Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsImmigrationStarted 1yr agoActive 20hrs ago

Should asylum seekers be required to remain in Mexico while their cases are processed?

This policy, often referred to as "Remain in Mexico," requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while U.S. immigration courts review their claims. It aims to manage the flow of asylum cases and reduce pressure on U.S. facilities. Proponents argue that it prevents overcrowding in U.S. detention centers, deters frivolous claims, and ensures an orderly asylum process. Opponents argue that it places vulnerable individuals in dangerous conditions, denies them adequate legal support, and violates international asylum protections.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

State:

Congressional District (2014-2024):

County:

State Senate District:

City:

Assembly District:

544 Replies

 @B46VKHT from Virginia  answered…1yr1Y

This presumed a racial profile claiming that asylum seekers are only regard to Mexico rather than the whole support status. I think in general they should wait status for approval in the current country they are in depending on the circumstances like a dictorial government like a corruption of power like Haiti, North Korea and others alike. If requiring the fleeing from one home country to find another of peace and livilyhood. It should be understood that proper measures are put in place but also audited to all accounts like a Government agency meaning to be audited as well.

 @BDY5T4W  from Virginia  answered…1wk1W

There should be a neutral zone that is funded by the USA and Mexico

 @BDY5T4W  from Virginia  answered…1wk1W

I feel like there should be a neutral zone amongst the boarder. It paid by Mexico and the USA

 @BCWTYPB from Virginia  answered…2mos2MO

We should not be taking in any asylum seekers whatsoever

 @B9RYBPD from Virginia  answered…5mos5MO

Depends on the country they're seeking asylum from and where they are currently located. I'm find with them waiting in the US as long as they remain in the area near the court handling it. On that note, more immigration judges are needed to hear these claims.

 @B7MNM9B from Virginia  answered…8mos8MO

No they should be allowed into the US over watch to get them away from the reason they are seeking asylum until their cases are processed.

 @B756MPQ from Virginia  answered…9mos9MO

I think asylum seekers should be held in an intermediary area within the United States while their cases are processed.

 @B728HZ2 from Virginia  answered…9mos9MO

Depending on person i believe we should have a secure government facility for individuals threatened by the cartel

 @B2ZXNMB from Virginia  answered…1yr1Y

it depends if their cases are very bad or ok. if the case is bad then no but if the case is ok enough then yes.

 @BDKSMFN  from Virginia  answered…1mo1MO

No. They are seeking asylum in the USA for a reason and should remain in the USA while their cases are processing

 @BDKSMFN  from Virginia  answered…1mo1MO

No, they are seeking asylum in our country for a reason and should be in our country while the case is being processed

 @james123earle from Virginia  commented…7mos7MO

This should say "asylum seekers from Mexico" to be clear about this specific policy. Alternatively, it should be changed to the general case ("remain in their country of origin") with the "Remain in Mexico" policy provided only as a specific example.

Either way, the question kind of exposes how racist, impractical, and outright harmful such a policy truly is. If you're seeking asylum because you fear for your life or are fleeing unjust persecution and whatnot in your country of origin, it is *obviously* unreasonable for us to send you back. The solution to our own limited processing capacity is not to compound other people's suffering.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies