Why not? And why was she named as the best qualified person and appointed and then was fired? Doesn't say much for her does it. Was it the laughing about it or calling the border agents the same as the KKK?
Your cite... https://news.yahoo.com/scoop-biden-administration-expelled-just-094545185.html ... doesn't identify a source for the percentage. You're the guy making claims.
As you make all your claims with no links....you think we are supposed to just take your word? I dont think so.
When kids were in cages under the past administration, Righties countered with the fact that Obama did it first. Now that the Dems are in charge of the border, the Righties are ignoring the past. I agree with you - prosecuting employers would be a far more effective strategy to eliminate the allure of coming to America - no jobs, no point. But then you'll always hear those who say migrants don't come for jobs - they believe they come for the free stuff and the ability to vote.
That's the key, IMO. We need a more effective e-verify system that makes illegals radioactive for potential employers. Ideally, the system should be one where every employer, even of domestics and day labor, has the capacity to check in real time if a potential employee is entitled to work here. The evidence is that come for work.
*** Suggestion to EVERYONE in this debate, Left and Right *** We wouldn't have any "crisis", any "children-in-cages", expense of tens of millions of dollars on hotels to put "migrants" in, sending diseased 'migrants' to federal facilities all over the U. S., or any of the rest of this unnecessary HORROR STORY if we would do one thing: Have all of those who wish to immigrate to the United States apply at the American Consulate or American Embassy in the country where they are currently citizens -- and then wait until their application is ruled on, one way or the other. The only people who should be admitted with a claim of "asylum" at our border are those who can prove (PROVE) that they are currently being hunted by hostile forces that are trying to do them actual physical harm. NO EXCEPTIONS! End of "crisis" problem....
Sure - that's a logical expectation. But perhaps you can explain how someone can prove they are currently being hunted.
The burden of proof is always upon the person making the claim, Pants. Otherwise, you could have just anybody wandering up to a border checkpoint and making any ridiculous, unproven claim -- or just shouting, "Asilo!" (Asylum!) -- as they are doing right now! Even worse, American-based 'immigrant advocacy groups' teach migrants to do this when they get to the border! Think it's bad now? Just wait until about six months from now -- it's going to be complete, out-of-control MAYHEM!
Surely, while burdon of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, there is a list of acceptable proof somewhere?
A "list of acceptable proof" for asylum...? I'm sure a local chapter of the ACLU, or any 'immigrant advocacy' organization has a ready-made list, printed in several different languages for easy use. That, TOO, is a big part of the problem. A applicant for asylum should be able to speak in very clear, definite terms if they know they are being hunted by hostile forces sent against them by alien governments -- they shouldn't need a damned SCRIPT!
Dramatics aside, shouldn't there be a list of acceptable situations which would aid the immigration department in judging the claims of asylum seekers? We know there is a definition of other crimes - criteria that must be met in order to consider the crime. Why not for asylum seeking?