Social Tyson Foods plans to hire over 40k asylum seekers after firing more than 1,200 Americans many people are boycotting the company

[Sinister]

The ones that run the entire party? Where does importing a slave class rank on the list of your concerns?

Yes, those ones. Exploiting cheap labor who are politically vulnerable ranks pretty high on my list of concerns. The difference between people like you and people like me is, you express your concern with hatred and malice towards the people themselves as well as the politicians, and you're content with corporatism so long as it's of your preferred pokicitcla flavor. I want better immigration processes, and for the immigrants who want to come here and work to be documented and afforded the same legal protections I have.

 

[panamaican]

The way to deal with illegal immigrants is to simply not let them enter the country. Deploy the military at our border and enforce it. If people want to claim asylum then they have to go to a port of entry.

The way to not deal with it is to provide incentives to illegal immigrants (like in this case, easy access to jobs) and declare your city a sanctuary city.

One thing you should absolutely not do is sponsor conveniently timed bills to allow 'asylum seekers' to get jobs faster:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1325/cosponsors

How odd.. let's see who sponsored this bill:

You do know the difference between an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker who is engaged in the application process right?

You do know they're not interchangeable and have completely different legal processes applied to them, right?

 

[Sinister]

The way to deal with illegal immigrants is to simply not let them enter the country. Deploy the military at our border and enforce it. If people want to claim asylum then they have to go to a port of entry.

The way to not deal with it is to provide incentives to illegal immigrants (like in this case, easy access to jobs) and declare your city a sanctuary city.

One thing you should absolutely not do is sponsor conveniently timed bills to allow 'asylum seekers' to get jobs faster:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1325/cosponsors

How odd.. let's see who sponsored this bill:

Lol@isolationisn in the answer. Because it's worked out so well for every other place that tried it.

 

[Lucas1980]

The way to deal with illegal immigrants is to simply not let them enter the country. Deploy the military at our border and enforce it. If people want to claim asylum then they have to go to a port of entry.

The way to not deal with it is to provide incentives to illegal immigrants (like in this case, easy access to jobs) and declare your city a sanctuary city.

One thing you should absolutely not do is sponsor conveniently timed bills to allow 'asylum seekers' to get jobs faster:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1325/cosponsors

How odd.. let's see who sponsored this bill:

Its all about filling districts and then gaining future voters and screw the last minorities that they were pandering to...they are no longer needed.

 

[Scheme]

Lol@isolationisn in the answer. Because it's worked out so well for every other place that tried it.

How is enforcing legal immigration isolationism? We still let in more legal immigrants than most other nations in the world.

Actually as of recent we are one of the few historical exceptions to the rule. Most countries don't allow random people to walk into their country.

You do know the difference between an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker who is engaged in the application process right?

You do know they're not interchangeable and have completely different legal processes applied to them, right?

You do know the difference between someone applying for asylum legally at a port of entry versus entering the country illegally, right?

You do know they're not interchangeable and have completely different legal processes applied to them, right?

Here, maybe you need to actually see what the law is:

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

www.law.cornell.edu

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

 

[syct23]

You clearly support people illegally crossing the border, illegally claim they are asylum seekers, and the firing of American citizens by American corporations with the express purpose of paying lower wages.

Holy Shit! I didn’t know that’s what I was supporting!

I just wanted some decent chicken nuggets.

I am now against this, thank you good sir.

 

[Sinister]

How is enforcing legal immigration isolationism? We still let in more legal immigrants than most other nations in the world.

Actually as of recent we are one of the few historical exceptions to the rule. Most countries don't allow random people to walk into their country.

You do know the difference between someone applying for asylum legally at a port of entry versus entering the country illegally, right?

You do know they're not interchangeable and have completely different legal processes applied to them, right?

Here, maybe you need to actually see what the law is:

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

www.law.cornell.edu

Militarizing the border is NOT "enforcing legal immigration." Most undocumented immigrants are Visa overstays, so they enter legally. Next you'll be clamoring for militarization of all ports as well.

 

[Lucas1980]

Hopefully Texas and all States will be able to arrest these illegals that enter into their State and charge them with breaking state laws....that will be a win for all Americans.

 

[panamaican]

You do know the difference between someone applying for asylum legally at a port of entry versus entering the country illegally, right?

You do know they're not interchangeable and have completely different legal processes applied to them, right?

Here, maybe you need to actually see what the law is:

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes, actually I do know the difference.

