Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsImmigrationStarted 1yr agoActive 11hrs 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

 @BCZYXHF from Washington  answered…2mos2MO

No, they should be able to stay in America

 @BCYDSRD from Washington  answered…2mos2MO

No, but they should be under watch of the American government and taken to the same place

 @BCPL2N3  from Washington  answered…2mos2MO

We should only allow asylum claims from neighbor countries.

 @BCPL2N3  from Washington  answered…2mos2MO

We should only allow asylum applications from bordering countries.

 @BCMMYB9 from Washington  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, as long as they are not in immediate danger

 @B9QS57M from Washington  answered…5mos5MO

Immigrants should remain in Mexico until 12 months into processing, when they should be granted temporary asylum in the U.S.

 @B9KPYFSIndependent from Washington  answered…5mos5MO

No, but they should be temporarily, safely, and comfortably housed and monitored by the nearest immigration office to their border entrypoint while their case is processed

 @B9D5RMBDemocrat from Washington  answered…5mos5MO

Case by case basis as some people’s lives are threatened and there have been people that have died in asylum

 @B75MH25 from Washington  answered…9mos9MO

they should have the option to remain in mexico or in a safe house in america while their cases are being processed

 @B5XJ46Q from Washington  answered…12mos12MO

maybe? but these facilities should be run at a higher standard than it sounds like they are currently, and we shouldn't subject asylum seekers to unfair or unsafe conditions, including prolonged waits for processing and distancing them from the support they would benefit from. if we have an asylum policy and want to outsource a part of the steps, it should be done with high attention and management.

 @B2ZWD4QIndependent from Washington  answered…1yr1Y

If they are in physical danger, then there should be a place for them in the US that is like temporary housing while case is processed, quickly.

 @BDQSGQC from Washington  answered…3wks3W

No, but they must stay in regular contact with immigration officials

 @BDJVK36  from Washington  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, but the government should be required to process asylum cases within 90 days.

 @DJThompsonIndependent  from Washington  answered…2mos2MO

Either in Mexico or a low security facility.

 @B8N5K72 from Washington  answered…7mos7MO

No, they should have the option to reside in neutral areas/facilities managed by both American and Mexican soldiers, keeping them out of harm's way if they are escaping violence.

 @B88ZBTKLibertarian from Washington  answered…7mos7MO

It should be their choice to stay in Mexico or a secure "waiting" facility funded by Mexico and U.S with Mexican and American employees to ensure humanity.

 @B6HLKBLWomen’s Equality from Washington  answered…10mos10MO

I feel that they should unless there is a special circumstance that requires them to be in America before their case is processed.

 @B5WBXBX from Washington  answered…12mos12MO

They should have somewhere where they hold those individuals so they aren’t in danger but also remain under authority control until they can be processed.

 @B59FVWMPopulist from Washington  answered…1yr1Y

If they made it to mexico they have no asylum claim worth hearing. Deny all such asylum cases. The only legitimate asylum seekers would be canadian citizens fleeing communism.

 @B2JMZRQ from Washington  answered…1yr1Y

If it’s proven that they are not criminals then I believe it’s okay to have a facility where they can live until their cases are processed. I am understanding that there are cartels in Mexico and people want to escape and live normal lives while at the same time I also understand that criminals do get across the border and drug smuggling.

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