> by this government's disgraceful and abhorrent behavior
What abhorrent behavior? They've attempted to disincentive people abusing asylum policies. You don't have to come and apply for false asylum, and you're free to self-deport.
> They've attempted to disincentive people abusing asylum policies.
What a miserable, angry world you inhabit, that you're willing to hurt some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, because of a useless worry that someone somewhere might be taking advantage of us.
Consider I've witnessed the economic damage that unchecked migration causes, first-hand, I'm rather right to be angry that our politicians let this problem fester for decades at the expense of our nation's poorest.
Perhaps you should climb down off of your ivory tower and visit blue-collar America from time to time. You're accusing me of hurting others, while defending policies that... hurt others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
What abhorrent behavior? They've attempted to disincentive people abusing asylum policies. You don't have to come and apply for false asylum, and you're free to self-deport.