Immigration Reform: Seeking Asylum Vs Those Seeking An Asylum

Trump Wall Prototypes

Immigration reform is a problem that deserves a solution and one that keeps us safe and reflects our values at our border towns, brothels, and beyond—not to mention those bathroom stores. Here’s where I agree with my friend and blogvesary: a liberal plan for border security is empty if Dems aren’t serious about comprehensive immigration reform. Some of their hesitancy is, no doubt, tied to a lack of political will for fear of alienating voters. And this is where our agreement begins and ends. Everything else the right side of the aisle is the usual blend of bloviational hyperbole and methane (BHM). Amplifartcation? Lest we forget how Republican reform, not immigration reform, is the number one issue on the docket. But here’s a breakdown of the problem and the solution:

The Problem:

The problem at the moment is a diminishing one, well, if you believe in math, science and data.

 

* chart stolen from a recent BBC article.

That 2018 bar on the right side of the graph, among the lowest, shows the ‘huge bump’ in caravans and crossings that triggered this imaginary crisis and shutdown in 2019. Here’s the facts:

  1. There is a problem.
  2. It is improving over the last twenty years, but:
  3. It is likely to increase again in the years to come due to overpopulation and the U.S.’s contributions to  further to the unsustainability and instability of parts south.

Here’s our ever-astute Republican friends version of reality:

  1. Immigration is the worst thing ever!
  2. Mexicans are mass producing rapists and murders in their haciendas and fabrica! (sorry, can’t do that squiggly thing over the a).
  3. Who cares about instability? We’re putting the fun back into funsustainability! #FunSizeTrumpocolypse!!

In truth, we are the rapists. The U.S. is decimating habitats, destroying ecosystems, pillaging resources and then judging those fleeing the carnage. Our ‘interventions’ in the Middle East also contributed to the current mass exodus into Europe #BrexitStageLeft #PetePuma4Ever! At least we’re consistent.

Statistically speaking, illegal border crossers are better behaved than our average citizenry, but conservatives don’t care, as long as it can be politicized to help folks vote against their own interests. Do we need to tighten border security? Sure. Do we need a functional legal immigration system? Sure. But keep in mind, our resource-seeking recklessness continues to help destabilize parts south. The natural result is an increase in the migration of the desperate and the dying to points north. Scary for us, but even scarier for them. We need to look at the whole problem, not just the Hannitized version.

Some of the other charts from this same BBC article shows how Trump has thus far accomplished very little wall-wise, no one can estimate the final cost of said wall to the nearest billion, or even if it will be effective and, my favorite, a third chart shows how those overstaying their visas are predominately Canadian, ha, ha. ha. No joke, but still funny, eh? All Republicans do is misrepresent every issue of our time and immigration reform is no exception.

As for our millennial friends, lets face it, liberal media won’t even have a meaningful discussion on this matter. To me this is proof that they’re not remotely serious about the issue. Sadly, this lends further credence to the cretins’ worldview. The rightwing types have about five or six valid points in my adult lifetime, so let’s address them so they have nothing! We’re so close, kids.

 

The Solution:

Go to war with Canada and deport every last Canuck! Do you really think it’s a coincidence that ugly sweater parties are a thing today? Are you that naïve? Here’s my recent suggestion for a northern border wall:

 

(Fine. Take two.)

The Solution:

For starters, Chuck and Nancy’s recent speech mimics my own solution from years ago:

We all agree we need to secure our borders, while honoring our values: we can build the infrastructure and roads at our ports of entry; we can install new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming into our nation; we can hire the personnel we need to facilitate trade and immigration at the border; we can fund more innovation to detect unauthorized crossings.

—Chuck & Nancy’s speech, post ass-clown’s

The ACLU has broken down these new technologies, here. They consist of a targeting system, improved watch lists, and more 21st century solutions: SBInet, or any virtual border fence, is a far more cost effective solution than any physical barrier. SBInet has huge implications for our increased border security and, no, they’re not going to mass produce terminators. You’re thinking of Jeff Bezos.

The actual solution to this problem, post the Roman empire, is a combination of drone, laser, and other new technologies that are backed by an increase in agents who can respond and manage this equipment. So why are they never mentioned by my blogvesary and the rest of the wallnuts?  Kidding. Solutions are obviously not their thing.

As mentioned, another aspect of the solution is an understanding of how we, as a nation, contribute to the problem. The U.S. needs a much more sophisticated approach to help those countries on the verge of collapse, or:

“Make it easier for Central Americans to apply for refugee status in their home countries, as the Obama administration began doing when it established refugee processing centers in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in 2014. Even better is to help reduce violence in those countries so Central Americans don’t become refugees or asylum seekers in the first place. The United States can do that. In a six-year study, Michael Clemens of the Center for Global Development found that USAID’s Central America Regional Security Initiative, which funds job training and community policing in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, among other countries, cut rates of murder and extortion in half.”

