Op-ed: To end illegal immigration, don’t fix the asylum system — abolish it

[rangerrebew]

Op-ed: To end illegal immigration, don’t fix the asylum system — abolish it
 
By Mark Krikorian on April 10, 2025
Joe Biden’s border crisis is over. It didn’t take new laws, just a new president.

But it’s only a temporary reprieve. What happens next time we get a president — as we will — with Biden’s border philosophy?

Nothing can completely Biden-proof the border (as it were). But one important change would make it much harder for a President Jasmine Crockett or President Gavin Newsom to illegally usher in millions more illegal aliens.

End asylum.

After all, the Democrats’ rationale for admitting all those millions of illegal border-crossers was that they had a “right” to claim asylum, the legal protections offered to political or religious refugees.

Many never even bothered to apply, but those who did produced an immigration-court backlog that may never be cleared.

That means these illegal-alien applicants will get to stay (and work) here “legally” for years before their hearing dates arrive — having kids, buying homes, putting down roots.

And when they lose, as most will, how are we supposed to find and remove them?

A new Heritage Foundation report laid out several important ways to reform and restrict asylum.

Such changes would be great first steps, but they don’t go nearly far enough.

Asylum needs to be abolished altogether.

https://cis.org/Krikorian/Oped-end-illegal-immigration-dont-fix-asylum-system-abolish-it

[Fishrrman]

Good article.

END asylum.

But more than that...
END immigration, period -- for at least 50 years, possibly FOREVER.
No more "immigrants".
We have enough people.
The United States is "full up".

¡No mas!

[The_Reader_David]

We have enough people.
The United States is "full up".

Where do you live?  The United States has vast empty spaces, some of which are used to be populated and are now depopulating (e.g. Western Kansas).  Also our fertility rate of 1.787 births per woman is below replacement rate of 2.08 live births per woman.  The only reason the US is not in a demographic death-spiral like most countries in East Asia and Western Europe is that we accept immigrants.

We need a proper immigration system that lets us know who is arriving, lets us exclude undesirables, regulates the number who arrive, but generally keeps attracting those seeking the freedom our Constitution provides and willing to contribute to American society wherever they hail from.  That means completely suppressing illegal immigration, but not ending immigration.  Maybe you should read the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, and consider the role immigrants fleeing Nazism had it building American science.  Accepting those genuinely fleeing persecution was part of what made America great in the first place.

[Kamaji]

Where do you live?  The United States has vast empty spaces, some of which are used to be populated and are now depopulating (e.g. Western Kansas).  Also our fertility rate of 1.787 births per woman is below replacement rate of 2.08 live births per woman.  The only reason the US is not in a demographic death-spiral like most countries in East Asia and Western Europe is that we accept immigrants.

We need a proper immigration system that lets us know who is arriving, lets us exclude undesirables, regulates the number who arrive, but generally keeps attracting those seeking the freedom our Constitution provides and willing to contribute to American society wherever they hail from.  That means completely suppressing illegal immigration, but not ending immigration.  Maybe you should read the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, and consider the role immigrants fleeing Nazism had it building American science.  Accepting those genuinely fleeing persecution was part of what made America great in the first place.

[jafo2010]

We enjoy murdering our unborn, so how can this nation ever find its way out of that nonsense.  The legislators of the state of New York literally stood and applaud the ability for women to have abortion up to the moment of birth.  If that isn't barbarism, what is?  To me that is every bit as bad as cannibalism. 

We are a degenerate society, and we are proud of it.  Until something extreme happens to end the nonsense our country will continue being destroyed. 

[Wingnut]

Where do you live?  The United States has vast empty spaces, some of which are used to be populated and are now depopulating (e.g. Western Kansas).  Also our fertility rate of 1.787 births per woman is below replacement rate of 2.08 live births per woman.  The only reason the US is not in a demographic death-spiral like most countries in East Asia and Western Europe is that we accept immigrants.

We need a proper immigration system that lets us know who is arriving, lets us exclude undesirables, regulates the number who arrive, but generally keeps attracting those seeking the freedom our Constitution provides and willing to contribute to American society wherever they hail from.  That means completely suppressing illegal immigration, but not ending immigration.  Maybe you should read the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, and consider the role immigrants fleeing Nazism had it building American science.  Accepting those genuinely fleeing persecution was part of what made America great in the first place.

You are so last century.  But I accept nothing less from a no nothing liberal.

[The_Reader_David]

You are so last century.  But I accept nothing less from a no nothing liberal.

