Asylum seekers are eligible to apply for a work permit 150 days after the interview at the asylum office, so they can usually provide for themselves.  And I'm not talking about people with serious criminal convictions--I may not agree with locking them up indefinitely after they've already served their time for previous convictions, but at least there's a facially plausible policy basis for that decision.  Sometimes the government has alleged that an asylum-seeker provided material support to terrorist groups (for instance if someone is a member of a resistance group the U.S. doesn't like or was kidnapped and forced to provide slave labor to such a resistance group) but that's a relatively small number of these cases.  So no, it's not obvious to me that "they pose a threat to public safety or they cannot provide for themselves."

some pose a threat to public safety; and some cannot provide for themselves.  I think we can both agree about that.

What?  Did you read anything I wrote?  Repeating yourself does not constitute an argument.

lol he just skipped...

Dave;
Whoa, I guess I'm the one lol.  Note, I changed "they" to "some", in order to try to find some common ground with you, and come to something we can both agree upon.  Yes, I concede that the number who need to be detained is very small.  I only want to determine 'how small'.  What exactly are the numbers?  Because if you don't have the data, how can you ever hope to solve the problem?
Naturally, you would want to detain torturers, sex predators, and military deserters.  Perhaps, terrorists, violent gang members, and those advocating the  violent overthrow of American government.  Those escaping justice for murder, rape, theft, child abuse and abandonment, parking tickets, etc.   Drug users, pushers, and smugglers.  Smugglers of contraband - weapons; forbidden fruits and vegetables, slaves;  Those with health issues - TB and HIV-infected, and the mentally-ill - suicidal, schizophrenic etc.
Can you give me some idea of how many of these type of people cross our borders illegally, and/or overstay their visas? .00001% out of 1 million annually, perhaps?  You tell me.  I'm all ears.

The undocumented population is hard to measure.

But the percentages are small.  INS/DHS formed special Fugitive Ops teams specifically to go after criminals.  Congress threw hundreds of millions of dollars their way.  But before long, the FOTs started to run low on targets and started going after people with no criminal record.

By 2007, "fugitives with criminal records dropped to 9 percent of those arrested."  And:

"Three-quarters of the criminal fugitive aliens arrested in FY 2007 had committed nonviolent crimes, such as shoplifting . . .  fugitive aliens posing a threat to the community or with a violent criminal conviction represented just 2 percent of all FOT [Fugitive Operations Teams] arrests in FY 2007."

http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/dhs_pursues_dangerous_fugitive_gardeners_nannies

So the numbers are low.

Not your imagination.

There is a reason immigration is on the back burner. The public(even Latinos) care about more domestic issues, such as health care, education, social security, and most importantly the economy.  To reply to the topic of asylum seekers. It is difficult to prove your case if you seek asylum. You have to have proof showing your accusations. I cannot defend it nor criticize it because I don't know the how the procedure is handled. Though I don't believe they put them in jail. I know a girl who has a friend who is seeking asylum. She says that the road is difficult, but said nothing about being in jail.

I think whenever something progressive is attempted on the immigration issue, the immigration attorneys get all bent out of shape.  And they have some powerful representation in the government e.g. Zoe Lofgren.  The more messed up our system remains, the more revenue for them.

There are a variety of situations in which asylum-seekers with no criminal record are put in jail pending resolution of their cases.  For instance, the subject of the article above.  

And AILA, representing in large part attorneys who handle employment-based visas, was one of the more centrist voices during the CIR debates of the last several years.  

I am touched by your comment, Alex. The dreamers (and all undocumented peoples) are the very folks who inspire me with hope and "courage"...because my struggles are nothing compared with yours.  I was just reading about one of your fellow dreamers, Karina De La Cruz, over at Citizen Orange (the blog "Inspiration").  I wish I could say something to give you more hope, but I know how difficult things are for you.  All I can say is, I know you've had a long, hard journey and I'm glad you are here. We love you and want you here...the haters can go back to whatever hole they crawled out of! (sorry, I'm feeling a bit out of sorts tonight).

Granted the treatment of asylum-seekers in the US is dismal.  But where are they treated any better?  Cuba, Russia, China?  Sweden?  Holland?  Germany? South Africa?  Australia?  In principal, an asylum-seeker must claim asylum in the first convention-supporting nation they enter.  However, many delay their asylum claim until they enter the US, because of the better treatment they will receive.  I think the system is frankly overwhelmed. But the US accepts more refugees than any other nation, by far.  So it's not like we're not doing our part.

