• @disguy_ovahea
    link
    1
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Migrants are given one year of free housing to decide if they want to naturalize or move to another nation. Current immigration law leaves hosting up to individual cities, without Federal mandates for participation. Sanctuary cities are at capacity, and are using a turnstile system to allow new migrants in as existing migrants leave.

    POTUS can control detainment or turn away migrants at the border with the power of Executive Order.

    Turning migrants away resulted in increased deaths in Mexico, while detainment is clearly not reasonably hospitable to people in need.

    Honest question- besides the obvious solution of congressional immigration reform giving migrants the right to assisted stay in places other than sanctuary cities, what should Biden do? Turn away, detain, or overcrowd sanctuary cities?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      159 months ago

      We could increase funding and streamline the path to citizenship to meet the levels of immigration instead of letting a massive backlog build up that will only make the problem worse.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        3
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I agree. That the congressional immigration reform that I mentioned. Only Congress can increase the budget. Biden repealed Title 42 and left the border open while pressing Congress for that exact legislation. They haven’t legislated a full reform since 1986. The reform passed in 2019 was for minors and an amendment tied to border security. Trump twisted the mandatory acceptance for minors into Title 42, detaining them while deporting their parents.

        https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/irca

        https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6

        So with congressional reform options aside, what do you think Biden should do?

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            -2
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            You’re vaguely stating what he shouldn’t do. Which of his three options do you think is best? Turn away, detain, or nothing and overcrowd sanctuary cities with homeless migrants?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -19 months ago

              Biden wouldn’t be overcrowding sanctuary cities, that would be the result of obstruction in congress.

              That is also the least worst thing he could do, nothing at all. All of the other options are worse because of congressional obstruction.

              • @disguy_ovahea
                link
                -1
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                It’s not about blame, it’s about resources. If a sanctuary city states they’re at capacity, they no longer can provide housing for the migrants.

                Doing nothing results in following existing immigration policy. Migrants would be bused from border cities to sanctuary cities. Without housing, the migrants would be homeless in the overcrowded sanctuary cities. Are you suggesting that’s the better option for migrants, or suggesting he does it to deflect the blame back on to Congress?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  19 months ago

                  Releasing that pressure by denying migrants the proper asylum process means that the problem can be ignored for longer instead of the sanctuary cities applying more pressure for actual change.

                  This is a counterproductive band aid.

                  • @disguy_ovahea
                    link
                    09 months ago

                    They’ve been asking for support since last year. Congress failed to pass a bill.