the utter caucasity to say "migrants aren't being persecuted, they just want to move here because it's politically freer and less violent"... you do not have to be the target of a literal genocide to be justified in seeking asylum (and if you did, I notice you left off Palestinians in your list of valid asylum-seekers).
migrants from Central America are absolutely being persecuted and killed by drug cartels and gangs. they deserve asylum.
I FAIL TO SEE THE PROBLEM. you claimed asylum, some prick judge took half a decade to decide you don't count, but you're not a violent criminal or a threat to public safety. why should I care if you leave?! why should I want you to leave? you've been here for several years, obviously making a living for yourself and integrating into society, blending in... what's the fucking problem?
worth noting that THAT IS OBTAINING LEGAL PERMISSION. step 1 of the asylum process, which gives you LEGAL PERMISSION to stay in the US while your case is decided, is to set foot on US soil, surrender to border agents and claim asylum. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE *SUPPOSED* TO DO.
"the number of people crossing the border in the 70s was far lower than today" YEAH CAUSE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE PLANET WAS FAR LOWER THAN TODAY, DIPSHIT. YOU HAVE TO COMPARE RATIOS.
@dietotaku That plus the corporate takeover in many countries, that resulted in low incomes.
@BillieBun oh man, i completely forgot about cyclical migration! like, how are they defining "crossing the border"? because it used to be legal for people to just seasonally cross over, work the farms for the season, then go home. but reagan killed cyclical migration, hence the boom in illegal - and more permanent - migration.