News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Update from Chef by enraged_camel on Monday September 23, 2019 @03:50PM (#21052843)
>> unchecked migration

There is no "unchecked migration" to the United States. There's a hard cap on the number of refugees that can be admitted every year, and the asylum process is long, complex, and stressful.

Over the past 10 years, more than 50% of asylum claims have been denied. So it's not like claiming asylum comes with any sort of guarantees either.

[dead]
Re:Update from Chef by rhcom2 on Monday September 23, 2019 @04:05PM (#21052999)
> Something like 90+% of claimants disappear after their initial catch-and-release at US /

That was just a lie Pence told.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/26/how-many-...

Re:Update from Chef by mieseratte on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @05:59AM (#21058203)
No, Washington Post is referring to a different set of statistics to attempt to discredit Pence's more specific claims.

The claim is regarding the current flow on the southern border, not historical trends across the nation as was cited. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

This is like that old chestnut, "Bill Gates and I have a combined average net-worth of 40 billion dollars!"

Well, I have none and he has 80 billion. You can't use broad statistics to disregard specific, regional trends.

Re:Update from Chef by rhcom2 on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @10:48AM (#21060769)
I'd love a citation for your 90% number then because I couldn't find any information broken down by location of border crossing.
Re:Update from Chef by mcphage on Sunday September 29, 2019 @10:19PM (#21111219)
It's been almost a week, and your parent poster still hasn't presented any citations... I'm beginning to suspect that there might not be any...
Re:Update from Chef by FireBeyond on Monday September 23, 2019 @04:06PM (#21053016)
It is not illegal, in any situation, to _apply_ for asylum. It is up to the government to evaluate. If granted, it is inherently legal. If not, well, still not illegal to apply for asylum.

> Something like 90+% of claimants disappear after their initial catch-and-release

Citation needed. The claimants who are eligible for release are ones that _CBP_ deemed low risk, and are fitted with ankle monitors. They're also only released in the first place because we make very little (to now nearly zero) effort to process them in a timely manner.

Re:Update from Chef by jigglesniggle on Monday September 23, 2019 @04:24PM (#21053183)
It may be legal to apply for asylum but it is still a misdemeanor to enter the US without proper authorization. How these two things may interact is up for debate, but there is plenty of legal precedent that these "gotchas" are intentional.

Arguably if the migrants are not stopping to apply at a port of entry then they broke the law.

Re:Update from Chef by mieseratte on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @05:58AM (#21058192)
> The claimants who are eligible for release are ones that _CBP_ deemed low risk, and are fitted with ankle monitors.

How about you provide a citation.

Re:Update from Chef by FireBeyond on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @06:38PM (#21065386)
https://www.apnews.com/ed3d75ce348d4be3bc7fdf02bc43e1d6

> Families are given court dates, a head of household is often fitted with an ankle monitor, and they are dropped off at a charity-run shelter or bus station.

https://www.apnews.com/dfcdc6302e154753a526c04706df45d6

https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-electronic-m...

> Electronic monitoring devices, or ankle monitors, are increasingly being used as ATDs since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have found them to be both economical and effective. Motivated by cost savings, their use is appropriate for immigrants who are neither a flight or safety risk

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2019/09/23/imm...

> private contractor, BI Industries Inc., monitors migrants through check-ins at ICE offices, in-person home visits, telephonic monitoring and electronic ankle bracelets. ICE determines how a migrant will be monitored based on factors including flight risk and likelihood of showing up to court.

Acceptable?

Re:Update from Chef by enraged_camel on Monday September 23, 2019 @04:10PM (#21053059)
Incorrect. Take a look at the Department of Justice's own official statistics:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/download

Page 33 shows that, from FY 2013 to 2017, more than 92% of asylum applicants have in fact appeared in court to receive their final decision.

Re:Update from Chef by mieseratte on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @05:59AM (#21058201)
I'm not talking about all, I'm talk about the folks attempting at the southern US border. Apples to oranges.
Re:Update from Chef by enraged_camel on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @01:36PM (#21062623)
Surely you have statistics to back up your assertion then?