Peter Beinhart

Frum has the right idea on the northern side of this border crisis:

“The solution is to get more adjudicators into the asylum system now. If cases are resolved fast, and border-crossers removed promptly, the surge of asylum seekers will abate, as it abated in 2015 after the Barack Obama administration cracked down on the 2014 Central American border surge.”

David Frum (R-Sanesylvania)

Who doesn’t have the right idea on either side of the border? You guessed it, mainstream Republicana. Before exiting, former AG Jeff Sessions attempted to make it harder to seek asylum in the U.S. in the first place. This approach has some merit in that… kidding, it fails to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate claims for asylum and takes a page from Nancy Reagan’s book ‘Just Say No’ (which worked so well with our drug problem).

Fictional question person: The drugs problem is gone now, right Zano?

Zano: Umm, you’re thinking of our middle class.

As usual, the GOP’s one-size-fits-none approach screws the pooch and is yet another consequence of our poor voting choices. The whole physical-wall-across-the-entire-southern-border approach shares almost universal condemnation from experts (see: every other problem of our time).Here’s the thing, I would agree with physical barriers, or at least for those sections wherein it’s deemed a useful deterrent by surveyors and experts.

Hint of the Day: Republicans are never the experts …on anything, ever.

I would guess experts would recommend a wall for less than 10% of what The Donald is recommending. This all-or-none approach to every issue never works for complex problems, but I do give Republicans credit for their ability to reduce each problem to this binary senselessness and then manage to always choose the wrong one (at least if history is any judge).

[Drudge Dredd joke removd by the editor.]

But this is their MO, isn’t it?  Middle East = Bomb, Economic Fix = Tax Cuts, Border Security = Wall. By mischaracterizing the problem they always manage to miss any viable solution. Llike a free range S&M club, their wrongness knows no bounds.

 

The Final Solution: *cough*

Step 1: Elect a Democratic president.

Step 2: Put real pressure on liberal leadership to address comprehensive immigration reform.

Step 3: Never demonize an entire group of people (except Republicans).

Yes, I have way more confidence in the people ignoring this problem than the douchebags trying to “fix it”. Here’s my overview from many years ago of why Republicans, can never reach the solution side of any Venn diagram on any issue:

 

 

 

  • Full Venn diagram breakdown for a number of today’s issues, here. Spoiler Alert: our Republican friends never overlap with any aspect of a viable solution.

(Visited 52 times, 1 visits today)
Mick Zano

Mick Zano

Mick Zano is the Head Comedy Writer and co-founder of The Daily Discord. He is the Captain of team Search Truth Quest and is currently part of the Witness Protection Program. He is being strongly advised to stop talking any further about this, right now, and would like to add that he is in no way affiliated with the Gambinonali crime family. 

  10 comments for “Immigration Reform: Seeking Asylum Vs Those Seeking An Asylum

  1. pokey
    February 5, 2019 at 8:37 AM

    What you’re talking about is called “Simpson-Mizzoli Act” of 1986. It was a bi-partisan legislation that promised an end to all illegal immigration by first granting a pathway to citizenship to those illegal immigrants already in the country. So then why is illegal immigration still an issue? Well, because amnesty was granted and border security was ignored. You see, it’s one thing for a politician to say that they will secure the border another thing for them to have the political fortitude to actually do it. The “Gang of 8” promised to do the same thing, and the American people rightfully rejected their empty promises.

    We already know that the Dems and Republicans merely give security lip service to this issue. The Dems see that illegal immigration helps them politically–see California’s voting record before and after Simpson Mizzoli–and the Republican funders get cheap labor. We have witnessed both sides sell out our national security on this issue for their political benefit and profit. So what can we as Americans do? Enters Donald Trump.

    FIRST SECURE THE BORDER–that means to make it totally unrewarding for people to come here illegally (no tax-funded benefits, no jobs, no sanctuary), then we’ll talk about possible legal status for people already here. That’s why the wall is needed–all other means of securing the border can be easily discarded for political purposes on down the road. The Wall represents our national resolve to fully preserve the life of our nation.

    • Mick Zano
      February 5, 2019 at 11:51 PM

      FIRST SECURE THE BORDERLINE-meds won’t cut it for our commander in chief, so i’m thinking of a round of electro repulsive therapy.

