comment: >
  
  As a matter of National security, our government should reserve the right to approach governments of these migrants’ countries……if half of Nicaragua is just going to show up at the border, then the Nicaraguan government needs to be forced to deal with the cause of the migration or be forcibly removed from power
context: Like it or not, they are going to just show up at the border.  They've got nowhere better to go.  Hell, if I was in their place I'd show up at the border too. >
  
  so you want to bring them in just so they can do the jobs you don't want to in order to keep your standard of living? >
  
  I do, but I want it as part of reform. Those undocumented migrants are incredibly vulnerable to abuse and other things. 
  Let's figure out how to process them legally on agricultural visas and bring them in. This would require us to greatly increase the number of those visas.
  If there is domestic competition for jobs let them petition to lower the number, but let's also start heavily fining businesses who thwart restrictions. 
  It's a little different for true refugees though which is the OP. >
  
  CMIW but- Don’t they have to in order to claim asylum or whatever?
  I thought you couldn’t make such declarations from some home countries. >
  
  Per the UN High Commission for Refugees
  
  The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the key legal documents that form the basis of our work. With 149 State parties to either or both, they define the term ‘refugee’ and outlines the rights of refugees, as well as the legal obligations of States to protect them.
  The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.
  
  Additionally, some pertinent sections from that Convention,
  
  Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
  
  
  The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
  
  
  The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
  
  
  Article 32 - Expulsion
  
  
  The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.
  
  
  The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.
  
  
  The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
  
  
  Article 33 - Prohibition of expulsion or return ("refoulement")
  
  
  No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
  
  
  The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
  
  
  Article 34 - Naturalization
  The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings. >
  
  You guys think like a Marshall plan for these 3 countries would help? It seems like a large chunk of the migration is stemming from either violence or abject poverty with little economic uplift. >
  
  As a south american I wholeheartedly disagree. Our countries are far too corrupt to benefit from this help. In most cases it just leads to a higher dependency on the US, which we don't want more of >
  
  Honestly the us is kinda what fucked up south America to start with so y'all might be better off if we just left everyone alone >
  
  WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Thursday said it would immediately begin turning away Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, a major expansion of an existing effort to stop Venezuelans attempting to enter the U.S. >
  
  What exactly does "turning away" mean? Are they going to actually deport people or just gonna about face them and tell them to walk back to where they started? So many have left circumstances far worse that attempting to hide illegally is a better option. >
  
  Mexico has agreed to take a certain # of migrants from other countries (I think 30k/day) so people from certain countries will immediately go back to Mexico. >
  
  Most places in Mexico are arguably as bad as where they left so see them back at the border in a month a guess? >
  
  You are really selling Mexico short here I think. The standard of living in most of Mexico is far superior to that of somewhere like Honduras, El Salvador, or Venezuela. >
  
  “Most of Mexico” that’s the problem right there. I will be pleasantly surprised if they are sent to places that are actually decent, but I will be the exact opposite of shocked if they’re just sent to slums instead.
  Edit: I do agree with you tho, I should have said something more like “many” rather than “most.” >
  
  I like how people keep bringing up international law and the UN, as if they actually have the power to enforce such things on the United States lmao >
  
  To state the obvious: Biden has limited options here without comprehensive immigration reform. >
  
  And who is going to enforce it if the executive branch doesn’t? >
  
  Sponsors, as far as I'm aware, are direct family members or spouses. >
  
  Showing up at a US port of entry is how refugees have sought asylum throughout modern history. They can't stay home and apply by mail, it is absurd, they are fleeing persecution and violence. They are entitled to a hearing before an impartial immigration judge and they can't get that by mail. There is a reason Trump conjured up the "remain in Mexico" policy--if they are not on US soil they may safely be ignored. We are supposed to be better than that.
  Biden's neglectful attitude toward the jaw-dropping racist abuse of the US immigration apparatus which became commonplace during the last administration, is cruel and politically unwise. We don't need Democrats who are Reagan Lite. >
  
  Not by mail but an app is now being used. It's a great idea, and fantastic way to get data and hopefully biometric data on applicants prior to making the trip to the border. >
  
  We've done fine without biometric data.
  You know anything about BATS in Afghanistan and its huge failures? Taking biometrics for the sake of "hey look much info we have, there's so much potential here" is wasteful and harmful.
  Guess who has that data now. It's the Taliban of course.  We dont need people biometrics to perform immigration oversight. >
  
  Yes we do need that data to prove who they say they are. At minimum facial recognition, a photo needs to be taken to help prevent fraud.
  verifyID works just fine and Americans use that system every single day. So another just as capable system can be implemented. 
  In the end this app is a huge data grab that will help streamline the immigration process. >
  
  Source?  What kind of fraud are we thinking this prevents?  Are you picturing the old system had something like 99% effectiveness in oversight for an average of $2/day per applicant? Because it did before Trump upended the system and started the separation policy. >
  
  Source for what?
  Fraud of someone claiming to be who they are is very common. Which is why Americans have to use VerifyID for benefits, and immigration to USA includes benefits. >
  
