"The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States considers asylum only for aliens who are physically present in the United States."
So I guess it's understandable that some people might believe they have to be physically present in the United States to be apply for asylum
False.
"To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status."
"A defensive application for asylum occurs when you request asylum as a defense against removal from the U.S. For asylum processing to be defensive, you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)."
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/ob...
Political asylum is for someone already in the United States, and protects an individual from removal to a country of feared persecution.
In either case the problem is people entering the country illegally versus legally and how to handle them in a way that doesn't create a queue of 600,000+ asylum seekers (which is what we have now). Think about that number given that I'm sure many of you know what limits we put on the number of legal immigrants each year.
For those who may argue for open borders I recommend studying the field of cultural pluralism. We're talking about a risk versus reward scenario where the risk is the existing culture being required to accommodate (replaced by) the incoming culture rather than the incoming culture assimilating to the existing culture and both changing at a manageable/stable rate. This is a function of two things most notably, the desire to assimilate to the culture and fit in, and the rate at which newcomers are allowed. The studies have shown it takes on average six years for a person who wants to assimilate to the culture to do so completely (this is from the field of cultural pluralism studies). From other studies about tipping points I can say that at most 25% can be allowed because that's all that's needed for a major shift and displacement of an existing culture, and that would be the number of people that are a part of a culture versus total immigrants (so unassimilated must remain below 25% at any given time).
Make of that you will, but as far as I can tell those are the major variables and numbers that need to be carefully considered and measured when it comes to the diversity, qualifications, and numbers of those we choose to allow emigrate legally and the criteria for the limitations we and other nations implement and control through the law. The reality is without significantly affecting an existing culture, meaning changing it at a rate faster than the resident population can accommodate reasonably without causing widespread problems/disruption for them or those coming here.
That's what I used to strongly believe then this weekend I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast (yeah, I know, I know) and he made me think about it a bit differently.
Back when the border was super porous, immigration was more circular and cyclical. People would come into the US, work for a season, then go home. When the border became difficult and expensive to cross, people would cross the border and then stay.
There's an argument that can be made that a zero tolerance policy has created the current situation.
According to who?
I don't think that's true at all. I think immigration is the most important policy to get right.
Where is your judgment for importance coming from? What's your reasoning for making it such a huge priority? In a country with over 300M people, how is this relatively small amount of people having this vast of an effect? What is it affecting?
In terms of public opinion, consider this: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.asp...
I wish there was a ranked system to see more than the single importance, but the point being that very few see it as a high priority issue.
I don't have specific data for this claim, but I think it's also safe to say the issue is a polarizing one: the group who sees it as the #1 issue thinks its a huge problem while many others see it as almost nothing. The disconnect there is exactly why I led with those questions above.
I'd be interested in your answers to your own question. What are the day to day effects you face every day versus a much more liberal or a much more stringent immigration policy?
It's the key reason one of the richest states has some of the worst public schooling in the country.
It impacts hundreds of thousands of school kids and ensures they end up with a worse education.
I wish the techies who didn't care about the negative impacts had to send their kids to these schools.
Public schools are mostly funded by local taxes, yes? How exactly does this come into play?
All of this is still to say that you think your kid going to a slightly worse school is worth messing up all these lives so horrifically?
I'm not saying let's take every single person that goes to the US or that we shouldn't enforce immigration laws. I'm just saying let's not make a Holocaust in its name, and these policies are literally starting to mirror those types of events. I don't see how any equation of such direct pain to such a large number of people can possibly be justified by small effects on masses. That's a central utilitarian flaw in thinking this was a good idea. That and not caring about the lives of those being harmed. There's a difference between allowing one to immigrate and treating them as human.
I think you have been mislead by the media - at worst it is applying the existing long standing detainment practice to another maybe 20% of cases.
> Do you have the stuff to show it's actually hundreds of thousands?
More than 20% of public school students in California are classified as English learners - aka don't speak English.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
These people are not evenly distributed among schools/classes so in some schools half your class might not speak English.
What impact do you think that has on education levels?
The idea that this is a minor issue and results in only a slightly worse education is ludicrous.
And education is not a minor issue - when my kids were younger probably 30% of my income went towards my kids education.
That's 30-40% fewer hours I could have worked if the public system was any good.
