Why Migrants Are Coming To New York

[UberEatsDriver]

Idk why this isn’t a federal issue. Sanctuary cities exist all over the nation

 

[Dr. Acula]

Oh well. Enjoy your tax increases and city services cut New Yorkers to compensate for the migrations the government can't do anything about.

But if someone comes along and says they "will fix this" and they are some right winger don't act surprised.

 

[ThrobbingHood]

A lot of the European immigrants that came to New York were illegal as well.

And that’s where the term “WOPs” came from.

 

[getmoney310cpt]

Sadly there may be a bigger attack than 9/11 just pray you are not in the vicinity..lot of people coming over who shouldn’t be

 

[FAH1223]

AOC and jamal just had the press conference about fasttracking them with work permits... the fix is in... I'm telling you...

From the article:



How feasible is speeding up the work authorization?
There are statutory limits to work authorization, and there are regulatory limits. Of course, regulatory is more administrative, but even to change a regulation takes time. The governor of Massachusetts made a big statement that the federal government should issue a regulation changing the timeline for work authorization. But changing the regulation takes longer than granting work authorization. This just gets completely lost in the picture.

Let’s take asylum seekers. By definition, to be an asylum seeker you have to have an asylum application in. The same lawmakers who are busy saying, “Why aren’t you using work authorization?” are not doing much to provide legal resources for getting people to prepare their asylum applications. You are not able to apply for work authorization until you have an asylum application pending, and usually you need someone to help you prepare that. All the legal-service providers in New York—and this is the world’s best legally resourced city—are stretched too thin. The last time I checked with legal-service providers, there was almost no room. Tell that to people who just say that migrants should get work authorization.

Many legal-service providers, the legitimate ones, will not do some of these asylum cases because they think many of them are just not eligible. To be eligible for asylum, you can’t just say, “Hi, I’m seeking asylum.” You have to meet the statutory criteria, and those are pretty limited. Just to say that you are running from economic deprivation is not grounds for asylum. So many lawyers say, “Look, they don’t have a legitimate asylum claim. I cannot put my name to an application”—there’s that problem. Then the federal statute says that no applicant for asylum can get a work authorization at least until their application is pending for a hundred and eighty days. Only Congress can change that, and good luck with that. To say that we should issue work authorization as if it were like snapping your fingers is obviously understanding neither law nor practice.

The second thing is that a large number of people ahead of the recent migrants are in the backlog of work-authorization applications. Some people are waiting for twenty months. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services hasn’t even had the bandwidth to clear the backlog. So to say that these applicants who are recent asylum seekers should get preference over everyone else is just a hard argument to make.

Not to mention that U.S.C.I.S. has been directed by Congress to work within its means. It’s a fee-based agency to which Congress does not appropriate money to process cases. It must generate fees. That means the head of U.S.C.I.S. cannot suddenly appoint five thousand people to do work authorizations. Her hands are tied.

 

[FAH1223]

Build the fukking wall. Don’t let any new migrants in until we can get our affairs in order. 3-5 yr ban on immigration.

Lumping in the legal migrants with the illegals to make it all seem the same

It sounds as though you don’t think the specific complaints made by Adams and Hochul have much merit, but what could the federal government be doing?
I think one mistake the President made is how he defined the problem—every politician defines the problem their way, and there’s no consensus on what the problem is. President Biden decided to define the problem as one of optics of disorder at the border.

This is back in 2021? You’re saying that, with the images of people at the border, the Biden Administration got concerned?
Exactly. So they decided, “We want to get rid of the disorder.” What they have done is create orderly entry pathways for people: We’ll give you parole; we’ll give you a notice to appear before a judge; we’ll give you a notice to report to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ice). We have admitted a record number of people in the past two years with what I call twilight statuses, because it got the problem off the border, but it suddenly became a problem for cities and states, which is now what is manifesting itself.

Hochul and Adams define their problem as one of shelter. No one is looking at the whole picture and asking, How do we stop so many people from coming? That’s just lost in this whole debate. Why does this happen?

Isn’t that because nobody has an idea of how to stop so many people from coming?
Yes. The reason is that our asylum system is broken. So many of these people seek asylum because there are actually no legal avenues for people to come, which separately we do need in the country. But legal pathways can be created only by Congress, and we know why that’s not happening. In the absence of legal pathways, people are using asylum as a way to enter the country.

In the asylum system, the border applications go to an immigration judge, and those cases are backlogged for four to five years. During those years, you can get work authorization, so the backlog becomes the magnet. What I and the Migration Policy Institute have argued is that we should take border asylum cases out of the immigration courts. It’s just become this big mammoth backlog. At least for the short term, we should have asylum officers determine asylum cases that come to the border. That process will take months, as opposed to years. These are non-adversarial hearings, and those can be finished, including appeals, in months. So you have an asylum case and a determination within a year; only those who have meritorious claims get approved, and the ones who don’t are deported. Then the message will get sent out that just saying you’re here for asylum doesn’t guarantee your prolonged stay in the United States. We have to remove the magnet.

The thing people forget is that the migrant social networks are very potent. They’re smart people. They know everything that’s happening in the U.S. When New York City started taking people in, within three days the Venezuelan social networks were abuzz with “If you come to Texas, tell them you want to go to New York City.” If we change the policy, people will begin to say that there’s no guarantee now that you’re going to be in a backlog of several years, during which you can work lawfully in the U.S. That message will get through networks very quickly, and in our view, it will affect the flow of people to the border.