  Yea, social security numbers have nothing to do with biometrics. It's standard bureaucratic numbering and it's all you need for everify.
  Hi my name is Bob Blank and I was born 1/1/1981.  Here's my number it's 123456789.  Yea type in the computer those 3 variables and if it gives you a green check that means there's a US citizen named Bob Blank born 1/1/1981 with the number 123456789. Cool, where's my apron?  There's no biometrics in everify. >
  
  You must have never used VerifyID because you must submit a picture of your face and it must match up with your government ID photo.
  A social security number is not enough information. Not sure why you are against gathering more information from strangers wanting to live in this country.
  Download the app, have a sponsor, background check...
  That's what's now needed to seek asylum/immigrate to this country. Don't like the rules don't come to this country.
  Thank you President Biden!! >
  
  I'm not against the biometrics necessarily, moreso the premise it rests on which is the stay in Mexico/port of origin policy.
  I'm against anything that violates someone's right. If they returned to a prior system where there was no stay in Mexico policy and the biometrics were part of the oversight I'd be fine with that. My initial reaction is that it gives an extra layer to further violate their right to apply for asylum. Not having enough equipment or staff to man the biometric equipment is going to be used as an excuse to restrict people's movement and their right to apply.  Id like to see us return to the old system of oversight and biometrics can be taken during their first oversight meeting at court or otherwise after they been placed/been allowed to move to the accomodations they've arranged, as the law describes. Read the Treaty >
  
  "oh okay we'll just turn around then!" - migrants >
  
  Maybe they wouldn't be fleeing their countries of birth if America hadn't spent the past +100 years destroying their own countries with our foreign policies >
  
  Foreign policies and carbon emissions >
  
  this time it's (D)ifferent >
  
  Until we deal with our own domestic housing issues like our extensive homelessness and high rents, we really shouldn’t admit more people who will need shelters or nonexistent affordable housing. They should be turned away so they don’t strain already stretched resources. >
  
  We have enough resources to do both. We just choose not to do either! >
  
  The mayor of New York City, one of the richest cities in the country, just said today they in fact do not have the resources. Think about that. The richest cities are begging for help. 
  Honestly just sending them their would increase the funding more than keeping them in Texas >
  
  Meanwhile they took down the wall made of train carts or something…
  They won’t enforce this and if they do, no one will report on it anyway.
  It has to be hell where they are from to want to come here, that’s for sure.
  Idk why we had an easier time during the mid 20th century getting people here and in the US system than we do in 2023.
  We should want more taxpayers, should not be hard to make them legal. >
  
  "BuT dEyR tErKiNg OuR jErBs" >
  
  Lol that’s just not true and an old conservative trope >
  
  Well yeah, they're instead doing work that your average citizens are unwilling to do and act as slave class. >
  
  If it were easier to become legal then they would have protections >
  
  Is he finally realizing that this is getting out of hand? >
  
  There’s various factions within the Democratic Party (and tbh within those likely Republicans too), but remember there’s the Supreme Court, an eventual GOP House, and ‘24 coming up where Biden is a good bet to get re-elected if he can sway the non-coastal burbs.   IMHO this opens the door for VP Harris and a potential 10 year run as a Black/Asian woman Prez.  
  By then the country will have changed a bit, so it’ll be up to the millennials and Gen Z, frankly >
  
  Ok but I was just talking about the border >
  
  He has made this statement since like the day he was elected. >
  
  Oh so I guess the answer to my question is no >
  
  Are you talking from a political or policy perspective? Without Congress passing laws and without increasing judicial resources to hear my asylum claims very little can be done by Biden himself. >
  
  Since when has congress stopped him from making promises before? He promised student loan forgiveness bypassing congress to get votes. And it worked. 
  Obviously it would never pass, but he is radio silent on policy relating to the border. >
  
  He didn't bypass Congress to get votes on student loans? Congress is the one who voted on things. That was done by executive order.
  He has not been radio silent on policy, Congress has no interest in passing any sort of immigration reform, and the immigration courts have been purposely hamstrung.
  What would you like to see him do via executive order at the border that you think would help? >
  
  I would like a policy that demands that illegal immigrants return to Mexico instead of being let back into our country with a court date that they will never show up to.
  I would like to end the child trafficking that happens at the border because evil people steal children and bring them on a dangerous journey pretending to be family. 
  They come over here because they know that you can just dissolve into the country once you cross because law enforcement on the border is practically non-existent 
  There’s so much wrong with what’s happening and it makes me sad that people will turn a blind eye to it simply because it’s inconvenient for their political party rulers (who will never care about you) >
  
  It's hard to quote understand what your saying because of unclear terminology. I assume when you say illegal immigrants you are also including asylum seekers.  In which case the remain in Mexico policy is currently in place because of the supreme court ruling.
  Literally everyone wants to stop human trafficking.
  The third point is not true about border patrol or police.
  How do you think people are turning a blind eye to this? It's literally talked about constantly.
  Finally, you didn't outline a single thing that Biden could be doing differently that you want.