1. A single state is not representative of the entire country. Let's keep in mind this is probably the state hardest impacted along with Texas.
2. Of those English learners, what percentage are illegal immigrants realistically? What about citizens who speak Spanish primarily? In California, this is not uncommon.
3. How would you spend 30% of your income on education at the K-6 level (where 3/4ths of these students are)? That seems virtually impossible no matter the income bracket and way you count taxes. If you're paying for private school, you don't have this problem.
4. If this is indeed such a large group at many schools, then those programs listed on the item you linked should be effective in serving both large populations, yes? If they aren't is that really the fault of immigration or simply a failing of public schools, which is not inherently due to immigration.
5. All of this to say that your kid getting slightly less time in K-6 education (after that, the population of English learners is about 6% of the population, which doesn't even take into account English learners who are not illegal immigrants, so likely even as low as 3% or less) is worth this hardline immigration policy? In a class of 40 students, that's two maximum from 6 grade on. I don't see how you can justify that.
6. Again, this is the state hardest impacted. Because California public schools have 3% or lower English learners that are illegal immigrants in their public high schools and other states likely have far less, we separate families?
Yes that's why I said hundreds of thousands of kids are being negatively impacted and not millions of kids.
> All of this to say that your kid getting slightly less time in K-6 education
You mean an incredibly sub-par education for kids key formative years!
Why do you seek to downplay the issue? Why not seek to solve the issue - perhaps in other ways?
> I don't see how you can justify that.
It's an easy justification to make - you just don't care because you aren't personally impacted.
A couple of thousand kids temporarily separated from parents who are knowingly breaking the law in exchange for ensuring hundreds of thousands of kids get a proper education is an easy decision to make.
And that's only looking at a single issue!
> You mean an incredibly sub-par education for kids key formative years!
This just sounds like scapegoating. I think the subpar education of public schools is not caused by immigration. Public schooling needs massive changes, immigration or not.
> It's an easy justification to make - you just don't care because you aren't personally impacted.
No, I'm caring about the kids of illegal immigrants as well as kids in the US. I don't value people differently by nationality or the status of their parents. And I value severity over quantity generally when it comes to moral issues.
> Why not seek to solve the issue - perhaps in other ways?
Again, I'm all for solving it, but I don't see how this was justified at all. Mind you, we don't even have any tangible numbers on the effects of this policy.
How can you confidently say that?
All the evidence points to it being a key problem.
> And I value severity over quantity generally when it comes to moral issues.
How do you judge severity?
You seem to be using your feelings as the barometer. Reality is not so simple.
We know that a poor education significantly increases the likelihood you will get involved in crime, go to prison, live in poverty, etc.
So what do you think will happen when you screw up the education of hundreds of thousands of kids?
All of the studies on poor/insufficient teacher pay, the funneling of money away from public K-12 schools, the personal experiences of many around me, some from California public schools, broken incentives from pushes for standardized testing from administrations the past two decades. The list goes on. And now you're going to say that immigration is anything significant compared to all of that?
> All the evidence points to it being a key problem.
All the evidence I have been asking for and you have not given?
> You seem to be using your feelings as the barometer. Reality is not so simple.
I'm sorry but having empathy for others is not judging severity on feelings.
> We know that a poor education significantly increases the likelihood you will get involved in crime, go to prison, live in poverty, etc.
Yes, having non-native English speakers in your school will cause your life to be ruined. Of course. Again, we're going to have to disagree on the effects here. This isn't going anywhere. The retreat to "you're bringing feelings into this" says a lot.
Every item you listed applies to states doing a lot better on the education front than California.
> All the evidence I have been asking for and you have not given?
What evidence will convince you that a high proportion of non-English speakers likely has a serious influence on educational outcomes for a school?
Would a strong negative correlation between number of non-English speakers at a school and school performance convince you?
And then once you have been convinced what will convince you that the most just and moral approach is strict border security?
Somewhat, once also adjusted for funding per student, pay of teachers, all those other factors.
> And then once you have been convinced what will convince you that the most just and moral approach is strict border security?
There's a difference between strict and inhumane border security. You act as if we have to pick one. I don't think you'd ever convince me on that front because I can picture so many better options to this policy. There is no obligation or moral requirement that we cause this harm due to lack of any other options.