The main difference being the asylum seekers at the border and ports of entry can be detained outside the country whereas asylum seekers who make their application while inside the border can't be deported until after their hearing.

Here's the relevant law (don't worry, I'll explain it after you read it):

On Aug. 3, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s order in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 18-cv-06810 (N.D. Cal.), vacating the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) rule. At this time and while the stay remains in place, USCIS will continue to apply the CLP rule.

Under the rule, certain individuals who enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders are presumed to be ineligible for asylum, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption. Individuals are encouraged to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to come to the United States.

What this means is that if someone enters illegally, they can still apply for asylum. But they're going to be denied unless they prove an exception that allows them to stay. This matters because the chance prove that they have an exception can't happen until their fucking hearing date. So the longer it takes to get to their hearing date, the longer it takes to deport the people who entered illegally.

Once a person applies for refugee status, they're no longer illegal immigrants. They're asylum seekers. Got it?

 

[Scheme]

Militarizing the border is NOT "enforcing legal immigration." Most undocumented immigrants are Visa overstays, so they enter legally. Next you'll be clamoring for militarization of all ports as well.

Actually if the military is sent to our border to not allow people to enter the country illegally, then that would be in fact, enforcing legal immigration, as the only people who can enter the country are legal immigrants.

I agree that visa overstays are also a problem, I never said I didn't support people overstaying their visas being deported as well. Unfortunately, democrat cities have historically refused to work with ICE officers in the removal of those people. Also need a source on "most undocumented immigrants are Visa overstays":

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/23_0707_FY22_FY23_CBP_Integrated_Entry_Exit_Overstay_Report.pdf

Due to subsequent departures and adjustments of status to lawful permanent resident byindividuals in this population, by February 1, 2023, the number of Suspected In-CountryOverstays for FY 2022 decreased to 706,952, resulting in the Suspected In-Country Overstayrate of 3.04 percent. As of February 1, 2023, DHS was able to confirm the departures oradjustments of status of more than 96.96 percent of nonimmigrants scheduled to depart in FY2022, via air and sea POEs.

This shows that DHS was able to confirm departures of all but 706K immigrants in 2022. The number of people that actually overstayed their visas is actually much less, you can read the report for reasons why but here are some:

Over the years, CBP has significantly improved data collection processes in the entry and exitenvironments. These improvements include the collection of data on all admissions to theUnited States by foreign nationals, reduced documentation for entry to the United States,collection of biometric data on most foreign travelers to the United States, and comparison ofdata against criminal and terrorist watchlists. Despite the different infrastructural, operational,and logistical challenges presented in the exit environment, CBP can resolve many issuesregarding collection of departure information for foreign nationals. Further efforts, includingpartnerships with foreign governments and the private sector (e.g., airlines, airports, cruise lines),are ongoing and continue to improve data integrity.During recent years, CBP made significant progress in terms of the ability to accurately reportdata on overstays. In FY 2022, ongoing biometric deployments in air, land and sea environmentsenabled continued progress toward the fusion of biometric and biographic verification oftravelers. CBP will continue to expand its entry and exit system, which will improve CBP’sability to capture and accurately report this data. The Department works to annually releaseoverstay data and looks forward to providing updates to Members of Congress and their staff onfuture progress.

This is the DHS acknowledging that in the years past they didn't have as much information to dictate the difference between someone actually overstaying their visas and simply not having a record of someone departing when they entered the country on a visa. This key distinction has led people to believe that visa overstays are much higher than what they actually are. Additionally, people entering the country illegally are not always caught. So we have one statistic (visa overstays) which is overcounted and one statistic (illegal border crossings) which is undercounted, leading people to believe in this seemingly false narrative.

But even if we assume that every lack of a departure was due to a visa holder actually staying in the country, in 2022 there were 706K visa overstays while there were 2.76m illegal border crossings. And that's only the ones that were caught.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...ar-2022-topped-276-million-breaking-rcna53517

In the past few years illegal border entry has skyrocketed in comparison and it's much more important to put a stop to that. Especially because people who overstay their visas are at the very least guaranteed to be documented and approved by DHS and likely to have a job sponsoring them.

 

[chardog]

This is definitely a valid criticism of Corporatist Democrats, yes.

so basically, the entire party

 

[Sinister]

Actually if the military is sent to our border to not allow people to enter the country illegally, then that would be in fact, enforcing legal immigration, as the only people who can enter the country are legal immigrants.