Last century as a pejorative?  I thought we were supposed to be conservatives here.  Conserving good things from the last century is rather minimal, I'd rather like to conserve good things from the 20th, 19th, 18th (remember the American Founding?), 17th (English Bill of Rights anyone, model for our own),..., 13th (the Magna Carta),...

If you want to call me a "liberal", I'll accept, since part of what we American conservatives want to conserve is the American Founding, probably the quintessentially liberal event in the history of the world, with liberal understood in its original meaning -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, free markets -- that's preserved in Australia, where the center-right party is the Liberal Party.

But "no [sic] nothing" I reject.  Trump and his sycophants have more in common with the xenophobic know-nothing political movements of the 19th century than I or any American conservative happy to be recognized as a classical liberal do.

[Kamaji]

Last century as a pejorative?  I thought we were supposed to be conservatives here.  Conserving good things from the last century is rather minimal, I'd rather like to conserve good things from the 20th, 19th, 18th (remember the American Founding?), 17th (English Bill of Rights anyone, model for our own),..., 13th (the Magna Carta),...

If you want to call me a "liberal", I'll accept, since part of what we American conservatives want to conserve is the American Founding, probably the quintessentially liberal event in the history of the world, with liberal understood in its original meaning -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, free markets -- that's preserved in Australia, where the center-right party is the Liberal Party.

But "no [sic] nothing" I reject.  Trump and his sycophants have more in common with the xenophobic know-nothing political movements of the 19th century than I or any American conservative happy to be recognized as a classical liberal do.

[Wingnut]

Last century as a pejorative?  I thought we were supposed to be conservatives here.  Conserving good things from the last century is rather minimal, I'd rather like to conserve good things from the 20th, 19th, 18th (remember the American Founding?), 17th (English Bill of Rights anyone, model for our own),..., 13th (the Magna Carta),...

If you want to call me a "liberal", I'll accept, since part of what we American conservatives want to conserve is the American Founding, probably the quintessentially liberal event in the history of the world, with liberal understood in its original meaning -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, free markets -- that's preserved in Australia, where the center-right party is the Liberal Party.

But "no [sic] nothing" I reject.  Trump and his sycophants have more in common with the xenophobic know-nothing political movements of the 19th century than I or any American conservative happy to be recognized as a classical liberal do.

 The

[But "no [sic] nothing"

told me everything I ever needed to "Know" about you. You are a [sic] person.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Asylum application, adjudication, and award should be done BEFORE the 'asylum seeker' enters the US.

What makes 'asylum seekers' more morally worthy to enter the US other types of migrants?  Why do 'asylum seekers' get to be more equal than others?

Granting 'asylum' to valuable (for intelligence) escapees of adverse Communist regimes made sense during the Cold War.  But, without strict criteria set forth in Laws passed by Congress can't anyone request asylum for any reason, without providing valuable intelligence against an adversary of the United States?

[Hoodat]

I don't have a problem with asylum seekers.  But I have a huge problem with giving taxpayer funded free shit to asylum seekers.

[The_Reader_David]

I don't have a problem with asylum seekers.  But I have a huge problem with giving taxpayer funded free shit to asylum seekers.

Indeed, back when we had a proper immigration system (think Ellis Island), arrivals had to prove they could support themselves and not become a "public charge" (as the term was then).

[Smokin Joe]

Good article.

END asylum.

But more than that...
END immigration, period -- for at least 50 years, possibly FOREVER.
No more "immigrants".
We have enough people.
The United States is "full up".

¡No mas!

We're using our asylums wrong...

 

[Smokin Joe]

I don't have a problem with asylum seekers.  But I have a huge problem with giving taxpayer funded free shit to asylum seekers.

Nor do I, but let's raise the bar a little. What do they have to offer? Can they support themselves? I hesitate greatly when it comes to granting asylum to people whose very raison d'etre is in conflict with our way of life (you know who I'm talking about). I don't care if one of their sects is killing the other, that situation could reverse, and with the present system we'd have both in conflict here, with each other and us.
Slow it down, pick and choose, based on real attributes, not maybe might could-be someday stuff.
Those who populated this land during the colonial era and the early days of this nation were a hardy lot, people who exhibited abilities and talents just to survive, especially on the frontiers, that made America what it is. We've opened our doors to those who come here and can't make it in a fully developed (and possibly declining because of it) civilization.
Learn English, work hard, and be innovative, and the American Dram can be within your grasp.
No-loads need not apply.