Donald Trump didn't invent the nightmare that is US immigration policy. He just made it a lot worse. We need more able bodied people, not fewer. The system needs to be reformed to accept them.
3
The legislature branch creates the law, the executive branch enforces the law.
8
@Bill
This country has multitudes of able-bodied people who receive assistance and are not working. Work-for-welfare would greatly diminish this country's reliance on people who may be here illegally.
11
Prayers for these hardworking individuals who have no criminal convictions and have to leave their family, their children and their entre life behind. Unreal how this is a common reoccurrence lately.
1
Why is Trump so dead set against asylum seekers? They tend to be honest and hard-working people. Of course, their skin is often brown and that seems to be the sticking point.
It makes no sense to tear peaceful people from their (American) families just for the sake of a bad law and a bad president.
3
@Barbara
Barbara. No one including the president is against asylum seekers. But if you do not qualify you are not granted asylum status. It's the law.
Congress can change the law but until then you are subject to it.
9
@Barbara
It's about laws, not color.
6
@clarity007
Are you serious? Of course Trump is against asylum seekers, he has been very vocal about it. You sound disingenuous to me.
2
It would be informative for the critical Democrats to explain in detail how they would be handling this situation and the growing influx of people seeking refuge here. Thus article seeks to castigate Trump, but what should he do? And I'm no fan of his.
18
The US should think twice before granting TPS in the future - to any group. TPS is being used by those granted protection as grounds to stay in the US permanently on the grounds they've begun lives here and have spouses and children. The entire point of TPS is that it's temporary - not permanent. As bad as things may be in their home country, it's not the responsibility of the United States to offer you permanent refuge for the rest of your life.
22
Enough already. Take a page from Australia. Set up a processing center, hearing rooms and detention facility in an off-mainland location, Guantanamo will do (I'm sure there are others), and transport asylum seekers there to be held until their cases are heard. If asylum is granted, migrants are flown to the US. If asylum is denied, they can be flown to the non-US country of their choice. The caravans may stop when aliens learn the era of open borders is over.
17
Unlawfully present foreign nationals are not known for their voluntary compliance with our immigration laws.
Mr. Sihotang should have been sedated before taking him to the airport.
11
You did not read the article, did you?
4
Trump is not rescinding or over turning any law.
Obama arbitrarily granted reprieves and the current president has decided not too.
Suggest these and others failing to gain asylum status in the U.S. turn to Canada as their next option.
14
@MfromTexas
13 of Obama's executive orders were overturned by the courts.
5
@clarity007
An executive order is a lawful order, issued by the president. It has the effect of reversal of a policy, law or previously issued executive order.
Trump is using executive privilege to issue an executive order to rescind a previous executive order.
How is that any different? Trump's executive orders have been overturned by the courts, usually because they were found to be unconstitutional. Obama's orders were not, because they were not unconstitutional.
4
And this is the problem - these “asylum seekers” are really just illegal immigrants who have no interest in legal niceties. They have no case for being here and won’t leave once here. Build a wall, and force all asylum seekers to apply from their own country.
15
@JP
Except they have a right to due process under our constitution.
If they have no interest in pursuing these legal "niceties", why are they pursuing asylum claims?
3
If I were to decide I did not like any other court order, so I am not going to obey it, I would be arrested and put in jail. Why should a court ordered deportation be any different?
These people had their day in court, the court reviewed their claims and found insufficient evidence to grant asylum. That should be the end of the story, as my bartender used to say "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here".
24
@MfromTexas
Then perhaps people crossing our borders and not granted asylum should be encouraged to continue their trek into Canada.
6
@mikecody
Mike, a court ordered deportation IS different because it can be a de facto death sentence.
That is why the Indonesian had his case revisited by a federal judge in asylum court.
