If you were writing the rules for asylum eligibility, what would they be?

If you were writing the rules for asylum eligibility, what would they be?

This is a difficult question because there do have to be some rules and I’m definitely not happy with the current severe restrictions but I don’t really feel I could possibly presume to determine what they should be. I would just like to quote something that was in the Dallas Morning News today in Letters to the Editor. This a response from one boy of a fourth grade class that wrote responses to a question the paper asked, “How should Texans of faith help refugees?”
This was written by fourth grader Sebastian Medina:
“I believe that refugees have the right as humankind to live in a safe community. We should value them as God values us. With refugees and immigrants, we have become a state with many different cultures, and I love that.”
Me too.

The asylum seekers would need to be those fleeing persecution, gang retribution, or in need of specialized medical care not available in their own countries. There will always be special circumstances and those would need to be reviewed on an individual basis.

They cannot be written in one small box at the bottom of a book discussion. there will not only be requirements for eligibility but also exclusions from eligibility such as criminal records, drug involvement , etc etc etd

The dehumanizing process in place now has to change. Each person needs to be treated in a human way, keeping families together, having legal representation and translators, staying in human facilities. The U.S. needs workers, especially agricultural and service workers, it's crazy for us not to save these people and help ourselves at the same time. We need to investigate to avoid letting in criminals, but we aren't doing that. AND to seek out the undocumented who have been successful in the U.S., who have family here and have contributed, and not giving them a way to citizenship is inhuman on our part.

I totally agree with Navy Mom. You so hear the argument that illegals are stealing jobs from Americans, but more often than not, they fill the jobs that no American wants.

I would much rather money we were spending on big, beautiful walls and for-profit detention centers be used to hire attorneys, judges, and in-take officers so that people could move through the process more quickly. In the same podcast Davina mentioned on another thread, in-take officers were interviewed. Many of them were sick to their stomachs with what they were being asked to do with the current in-take questionnaire. Many could no longer keep their job. It violated their moral codes. If we are going to use a simple questionnaire to assess something as complicated as another's life, we shouldn't be trying to trip them up the whole time we are asking for them to tell us their stories. We can and should be doing better by the children who find themselves alone at our door or separated from their parents once they arrive. Maybe we need to rely on volunteers and non-profits to oversee the process- -those who are not consumed with making more money than they spend or hoping to receive campaign contributions.

No, I don't think we are going to set any policy in a book discussion, but I think the fact that we are thinking about what we want and sharing ideas with one another is important. I saw how so much more competently, Deming, New Mexico handled their influx of migrants this summer than the government did. And that all began with a small group of people having a conversation.

I'm just glad I'm not the one making the decisions. I think completely open borders are untenable for any country and making the decisions on who is IN and who is OUT is Solomonic.