support artificial restrictions on how many people can come from where. Find a way to track border crossing people once they enter. Fully fund processing so we can distinguish between refugees needing asylum, seasonal workers in variou…
I "liked" your comment for its recognition of the abuses of the system. But I want to be clear: I don't support artificial restrictions on how many people can come from where. Find a way to track border crossing people once they enter. Fully fund processing so we can distinguish between refugees needing asylum, seasonal workers in various industries, and actual bad actors. Then basically let the market (quaint idea, yes?) determine who and how many come here, and for how long. Make paths to citizenship or legal work status less onerous as long as you're not a bad actor. And enforce their treatment once here, too.
One of Joe's good ideas was to release asylum applicants into the community, leaving them to fend for themselves on the most part, and tracking them with some combination of ankle bracelets and dedicated telephones with GPS and voice- recognition software. He saved billions in detention costs but it cost him big-time as it was put forth as evidence that he was standing at the border just waving people in. We really have to do better on the asylum hearings, as the recent Senate bill would have done.
That sounds to me like a basically standard Open Borders position. It's certainly a consistent policy view, and has a valid place in any rational policy debate on immigration going forward if we are ever allowed to have one, as long as you don't expect it to be one of the assumptions of that debate.
I "liked" your comment for its recognition of the abuses of the system. But I want to be clear: I don't support artificial restrictions on how many people can come from where. Find a way to track border crossing people once they enter. Fully fund processing so we can distinguish between refugees needing asylum, seasonal workers in various industries, and actual bad actors. Then basically let the market (quaint idea, yes?) determine who and how many come here, and for how long. Make paths to citizenship or legal work status less onerous as long as you're not a bad actor. And enforce their treatment once here, too.
One of Joe's good ideas was to release asylum applicants into the community, leaving them to fend for themselves on the most part, and tracking them with some combination of ankle bracelets and dedicated telephones with GPS and voice- recognition software. He saved billions in detention costs but it cost him big-time as it was put forth as evidence that he was standing at the border just waving people in. We really have to do better on the asylum hearings, as the recent Senate bill would have done.
Agree. The "path" is almost a red herring. Hand out work permits and let folks apply for citizenship, or not, as they see fit.
That sounds to me like a basically standard Open Borders position. It's certainly a consistent policy view, and has a valid place in any rational policy debate on immigration going forward if we are ever allowed to have one, as long as you don't expect it to be one of the assumptions of that debate.