3
Not only is the treatment of asylum seekers who were granted a reprieve by the Obama Administration but have had that decision overturned by Trump heartless, so are the comments of almost everyone who has commented on this article (45 as of this writing). Where is your compassion? Trump should not be able to arbitrarily rescind or overturn laws just because he doesn't like them and wants to obliterate everything his predecessor did, like the Egyptian pharaohs who destroyed all monuments and mentions of previous rulers they didn't like.
6
@Teachergal - Did you not read the article? Here is the salient point for you if you missed it -
"Mr. Sihotang had lost his fight to receive asylum in the United States a decade ago, a decision he did not appeal after he and thousands like him were granted a temporary reprieve from deportation by the Obama administration."
What right do those who've lost their asylum cases have to remain in the US? If no one has to leave the country when they lose the right to be in the US what is the point of having an asylum system or even an immigration system?
33
Ending a temporary reprieve is not overturning or rescinding a law. A country, no matter how well intentioned, can not create an entire set of laws based solely on compassion. Feel free to donate as much of your salary as you want to the poor in foreign countries.
14
@Dan I agree with you completely.
5
Once here, they never want to leave
27
His asylum claim was litigated and he lost.
Which means his claim was bogus.
39
@JQGALT I agree with. Most asylum seekers have very weak claims.
8
US immigration programs are simply not well thought through. The children of those temporarily allowed to stay under TPS, for example, should only be allowed to stay if those children are granted citizenship in the TPS person't country, while simultaneously birthright citizenship is changed by constitutional amendment. Otherwise, everyone of those programs results in citizen children that they enable parents to stay. I think this is one of the things that makes the anti-immigrant forces in the US so incensed - anyone who steps across the border pretty much stays indefinitely no matter what.
Similarly, someone whose asylum claim is denied should pay bail and has one week to get their affairs in order and turn themselves in for repatriation. The idea that a person with a rejected asylum claim is here 10 years later is absurd.
35
Time to change birthright citizenship, chain migration, and asylum laws.
29
@NYC Dweller. Congress and the president should be locked in session until this gets done. The current immigration "overhaul" amounts to: higher immigration levels, lax borders, and a free pass to citizenship for anybody here and, of coarse, all their relatives. The democrats need to learn that the average citizen does not agree with their more immigration is always better platform.
10
How about an American billionaire going to Guatemala or some other country and buying land and building fences and inviting those who would like to migrate to the United states for asylum, a safe place to wait while their claims are processed. Save a lot of trouble and money and then Guatemalans who make it to the border to request asylum could be sent there to wait.
7
@memosyne. Sounds like a great idea, call us when you get buy-in from the Guatemalan government.
2
Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants.
They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, etc. Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
No other nation has open borders, nor should the US.
37
@Mon Ray
No one is advocating open borders.
Have sufficient judges and border agents ready to process the many who seek asylum.
Please do not characterize all who seek such asylum as people trying to game the system!
5
They need to appoint more judges/courts and make the process much faster. However, I do think it is likely that most, but not all, asylum claims are not completely truthful.
20
I bet there are people in say Chicago who are afraid of dying there, so they should immigrate to Canada. All these folks need to be deported, unless they have a legal claim to asylum. Almost nobody from the triangle countries or many around the world qualify. Follow the law, after all nobody is above the law. He used violence to avoid being deported, he belongs in solitary until he will leave.
26
Time and again we see our immigration laws and regs arbitrarily changed without notice or reason. I hear from immigration attorneys that the rules are changing monthly. Nothing is assured.
We need comprehensive immigration reform and we need it now. Congress get to work.
22
The asylum process is a complete joke and scheduled deportation can be “deferred” if the person acts out at the airport. So we really do have an open borders policy . No wonder the caravans keep coming.
40
Just a rhetorical question - what effect would ending birthright citizenship, as it now exists, and ending chain migration have on this problem of people seeking asylum?
24
@Buck. The rest of the western style democracies have largely, for obvious reasons, gotten rid of both those enticements to illegal immigration. We and to a certain extent Canada have not. We should.
