comment: >
  
  So what do you propose Biden do in absence of legislation?
context: Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading "democracy" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere
  Find out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair >
  
  I've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks. >
  
  Usually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls >
  
  
  The United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.
  At the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.
  He said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: "Do not just show up at the border."
  
  Was this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country. >
  
  Asylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.
  The only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one. >
  
  I don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border.  I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US.  And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution. >
  
  The Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.
  Should also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd. >
  
  I never said it was a safe place to wait for asylum.  What I’m saying is this shift may discourage and decrease the number attempting entry via the Mexican border in the first place, which means the number entering Mexico from those countries could decrease.
  As for Mexico taking those asylum seekers, do you see that as a long term solution whether we’re compensating them or not?  And does that really help Mexico in anyway?  It certainly doesn’t seem like having more migrants helps them deal with cartels who monetize it. >
  
  Except that it hasn't had that affect yet (this "shift" is basically just title 42 being continued), probably because as dangerous as Mexico can be these people still think it's safer/better to try to go through it than stay wherever they're coming from >
  
  They have seen a decline, specifically from Venezuelans.  And while it does leverage title 42, it also offers a path for asylum.  Is it perfect? Certainly not, for some of the reasons you mentioned.  Is it the end all, be all immigration solution?  Again, certainly not.  But the solution most likely isn’t going to be a light switch moment, and will require legislation. >
  
  That decline tracks developments in Venezuela more than any changes with this policy. The initial surge in Venezuelans happened while title 42 was in effect.
  
  it also offers a path for asylum
  
  If people can't turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while their asylum applications are considered it's just a new coat of paint on the same old Trumpian trash