One of the issues is that our existing Asylum Program is being raped hard.
In theory, I don't have a problem with the idea that folks that are in truly dire straights in other countries could apply for, and receive refuge in the US. In practice, there's a number of problems with the program including the length of time that it takes to get approval to travel out of somewhere supposedlly dangerous, to the US's inability to decide amongst ourselves how many refugees we'd care to shelter.
On top of that, the current administration is using that frame work to allow anyone that shows up at the border from anywhere slightly poorer or more dangerous than the US to enter the Asylum system, regardless of the actual state of the people at home. Hence the economic migrants seeking "asylum". But everyone that says the magic words gets a hearing.
I'm not sure of its current state, or whether this was a UN or some other international agreement, but I'd still like to know whatever happened to "first safe country" for asylum seekers. It seems like in many instances, not only the first, but the second and third countries tell people to get lost, or else even help them reach our border, and then in they come with nary a glance.
I agree that our (and other countries - hello Mexico) system needs an overhaul, but part of that needs to include saying no to people that are gaming the asylum system, and telling them to get lost or get in line with the people legally migrating (and again, that needs to be streamlined). "Overhaul" should include a modern version of Ellis Island, where people are legally and medically screened. It wouldn't hurt to re-institute the old system, where people needed to show that they wouldn't be a financial burden, or else had a sponsor.
