5 Comments
User's avatar
Dan Robin's avatar

Great article. Here’s what I am missing:

“VCNH migrants showing up at the SW border who were apprehended, inadmissible, or expelled declined by 75.8 percent in January 2023”

Are those people asylum seekers? If I understand correctly, they cross the border illegally and immediately turn themselves in asking for asylum. Is that correct?

Expand full comment
Robert A. George's avatar

As I understand it, previously, using Title 42 to expel asylum seekers didn't prevent them from just crossing the border illegally again -- and being expelled again. Under new policy, that doesn't happen: Because of the agreement keeping the VNCH migrants in Mexico, if they try to circumvent that policy, they are subject to expulsion with prejudice -- meaning they can't just come back into the country again.

Expand full comment
Richard Bicker's avatar

So the way to stop illegal immigration is to make it legal? Whoda thunk? Oh, wait...

Expand full comment
Dan  Smith's avatar

Better to arrive in planned way via commercial airport to state expecting them and with resources to accommodate them.

Or is the problem not crime at Southern border but ANY immigration.

Expand full comment
Richard Bicker's avatar

The solution is simple: ANY immigration must be LEGAL immigration. Period. If and when a routine retinal scan comes up other than a citizen, LEGAL immigrant, or visitor on a valid visa, the illegal alien is taken immediately into custody and thence out of the country. Those who sold the alien a car, rented them an apartment, or hired them to work are then prosecuted, convicted, and fined/imprisoned. The discussion as to who, how many, and with what backgrounds and resources are allowed to immigrate to the USA can then take place in the legislative bodies charged with the responsibility for securing the nation.

Expand full comment