What about people who say that, all else being equal, the flow of people to the border is a good thing?
You have to decide: Do we believe in open borders or not? This is a fundamental philosophical issue. If you believe in open borders, then that’s the argument. If you don’t believe in open borders, then you believe in the rules-based system. Under the rules-based system, you can always seek benefit under the rules. We can always say we should change the rules—which is exactly what we are advocating. But Biden can’t do that; only Congress can do that. We do think that we should increase the avenue for people to come legally, hugely, at least in the low-wage sector of our economy. I’m a big advocate of that, but only Congress can do that.

 

[FAH1223]

Oh well. Enjoy your tax increases and city services cut New Yorkers to compensate for the migrations the government can't do anything about.

But if someone comes along and says they "will fix this" and they are some right winger don't act surprised.

It seems that Congress’s unwillingness to do what you’re putting forward now has made the system even worse in almost every way. It’s a cruel system. It’s a system where you have these crises that pop up at various times, and they’ve made people now turn to asylum as the way in. The people who’ve been unwilling to reach a deal on a federal policy have made every aspect of the system worse.
All that is true. And now the crisis at the border has provided an argument for Republican lawmakers to not do what they say they want to do. They say, “I really would like to increase options for people, but I can’t do it until the border is under control.” This has provided a potent weapon for them not to make any reforms. That’s why I believe that we have two big challenges in the immigration system. One is that we don’t have enough legal pathways, and two, we have a border crisis, and the two are related.

Given current political constraints, there doesn’t really seem to be any obvious way out of the crisis.
I do think that, if we got the asylum-officer rule going, that would make a difference. This is a regulation that the Biden Administration issued last year. They initially started it but then put it on pause.

For legal reasons?
I think for bandwidth reasons. The pressure at the border was so high that they could not deal with anything else. I mean, I have some sympathy there.

But this is something the Administration should prioritize, in your view?
They should prioritize it, and they should use it for what accountants call “last in, first out,” because you have to send a message. The more recent cases should be sent to asylum officers, so the recent arrivals will get a much quicker determination. That will send the message, “Folks, this is not working out as you thought.” They should just speed up hiring more asylum officers—something they have been authorized to do—and let the asylum-officer rule become robust.

I do think that President Biden should have seized the issue earlier. He let it become a food fight between states and states, and between states and cities. He should have called at least all the impacted governors and mayors early on, if not all fifty governors, and said, “Look, this is happening. Let’s just accept that this is a national problem. This is not a Texas or New York problem. We are going to try to find a national solution.”

There is the refugee precedent. We have a reimbursement scheme for refugees, where we just basically say, “Look, we’re trying to create order at the border. We are letting them in with our permission. We must compensate states and localities.” Then the federal government could get into the decision about where these people should go. Should we send them to North Carolina? Should we send them to Colorado? Should we send them to New York City? That should be made as a federal decision. We missed the boat.

 

[Scientific Playa]

It took my brother in law's new wife from South Africa a year to get her legal papers to immigrate to the US. They got married in SA and will get remarried here in the states this month. She's a migrant.
All those folks crossing the border with no paperwork are illegals plain and simple.

 

[kevm3]

Apparently not. Looks like there's never been waves of penniless Italians, Irish, Jews, Poles, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Nigerians, Chinese, etc etc who ended up living in slums and ghettoes and worked their ass off so their children and grandchildren could live better than they did.

This latest wave is the end of the world, never happened before. It's not like there's a big ass statue in the harbor that says "give me your poor"

Huge difference between controlling your immigration through a legal process and in millions coming across the border unvetted. New York is having a tough time handling a fraction that southern border states are receiving.

 

[kevm3]

The reality is that there's barely any jobs for Americans and Americans can barely afford to pay the bills, so to let the gate open to millions of unvetted migrants is a recipe for disaster.

The Democratic party has adopted utterly idiotic policies to try to secure a Latino voter base and there are going to be huge issues because of that. A lot of legal Latino citizens DON'T want millions of undocumented migrants coming over because 'Latino' isn't a monolith and many of the groups don't get along or even care about each other like that and even ones of the same group don't want their wages to plummet or they got in legally and are angry to see people who circumvented the system get the same, if not MORE benefits than them.

Combine a lot of people from 3rd world countries coming in, no jobs for citizens or noncitizens alike and the jobs that are available are low-paid and you have a limited police presence and you have a powder keg ready to explode.

 

[the next guy]

Are people not aware there are other cities besides NY LA and Chicago?

 

[banner34]

Because it’s more opportunities and jobs in ny

 

[banner34]

Are people not aware there are other cities besides NY LA and Chicago?

There is no money in the other cities or housing that can hold up thousands for immigrants

 

[King Poetic]

Sanctuary City.. just like LA , Chicago and a few other up north places

 

[ShadowBroker]

Apparently not. Looks like there's never been waves of penniless Italians, Irish, Jews, Poles, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Nigerians, Chinese, etc etc who ended up living in slums and ghettoes and worked their ass off so their children and grandchildren could live better than they did.

This latest wave is the end of the world, never happened before. It's not like there's a big ass statue in the harbor that says "give me your poor"

because immigrants have always come to new york

or are migrants only non-european

It definitely morphed into that but I want to make sure people know that the Statue of Liberty is an ADOS woman, she has broken chains at her feet. It was designed by a French man to celebrate the abolishment of slavery.

White racist America couldn’t stand that so they repurposed it to stand for immigrants/migrants.

It was ours before it was anyone else’s.