I agree that visa overstays are also a problem, I never said I didn't support people overstaying their visas being deported as well. Unfortunately, democrat cities have historically refused to work with ICE officers in the removal of those people. Also need a source on "most undocumented immigrants are Visa overstays"

Here's your source:

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings

But here you are clamoring for a militarized border, which is also illegal. The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the Military from enforcing domestic laws. And the UCMJ mandates the disobeying of unlawful orders. Good way to create rogue Military groups. Not to mention the logistical nightmare that is the Southern border. Much of that land is Native Reservations, deserts, mountains, and private property. You're acting like it's a single fort that just isn't manned, which is stupid. Militarizing the border is dumb, costly, and does nothing except solidify xenophobia.

 

[Sinister]

so basically, the entire party

No, not basically at all.

 

[Sweater of AV]

The way to deal with illegal immigrants is to simply not let them enter the country. Deploy the military at our border and enforce it.

Huh. Did the US adopt Canada as a new state?

 

[AWilder]

Why would you degrade yourself by supporting such obviously egregious policy? What are you personally gaining by carrying water for these scummy corporations and the politicians they pay for?

Why are you so goddamn dumb?

 

[chardog]

Militarizing the border is NOT "enforcing legal immigration." Most undocumented immigrants are Visa overstays, so they enter legally. Next you'll be clamoring for militarization of all ports as well.

this was the case many years back, but it's a bullshit leftwing talking point for a few reasons

1. they got a visa in the first place, they have been vetted to some degree.
2. this can be controlled, countries that break the rules more often can be penalized, go through a more rigorous vetting process
3. these are people with money and wont drain our system
on top of that, this talking point is likely inaccurate.

https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/FY%202022-2023%20Entry%20Exit%20Overstay%20Report.pdf

the highest visa overstay by far, @ 500K of the total 700K are tourists for non visa waiver countries. If you live in one of those countries, you gotta have good amounts of money as proof of return, and in other words, these are very successful people in shit torn countries, they aint going to be working at no factory job, unless they own it.

 

[Scheme]

Yes, actually I do know the difference.

The main difference being the asylum seekers at the border and ports of entry can be detained outside the country whereas asylum seekers who make their application while inside the border can't be deported until after their hearing.

Here's the relevant law (don't worry, I'll explain it after you read it):


What this means is that if someone enters illegally, they can still apply for asylum. But they're going to be denied unless they prove an exception that allows them to stay. This matters because the chance prove that they have an exception can't happen until their fucking hearing date. So the longer it takes to get to their hearing date, the longer it takes to deport the people who entered illegally.

Once a person applies for refugee status, they're no longer illegal immigrants. They're asylum seekers. Got it?

Crossing the border outside of a designated port of entry is illegal. The fact that is it illegal does not preclude a person's ability to claim asylum.

If the border was enforced, then people who attempted to cross the border would be prevented from doing so. They would not be able to claim asylum as they were not able to enter the US and be on US soil to claim that asylum. They would have to go to a port of entry to legally enter the country.

 

[chardog]

No, not basically at all.

Biden gives Venezuelans in U.S. chance for Temporary Protected Status

Biden's order allows about 300,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. to apply to live and work in the country.

www.nbcnews.com

your boy biden handing out work permits like candy

 

[panamaican]

Crossing the border outside of a designated port of entry is illegal. The fact that is it illegal does not preclude a person's ability to claim asylum.

If the border was enforced, then people who attempted to cross the border would be prevented from doing so. They would not be able to claim asylum as they were not able to enter the US and be on US soil to claim that asylum. They would have to go to a port of entry to legally enter the country.

And since entering illegally doesn't preclude a person's ability to claim asylum, once they claim asylum, they are not "illegal immigrants". They're asylum seekers. To become illegal immigrants, we'd have to wait until after their hearing, where they are denied asylum and scheduled for deportation. And instead of leaving as requird, they stick around...at that point, they become illegal immigrants. Not before.

So, again, the speed at which hearings occur becomes really, really important.

You can talk all day about border security and you'll still have tons of illegal immigrants because more illegal immigrants overstay their legally granted visas than illegally cross the border. And this has been the trend for quite a few years.

So, again, the rate at which hearings occur becomes really, really important.

 

[Michaelangelo]

And here I thought a bunch of swine slave traders would have some ethics