37
@Buck
It appears that ending birthright citizenship will be a, if not, the determining factor in the Presidential elections.There are not enough resources for the Americans citizens living here now to get by on. Immigration needs, and has needed for decades, to be under tighter and much more stringent control, for everyone's benefit.
22
Some things never change in this country. We turned our backs on Jews trying to escape the holocaust and we now find ourselves in the same situation but with different people/countries. Sorry but if you're not descendants of Native Americans, you need to ask yourself why your grandparents, great grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country. Regardless of whether they were trying to escape persecution or the horrors of their native countries, they came here for a better life. Yes, we need to be reasonable with the number of immigrants coming into this country but please remember how and why your descendants came here...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14412082/refugees-history-holocaust
5
@John E. The u.s. of the 1880s (statue of liberty) and 60 million people no longer exits. There were less than 2 billion people on earth then. There are now over 330 million Americans ( it goes up over 2 million a year currently) and almost 8 billion people on earth. Our immigration laws have to reflect reality, just like pollution, labor laws and every other aspect of the modern world.
34
@Al
So what was this country's excuse in 1939 when the US population was 130.9 million and we turned away 935 Jews trying to escape Germany on the St. Louis from Hamburg? What about the proposed legislation to allow 20,000 German Jewish CHILDREN in this country above the quota? Tell me where was the reality or humanity in 1939?
When farmers can't find workers to pick their crops or suburbanites can't find US citizens to mow their lawns, then you can't tell me we have too many workers here in this country.
2
@John E.
John, there are PLENTY of people native to this country who receive various kinds if assistance when many should be working. Work-for-welfare would ameliorate the scarcity, which is no scarcity. It's a comfortable myth.
5
I doubt Mr. Sihotang would be deported with his case pending before a trial. And I’m surprised that the New York Times reporter didn’t note that the court confirmed the case is pending.
Having said that, “conditions in my country are very bad now” doesn’t constitute persecution for race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a political or social group.
30
Shame on the republicons in congress and the illegally placed 'president.' Of course, that individual has no capacity for shame. But no republicons seem to be capable of normal, self-regulating feelings such as shame in this day and age.
So much for family values.
7
Great point
1
When an asylum seeker has exhausted all legal avenues and is ordered deported., then he should be deported. Obama was wrong to ever allow these people who lost their asylum cases to remain and work in America. It is important that we rectify this legal error and deport all these people as soon as possible.
Do not give them another bite at the apple by allowing them to reopen their cases. If necessary put them in detention until they are deported. They must be made to understand that their stay in the US is OVER.
36
Let them apply at the U.S. Embassy in their country.
28
Asylum is now the crutch used by illegal aliens to gain access to America. Yet 90% of asylum seekers are rejected because their claims of persecution in their home countries are found to be false. America is being assaulted on the southern border. Build the wall. Deport all illegal aliens. End chain migration now.
31
Of course these “asylum seekers” know they don’t qualify for asylum. They just want to get a foot in this country and then go underground
25
He has his asylum case heard, and he lost. Now it's time to go. That's how it works.
38
If even Indonesians qualify for asylum, then it is time to enlarge our US of A. Dear Canada, would you please join us and become our 51st?
5
@PaulN
As a matter of fact, Christian churches in parts of Indonesia have for many years been the targets of terrorist bombs, especially in Sulawesi, and lots of Christians have been killed. Mr. Sihotang's fear is certainly credible.
3
These pieces would be more compelling if they were based on people who were likely to qualify as refugees under international law. When you're talking about people who had full asylum hearings, and full appellate review of those hearings' decisions, and were not found to qualify for asylum, a headline like this one seems disingenuous. There are real refugees in the world; why does so much of the hype focus on the economic migrants mischaracterized as asylum candidates?
45
If someone is honest, willing to work and pay taxes, what is the problem? Our population is going down. We are not at the point where our resources are being drained, but rather at the point where some, such as farmers and landscapers, need people willing to work at jobs that many in this country refuse to do. Why is allowing someone a better life or freedom from fear or religious persecution such an awful thing to do? Didn't our ancestors come here for many of the same reasons these people are coming? Are these people any less human than you or I?
