Democrats are in danger of losing independent vote

[MasonG 448]

So I just read that most democratic candidates are in favor of decriminalization of illegal crossings.

Why would anyone go through the extensive visa process if they could just come in and cross the border with no background check, permission or anything?

This is not about being liberal or progressive. Europe is way more liberal than the U.S, and in all countries entering the country without permission is a criminal offense (one-year imprisonment in France for example). You can't enforce immigration law if there is no deterrent for violating them.

Immigration may be the death of the democratic party. It's shifting to a very extreme position of "open borders" and I'm really worried about it. It's unfortunately proving Trump right when he says they're in favor of open borders. Because decriminalizing illegal immigration is exactly that, whether we like it or not.

Independents are the actual majority in the U.S, not republicans, not democrats. And I feel that this kind of talk will make more of them vote for Trump in 2020.

The economy is strong. Unemployment is low. Democrats are really underestimating Trump. Even Florida was won by GOP, when it was supposed to go blue in 2018. And they're now appealing to the far left thinking they can win the presidency with being far left on immigration.

Focus on healthcare. Focus on student loans. Focus on tax equality. Leave this immigration nonsense out. Because regardless of how great the other proposals are, if the democrats are for open border, the majority of Americans won't approve of that and they will lose.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MasonG said:

So I just read that most democratic candidates are in favor of decriminalization of illegal crossings.

I don't think it's exactly like that; I read that they are in favor of making illegal crossings a civil offense as oppose to a criminal offense, which I think is rational.

So yes, it is being decriminalized, but it's not like they're trying to make illegal crossings completely okay

[Guest]

The truth is nobody cares about illegals, they only act like they care to oppose Trump. Its more anti Trump than Pro immigration. When Hilary said she wanted to build a Mexican wall nobody said a thing. When Obama deported a huge number of immigrants nobody cared. When Obama jailed kids in cages, nobody cared.

Democrats do not want to focus on healthcare, student loans, or tax equality because the truth is Democrats work for the same corporations republicans work for. They know that they do not represent their own people or the working class, so the only tactic they have is to voter shame and scare people into voting for them or else the scary orange boogie man will stay in office! This is a way to continuously keep the corporate democrats in power and its working. They would rather have Trump than a real progressive.

[MasonG 448]

4 minutes ago, Blue Madonna said:

I don't think it's exactly like that; I read that they are in favor of making illegal crossings a civil offense as oppose to a criminal offense, which I think is rational.

So yes, it is being decriminalized, but it's not like they're trying to make illegal crossings completely okay

And what developed country in the world has "civil infractions" for illegal crossings? That is not a deterrent. You realize a speeding ticket would be more "criminal" than an illegal crossing?

So any criminals could go and cross the border illegally and all they risk is a civil infraction, less serious than a speeding ticket.

[geopang 4,831]

The majority of the population do NOT want open borders. Immigration reform, yes, but not open borders like the democrats want. The pandering has got to stop if they want to get elected by the average American. 

Something does need to be done though, because it’s unfair that some people can cross the border and get all these benefits, while people from Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East all have to apply for visas, spend thousands to fly to the U.S., amongst other processes just to gain access to this country

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

This argument is lost whenever someone tries to bring up open borders. That’s the “death” of this thread. And it’s certainly not what is being discussed.

[MasonG 448]

6 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

This argument is lost whenever someone tries to bring up open borders. That’s the “death” of this thread. And it’s certainly not what is being discussed.

Decriminalizing illegal entries = removing deterrent for people to not violate immigration laws = open border 

[shane_c 480]

And giving them free health care too. They all put their hands up for that. I saw a funny picture of that on the front page of the NY Post and the headline was "Who wants to lose the election?"

[ladylinners 485]

1 hour ago, MasonG said:

So I just read that most democratic candidates are in favor of decriminalization of illegal crossings.

Why would anyone go through the extensive visa process if they could just come in and cross the border with no background check, permission or anything?

illegal crossings are different from being an illegal immigrant (undocumented)

Many people cross borders illegally to seek asylum in other countries. You have a human right to seek asylum in another country. When you seek asylum you are then being vetted to check if you have reasons to be granted asylum. 

When you are fleeing wars, political prosecution, natural disasters, conflicts etc. you often do not stay in your country of origin and file a claim for a visa to another country and wait for that process to take place (which could take months or even years). You flee and cross borders illegally to file an asylum claim in a country where you think you will be safe and have prospects for the future. 

An illegal immigrant is someone who resides in a country illegally.  

1 hour ago, geopang said:

Something does need to be done though, because it’s unfair that some people can cross the border and get all these benefits, while people from Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East all have to apply for visas, spend thousands to fly to the U.S., amongst other processes just to gain access to this country

Let's talk about refugees. A refugee is someone who has crossed the border to another country. Most do that illegally. I.e. and illegal crossing. For example, Somalis crossing the border to Kenya, and then being placed in camps. They are refugees. From camps they can they apply for a refugee visa to  the US (for example). 

Asylum visas are claimed in the country you arrive to that you want to stay in. The 25 year old man and his daughter that died the other day while trying to cross the river in Mexico. Had he made it to the US he could have filed an asylum claim after he crossed the US border. The crossing over to the US would have been illegal but he has a right to then seek asylum in the US. By seeking aslyum he is not an illegal immigrant but an asylum seeker. As an asylum seeker you have rights under the law of that country you are seeking asylum to.

You do not get benefits from just crossing a border. You have to file an asylum claim which is your legal right. It is also illegal for the US to ignore an asylum claim. It is illegal for the US to send someone back to their country of origin if they claim asylum. 

