This is the way asylum has always worked, everywhere.
Overwhelming, people truly seeking refuge from a crisis in their home country ask for asylum in the first country they enter.
They do not shop around.

The hordes at the US southern border are not seeking asylum.
They are seeking economic opportunity.
The lie when they claim to be seeking asylum.

This ruling is a victory for the Rule of Law.

1 So your solution is to "have a discussion." In other words, you have no point to make. That is open and honest.

3 "They are seeking economic opportunity.
The (sic) lie when they claim to be seeking asylum."
Yes, that is also why your ancestors came here. They might have lied about stuff, too.
Also, please explain how "seeking economic opportunity" in the USA is illegal. Or why it is illegal when brown people do it, so we can know.
Or are you afraid they will steal your janitor job?

Well, you know the federalist society is implanting the code for unfettered executive power when it's incubating these simulacra in their judge-farms.

6 Well I think it should be a full-court 5-on-5 tournament series, best of seven, each game to 21 by 1's and 2's. Each winning conference sends their cohorts. Makes perfect sense AND NOBODY CAN SAY I AM WRONG. I am totally getting the hang of this trump stuff.

“they do jobs that are so backbreaking and so poorly paid that no one else will do them.”

This is true, but to encourage this is immoral and bad for anyone who isn’t a rich person exploiting poor peoples labor.

So we’re going to import poor people just to do shitty work for us and pay them a shitty wage?
It disproportionally and negatively affects poor people who are already here, mainly POCs. We used to have local high schoolers and young adults doing low-wage jobs. Nowadays, teen unemployment is so high that we have 40 year olds working minimum wage jobs all over the place. Older adults expect more money because they often have families, and that’s where you get the call for an artificially higher minimum wage.
It keeps wages low. As we flood the market with labor, the market price of wages goes down and does not keep up with the cost of living. We then have to artificially inflate the minimum wage, which works temporarily, but the market always adjusts and prices climb to meet the higher cost of labor.

Brining in migrants just so we can pay them less is only good for rich people!

Asylum is specifically not for economic reasons. Wanting a better job does not qualify you for refugee status. It’s understandable, admirable even. But it’s not a valid legal reason for asylum.

That is demonstrated by the fact that 80%+ of asylum claims are denied. If you have a denial rate that high then it’s plainly obvious the system is being gamed.

When people talk about “jobs Americans won’t do” they should say “jobs Americans won’t do at the prevailing wage being paid to illegals who are so desperate they will take it and not make any waves.”

Maybe, just maybe if there were fewer illegals companies would have to respond by increasing wages and improving working conditions so that the job wouldn’t be a living hell only a few desperate people would take.

You can look at Canada. You can’t just walk across the border and get a job. They have a process and requirements for immigrants. They also have a refugee program. It’s managed. It’s definitely not a chaotic free for all that screws everyone like we have.

Trump is dead on the money on this issue. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

@5 “Also, please explain how "seeking economic opportunity" in the USA is illegal.”

When you are claiming asylum for false reasons not permitted under existing law.

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

@10,

"Maybe, just maybe if there were fewer illegals companies would have to respond by increasing wages and improving working conditions so that the job wouldn’t be a living hell only a few desperate people would take."

Yes but also, maybe, just maybe, if companies were actually punished for hiring illegal workers, they would have to respond by increasing wages and improving working conditions so that the job wouldn’t be a living hell only a few desperate people would take.

"...Mexico, a country that cannot afford to take them in in the first place."

"...immigrants, both legal and not, contribute far more to the economy than they take."

Afford to take them? How can Mexico afford NOT to take them?

@1,

Literally no-one is opposed to having that goofy assed "conversation" that you propose. But how about this... In the meantime, while said conversation is taking place and in the lead up to it, we revert back to the previous guy's immigration policy which, while not perfect, at least isn't ridiculous and embarrassingly, wear-it-on-your-sleave style proudly ignorant and xenophobic?

@16, why should the default be admitting over 1 million people a year legally plus untold numbers illegally?

"We don't know how many immigrants or what type are good for the country, so let's admit 1.5 million+ per year while we figure it out."

Why isn't the default 0? If you read The Stranger you may have ties to the Seattle area, and be familiar with how growth has made traffic, housing prices, etc. crazy. How about zero-based budgeting for immigrants? Start with zero, then justify each immigrant based on them having an essential skill we can't find domestically, marrying a citizen, being a political dissident we really want to give shelter to, etc.

@fax,

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

But you already knew you were spouting deliberately misleading bullshit.

@17,

So your argument for denying a desperate, impoverished contingent of people an opportunity to lead dignified lives is based on Seattle's being overcrowded. Perfect.

I don't get the part about how Mexico can't afford to take them. All of these immigrants are basically doctors, lawyers, and engineers, and everyone knows that immigrants are the only group that pays taxes, yet never take any government services, or commit crimes.

Since they are 100% a net gain, why are countries always trying to pass them off instead of rushing to accept them all over the world?

It's so strange.

@21 It’s like Mexico knows better.

@21 you just looooove fucking the shit out of that straw man, don't you?

@21 Yeah. I like Herzog's writing on some things, but as an economist, she's a hell of a culture journalist with a bachelor's degree.

The US borders were closed from 1926 to 1964. Is there anyone reading this who knows that? Is there anyone reading this who knows why? There was such an influx of immigrants prior to that the nation feared we would lose who we were, so assimilation was the reason. 40 years of no immigration so they could assimilate the American identity. Now, there is such a problem mainly due to the Democrat party being in power for so long, that we really have lost the reality of who we are as a nation. Immigration is fine, so long as it's done legally. I want for the country to close it's borders and build the wall all the way around. Yes, all the way around. The sole purpose for the D's wanting all of the puke belief systems that they spew out is for ivory tower elitism and a guarantee of a permanent underclass to rule over. Every point of their belief system.