  2. pokey
    February 6, 2019 at 8:38 AM

    When all else fails–a Lobotomy. You you, this is reminiscent of my “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” parallel with Nurse Ratchet played by Hillary Clinton, and Randall McMurphy by Donald Trump; and the Combine is the Deep State. Here’s my favorite quote from the book told from the Big Indian’s (Mike Pence’s) perspective–“I was looking around the room to see how everybody was reacting to the way McMurphy (Trump) was dominating the meeting (election), and they all saw the same thing as I did–she (Clinton) was to big to be beaten. He may have won a battle (election) here today, but it was a small battle in a big war that she’s (Clinton) been winning and she’ll go on winning just like the Combine (Deep State) because she had all the power of the Combine (Deep State) behind her (Clinton). She didn’t lose from our victories, but she won from our loses. In order to beat her (Clinton), you didn’t need to win two out of three or even three out of four, but every single time you met. If you (Trump) lost once, you lost for good, and sooner or later everybody gotta lose once.”

    The meds you speak of are actually socialist propaganda.
    Electro-shock is the Mueller Probe.
    The Lobotomy s impeachment.

    • Mick Zano
      February 7, 2019 at 3:23 PM

      The intelligence community and our military enterprises have always been more associated with republicans, which is why in the middle of any ‘scandal’ we find the accused from the ‘deep estate’ is invariably republican, granted post Bush and eventually Trump, we are seeing a shift to independent or left (amen), but this has historically never been the case. Why would you associate spooks with liberals? absurd. How did we get from here to there minus anything but somewhat expanded roles of the Feds thanks to republican authored and pushed legislation. It’s madness.

      • pokey
        February 7, 2019 at 8:56 PM

        Zano, your responses are drifting into abstract generalizations and questionable assumptions with little connection to meaningful dialogue. For example, let’s look at your first sentence–Intelligence and military has “ALWAYS been more associated with republicans.” Always, absolutely,100%? but then your statement is immediately softened into “more associated.” So, you’re saying that intelligence community and military community has always been slightly right leaning? Maybe, I guess, but even if that very weak assertion is absolutely 100% true, so what? Let’s move to the next claim in your first very long meaningless sentence. “this has historically NEVER been the case.” Absolutely never, not once in all of history. Amazing. Of course, then you go on to blame the Republican–of course, because it’s ALWAYS the Republicans fault. Sigh.

        I’m not certain, but through your haze of generalization, it sounds like you’re saying–“Pokey, you were right that the Deep State has illegally politicized their policing powers in an attempt to stop Trump, but since the intelligence community has been historically right wing leaning, this particular act of police state tyranny will balance the scales. So it’s somehow justified. Therefore I, Mick Zano, have been correct in supporting this resistance all along.”

        Your last sentence sums up your entire political perspective in this particular time/space continuum, and on this summary I agree–“It’s madness.”

        It’s not too late to support personal liberty over centralized state control.

  3. pokey
    February 8, 2019 at 8:36 AM

    Your perspective of Democrats vs. Republican often lacks this underlying context:

    All power (Democratic, Republican, Monarchical, and Corporate) tends toward expansion of its own power at the expense of personal liberty. Our founders recognized that it was a necessary evil to designate power to the government in order to protect our liberties against greater foreign powers of control and coercion. However, this designation of power was given with the caution that our own government would naturally and constantly seek to expand its own powers of control and coercion. The main battle is not a political battle between Democrats and Republicans, but a much deeper battle over principles. Constitutional Orthodoxy gives the cause of personal liberty a fighting chance in the constant battle between Personal Liberty and State Centralized Control.

    • Mick Zano
      February 8, 2019 at 7:43 PM

      Well, if you remember I had some libertarian sensibilities back in the day, but your groups rampant incompetence has cured me of that. Libs are doing what liberals do, which is fine, but we just can’t leave republicans in charge of the treasury, and we can’t leave today’s libertarians in charge of our freedoms. Unless it’s time to give them up and break the bank. All rightwing politicians need to be marginalized and then beaten with a wet noodle. Remember we were going to start a new party? Ha, we should have.

    • Mick Zano
      February 8, 2019 at 7:56 PM

      Yep, which is why I was against Citizens United, the Patriot Act, Net Neutrality and every human rights rollback under Herr Ass-clown (before they were signed into law). Most of what you squabble about under expansion of executive power occurred shortly after 9/11, when I said NO and you said YES. But, you need to understand that if you start to be right about shit you can’t be a republican. Those are mutually exclusive categories and, having watched my own all or none tendencies, stand by my 90%-wrong-rule so I will take my chances on the other 10%. Again, when 9 0ut of 10 dentists recommend brushing your teeth to prevent cavities, i’m with them.

      • pokey
        February 13, 2019 at 3:20 PM

        Just a note–I believe Net Neutrality was an Obama overreach. Trump repealed Net Neutrality–right?

      • pokey
        February 14, 2019 at 10:10 AM

        I recommend that you cut back on your fluoride intake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *