The WSJ reports, “the Biden administration is in talks to offer immigrant families that were separated during the Trump administration around $450,000 a person in compensation.”

NRCC Comment: “Whenever you think Democrats have reached peak insanity, they one up themselves. Good luck to every vulnerable member who has to defend this position.”– NRCC Spokeswoman Torunn Sinclair

Seems reasonable tbh

I would simply not vote for the guy who separated children from their parents but maybe that's just me

Posted by tangplay on 10/29/2021 11:25:00 PM (view original):
I would simply not vote for the guy who separated children from their parents but maybe that's just me

Agreed, and I would vote for the guy who gave money to the families separated from their children too.

For everyone outraged over this - how much money would you want if your kid was taken away from you by the government for months, and you were both forced to live in ****** conditions, with no guarantee you would ever be reunited again? Or what if you were forcefully stripped from your mother at a young age? That causes some real psychological trauma. I'd probably want more than 500k to be honest. What a disgusting thing for the government to do.

And by the way, it ****** me the **** off when people say that asylum seekers "illegally crossed the border." NO ******* ****. To claim asylum you HAVE to be on the US border, so the only way to claim asylum is to cross the border without a permit. Once you claim asylum, you become a legal immigrant.

I think that the 450,000 is for each member of the family definitely each kid so a family of 4 would get at least 900,000 or a million.

The problem with asylum for the United States is that the process can take years. You have one year to apply for affirmative asylum. That’s probably too much time and the process once it starts can take years. It should be significantly streamlined.
Living in hardship is not a valid reason for asylum and couldn’t be or whole countries would be eligible.

There are way too many people applying who are clearly not eligible and the system needs to be changed to weed out people faster who do not meet the standards.

How exactly would you change the system?

Also, "living in hardship" is already not a valid reason for asylum.

Posted by tangplay on 10/31/2021 12:55:00 PM (view original):
How exactly would you change the system?

Also, "living in hardship" is already not a valid reason for asylum.

I said that living in hardship is not a valid reason for immigration and my post also did talk about improving the system.

Posted by Jetson21 on 10/31/2021 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/31/2021 12:55:00 PM (view original):
How exactly would you change the system?

Also, "living in hardship" is already not a valid reason for asylum.

I said that living in hardship is not a valid reason for immigration and my post also did talk about improving the system.

Read what I write instead of looking for ways to disagree for the sake of that.
It would lead to better discussion.

I am NOT trying to be harsh when I say again that you do not read with comprehension because you even read with an agenda in your mind.

You have one year to apply for affirmative asylum. That’s probably too much time and the process once it starts can take years. It should be significantly streamlined.

How specifically should we do this

As I wrote in my last paragraph the clearly ineligible need to be weeded out much faster.
You would need an upgraded system for that with sufficient qualified personnel and a faster paced process with more judges..and maybe shortening the deadline to apply as one year might be too generous.

the issue is in weeding out the "clearly ineligible," because how do you do that without a trial.

We need more judges, yes, but we also need to reinstate catch and release so asylum seekers aren't held in detention centers while waiting a trial.