12
@Zoned. Sorry you are completely wrong. We are draining all our resources. to the point where as 5% of the worlds population we are using 25% of its resources. That is the very definition of over populated. We are also the number one per capita co2 producers on earth. You cannot be for mass immigration and claim to be an environmentalist. Those are mutual exclusive concepts. The path to sustainability for this country and the planet is falling populations, until we are in a sustainable balance with the environment. Something we are nowhere near now.
29
I don’t think this article or most of the comments deal with people who come here to work and pay taxes. I think anyone who comes here following the process (which needs to be reformed) and works, pays taxes, and follows the laws is an asset to the US. It people who come illegally or improperly claim asylum that are a concern. There is nothing in place to stop this and that cannot continue.
Also I don’t feel like work that Americans won’t do is a real thing. It’s a false construct created by the illegal immigrant workforce.
21
@Zoned You are wrong. Our population is increasing, it has more than doubled in my lifetime. And the impact of the growing population, in the US and around the globe, is killing our planet. Population destroys lands, clears forests, redirects waterways, and pollutes the air, water, and lands.
The US needed people when it was first developing, but immigration laws were put in place in the early 1900s because that was no longer true. To come, immigrants needed to apply, then meet health standards before setting foot in the country. Really tired of folks buying into the NYTimes narrative that one is racist or just plain mean to oppose unfettered immigration and open borders to all that want to come. Actually, 'tired' is the wrong word.
11
@AI. You said what many people are thinking but can't bring themselves to say outright (and thus not many posts here): Our asylum laws are stretched way beyond their original intent, with poverty and domestic violence being, apparently, legitimate reasons to request asylum. These alone would qualify how many hundreds of millions of people (if not more) to apply for asylum? And what happened to the rule that asylum seekers stop in the first safe country? In the case of the southern border crossings, that would have been Mexico. But no, people press on because they know they can just disappear in this country. As David Frum points out in his thought-provoking article this month in the Atlantic: How much immigration is too much. It was a lengthy piece, the better to address this complex issue. He wrote a reaction piece in which he summarized his main points: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/david-frum-reacts-immigration-responses/585391/
Among the points, relevant to this article, is "faster removal of unfounded asylum claims." Another point is how many millions here live outside of our civic society by being undocumented non-citizens or other subordinated legal statuses. There are hard choices to be made and it seem neither party is able to make them into coherent and sensible policy.
44
@Leslie. Agreed. The only thing the political parties seem able to do is try to exploit the emotional part of immigration to fire up their uninformed bases. Trump, like Nixon, Reagan, Obama, W, and every other president will be gone before too long. A country stuffed to over flowing (and yes, environmentally we are) will remain. People make up a country and the number of those people regardless of their ethnicity, origin or anything else is the gift, if you want to call it that, that keeps on giving thru their offspring. and all our cumulative numbers effects on this country and the planet will be felt, long after stuff like watergate and Russian influence have been forgotten. Numbers matter.
13
If we are to have any immigration standards at all, we have to deport asylum seekers who lose their cases. What legal basis do they have to stay?
Indonesia is a long, long way from the US. Why didn't this man go to nearby Australia or New Zealand? Why doesn't he apply for a visa in one of those countries? Why not apply to move to Singapore, or Thailand?
59
@Wolf. Countries like Australia and NZ like much of the world have tightened up their immigration/asylum laws not due to racism as the left would have you believe, but because they realize that the supply of unhappy potential immigrants is, at this point, limitless and the ability of their country to absorb them without fundamentally changing the country is not. As relatively wealthy environmentally destructive westerners we should be helping countries solve their problems (by moving to longterm sustainable economies) and lower their birthrates and populations while doing the same here. Transferring people to the west, or anywhere else, as the whole planet is now vastly over populated, is not a viable plan.