 

Not all illegal crossings lead to illegal immigration.  These are the statistics for asylum claims for 2017 (from Central America):

El Salvador 35,347 
Guatemala 21,223
Honduras 19,758 
Mexico 16,652 

Source: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Refugees_Asylees_2017.pdf

Many of the asylum seekers most likely crossed the border illegally (illegal crossing), BUT they are NOT illegal immigrants. They are asylum seekers. As soon as they file that claim they can legally be in the US until their case have been decided. Either they have grounds for asylum and they can stay in the US, or their case is denied and they will be sent back to their country of origin. 

[ladylinners 485]

2 hours ago, MasonG said:

This is not about being liberal or progressive. Europe is way more liberal than the U.S, and in all countries entering the country without permission is a criminal offense (one-year imprisonment in France for example). You can't enforce immigration law if there is no deterrent for violating them.

France proposed jailing those crossing the border illegally for one year. From what I can find it is not in the bill that passed (I also cannot find the passed bill). However, HRW or any other human rights defenders are not writing about that section being passed so I assume it wasn't. 

The criminal offense for illegal crossings in Europe is aimed to get at human traffickers, and those wanting to employ illegal workers.  

[MasonG 448]

8 minutes ago, ladylinners said:

France proposed jailing those crossing the border illegally for one year. From what I can find it is not in the bill that passed (I also cannot find the passed bill). However, HRW or any other human rights defenders are not writing about that section being passed so I assume it wasn't. 

The criminal offense for illegal crossings in Europe is aimed to get at human traffickers, and those wanting to employ illegal workers.  

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/04/france-approves-flawed-asylum-and-immigration-law

So yes, France under a liberal president actually increased the penalty for illegal crossing.

Liberalism/Progressive Values =/= Open border 

[MasonG 448]

40 minutes ago, ladylinners said:

Let's talk about refugees. A refugee is someone who has crossed the border to another country. Most do that illegally. I.e. and illegal crossing. For example, Somalis crossing the border to Kenya, and then being placed in camps. They are refugees. From camps they can they apply for a refugee visa to  the US (for example). 

Asylum visas are claimed in the country you arrive to that you want to stay in. The 25 year old man and his daughter that died the other day while trying to cross the river in Mexico. Had he made it to the US he could have filed an asylum claim after he crossed the US border. The crossing over to the US would have been illegal but he has a right to then seek asylum in the US. By seeking aslyum he is not an illegal immigrant but an asylum seeker. As an asylum seeker you have rights under the law of that country you are seeking asylum to.

You do not get benefits from just crossing a border. You have to file an asylum claim which is your legal right. It is also illegal for the US to ignore an asylum claim. It is illegal for the US to send someone back to their country of origin if they claim asylum. 

Many of the asylum seekers most likely crossed the border illegally (illegal crossing), BUT they are NOT illegal immigrants. They are asylum seekers. As soon as they file that claim they can legally be in the US until their case have been decided. Either they have grounds for asylum and they can stay in the US, or their case is denied and they will be sent back to their country of origin. 

I know how asylum works.

The current system currently allows asylum seekers to not be punished for illegal crossing provided that it is not a fraudulent asylum claim.

So what's the need to go further and make it not a crime to cross the border illegally for EVERYBODY if asylum seekers are already protected?

The only explanation is that these people clearly want open border, not just for asylum seekers but everyone else.

Also you said Europe has tough sanctions on illegal crossings because of human trafficking. Somehow the U.S is not concerned by human trafficking?

[ladylinners 485]

7 minutes ago, MasonG said:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/04/france-approves-flawed-asylum-and-immigration-law

So yes, France under a liberal president actually increased the penalty for illegal crossing.

Liberalism/Progressive Values =/= Open border 

This article talks about the changes to the asylum process and how the French law weakens safeguards for asylum. It does not specifically speak about illegal crossings.  What it has done is to make it harder to obtain asylum. I do not see that as the same as increasing the penalty for illegal crossings. 

The only reference I see to illegal crossings is this: 

"The law also creates an exception to the crime of helping undocumented migrants when done for “a strictly humanitarian objective.” But lawmakers had little choice given the recent Constitutional Court ruling that solidarity should not be criminalized, and some groups are worried that judges could narrowly interpret the humanitarian exception in a way that permits prosecutions."

Again, this is not aimed at those crossing the border, but at those helping people cross the border. 

 

1 minute ago, MasonG said:

Also you said Europe has tough sanctions on illegal crossings because of human trafficking. Somehow the U.S is not concerned by human trafficking?

I did not say tough sanctions nor did I say the US is not concerned with human trafficking. I just said the criminal offense of illegal crossings in Europe is aimed at human traffickers. This was in reference to your comment about Europe and France. 

[Batwings 12,958]

This may be a controversial response, but I don't give much credit to independents and undecided voters. Many of them are some of the stupidest people in the country. They don't base their decisions on policy but rather who makes them feel good the most. That's why you have people who voted for both Obama and Trump.

Also, literally no one wants open borders, so can we please end that rhetoric?

 

[ladylinners 485]

42 minutes ago, MasonG said:

So what's the need to go further and make it not a crime to cross the border illegally for EVERYBODY if asylum seekers are already protected?

Maybe to not lock children up in inhumane conditions, and seperate them from their families. Effectively depriving children of their basic human rights as stated in the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child). But again, the US is not party to the CRC and has not ratified it so why would they care about the rights of children.  The US is the ONLY country that has not ratified the CRC.