22
@Wolf
Australia and New Zealand are no longer open to all refugees. Both countries have begun to turn away boats full of people claiming to be refugees. I am not sure of how many refugees are welcome in Singapore. Thailand has its own problems within its minority communities. The elephant in the room is the lack of resources to sustain unlimited population growth in places suffering drought and poverty. There are finite resources available to populations in parts of the world. Civil wars and corruption contribute to mass movements of people. There are international standards in place for refugees; first safe place is one of them. If the first safe place turns away refugees, or diverts them to some other place, refugees keep moving towards any place they can land. Refugees who refuse the first safe place cease to be refugees, and become economic migrants. Birth control is one answer to population increases in "failed states". Open doors in the EU and the U.S. is not an answer to mass movements of people.
17
@Wolf
Look if someone was granted a reprieve by a prior president, DJT ought never be allowed to reverse such a finding. Its not like these folks did anything against the law, except DJT wants to prove he can. I wonder which group, actually born in the United States will lose their citizenship? One should never forget that this type of 'stripping people of their personhood citizenship' is done a step at a time. Watch the Dictators' Playbook on PBS if you get a chance. One starts by stripping one scapegoated group of some right and ends with regular rank and file citizens rendering them without country, despite what ones' birth certificate might support. Remember Birther nonsense against Mr. Obama and the treatment of the island of Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are American citizens and DJT's behavior suggests that the island doesn't deserve a rescue.
5
Are we supposed to believe that every person claiming asylum is actually seeking asylum, or are they just trying to take advantage of our system?
Since we can't answer that question when the person initially claims asylum, we need to protect our citizens and our money by erring on the side of caution.
Americans come first.
50
@helton
“Americans come first.”
Tell me, just when are we we going to even protect them?
6
@helton He didn't go to Australia or NZ most likely because they have the most stringent asylum laws in the world. Australia sticks migrants on an island off-shore where they rot for years until they get their court hearings.
4
@helton But you can answer the question, mostly it is obviously NO. These governments don't abuse their people under the law. Sure they have corruption, poverty, violence, spousal abuse. Just like say in Chicago or other large cities.
7
This article highlights the many problems with the US immigration system, particularly is massive and lengthy backlog of cases and its seemingly arbitrary enforcement of rules. They need to speed up the process to either deport or approve immigrants. I think one possible improvement to this system would be not granting asylum requests upon arrival. Have some sort of online or written application process for an initial review to take place prior to someone just showing up with a unverifiable story.
37
@CHRIS
Agree. We need to staff consulates and embassies with professionals who can perform an initial screening. Tillerson gutted State by using an uninformed Exxon CEO standard operation. He was as unqualified as are most of Trump's current appointees whose jobs appear to be the destruction of the Agency they are appointed to head. Canada uses a merit system; they do not accept all refugees who lack any needed skills. Why has the U.S. become a dumping ground for failed states? The pictures of women with more than one dependent child appear at the head of the lines of migrants. We have mothers and dependent children already here needing shelter, food and job training or basic education. The U.S. is no longer a frontier country needing countless bodies to till the soil. Factories are moving towards robotics. There are a few billion people who would like to come here; and, that is not possible.
10
So it continues. No one who ever gets here, ever has to leave. How many safe countries without our social/welfare net do most of these people go right past to get here? One wants to be sympathetic but at what point do we need to consider that we can't just continue to take in everyone on the planet who wants to come here? There are nearly 8 billion people now. 3-4 billion live in poverty and probably in conditions that might warrant asylum. Are we to take them all in, basically forever? We can and should help people to better their lives in their home countries. Moving them all here is an antiquated, out dated idea that should have been abandoned several billion people ago. A crowded over populated planet ( in a permanent over supply of humans) needs a new way of thinking besides just moving everyone to the west. All this will do is in the end make everywhere look like the parts of the world that don't work now. Where will people go then?
70