Cuba, Russia, or China are not countries to aspire to be like in terms of treatment of outsiders.

Asylum-seekers are treated better in Canada and I believe in the UK, though I know they've been detained in the UK in the past.  I don't know much about asylum in other European countries.  But I've not seen stories of asylum-seekers in Germany or France being locked up for years on end like they are here in the U.S. 

"many delay their asylum claim until they enter the US, because of the better treatment they will receive." 

If someone settles in another country before coming to the U.S., it's much harder for them to get asylum here.  And the point of my post above is that they don't get treated better here, they get treated worse. 

The U.S. may accept more refugees in absolute terms, but we also have a much larger population than any European state.  And we bear more responsibility for refugees where we've created or exacerbated the problem: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Central America, Palestine.

I dunno, Dave.  I strongly disagree with you on a couple of points, such as:

Maybe each country should be rated with an asylee-friendly index.  Canada and Germany at the top, then the US, and at the bottom, Australia (for accepting a whoping 16), Russia, China, Mexico.  I am puzzled when you write "they don't get treated better here (USA), they get treated worse.  Worse than who?  Germany and Canada?

There was a famous asylum-seeker in France - he "lived" at Charles deGaulle airport  He couldn't get out.  Absolute limbo. This case definitely lowers France's asylee-friendly index by several points.

The USA accepts more than all of the EU - that's 400 million people.  The fact that the US has a larger population than any single European state is no justification for the US to accept more refugees - we should be accepting fewer because our country is already overpopulated.  I do not understand your logic. And we didn't create the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Central America, and Palestine.  We're the good guys - the shining city on the hill - spreading democracy. By your logic, Israel should be accepting all the Arab refugees and Germany should be accepting all the Jewish refugees, and China all the Tibetan refugees. 

from what did you see that this country is over populated??... do you consider the fact of the "population per square mile"... it looks overpopulated to you b/c you see Florida, California, New York; have a large amounts of people. I dont see anyone moving to the middle of the country, the population there its soo low. If you go down by New Jersey you see one house in every half a mile. compared to the land mass of the U.S. 800 million is not alot. Cities are bound to have more people, more jammed up. Every city you go to, its gona have a large amounts of people, thats why skyscrapers were created. Skyscrapers were created back in 1800's to acumilate the vast population in a small area. Manhattan, Tokyo, Chicago, Hong Kong, Berlin, Paris, London.

if you travel out in the middle of the United States, you will pray to see someone. I know trust me, because I've gone to every state in this country. During the 13 colonies, no one wanted to move west, until the gold rush, but from eat to west, and no one in mid-America.

and in your comment "And we didn't create the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Central America, and Palestine"... um not directly, your not spreading democracy, your spreading fear and udjust yourself as the BOSS of the world. Same reason as the Soviet Union and its communism, they wanted POWER. a little off topic here.

you havent lived in a communist era; i have. things are a little diferent from what you read. Why doesn't the U.S go and free the millions butchered in Suddan and Darfur?... correct me if im wrong.

and the other nations sutch as Canada, Australia, England, Germany... they are nations of basically one race, they were formed by nationals stand alone. The U.S started as a nation of immigrants, when the Italians and Irish came here off the boat, the nativists wanted to kill them all...

couple of things i agree with you and your supporters... i want the border to be secure, i want people to be proud of their home country, BUT put this country first. most workers dont want to live here, they just come here for jobs. the Dreamies want to live here.

take care.

"we should be accepting fewer because our country is already overpopulated."

There is a premise and a conclusion there that I disagree with.  Down the road, that mentality leads to a Children of Men scenario where the wealthy few live fenced in, protected lives surrounded by masses of poor.

Children of Men scenario?  What is this weird stuff you're talking about?  I'd lime to remind you that smoking pot leads to heroin addiction.

from what did you see that this country is over populated??

Look around you Alex and you can see the warning signs.  The many other species going extinct,  The ever scarcer water supplies.  Increased famine.  Increased greenhouse gases.  A blind man can see it but apparently you can't.
800 million in the US?  The environmentalists are simply not going to let that happen.  The US has the same landarea as China, the most populated nation - we are 3rd.  At the end of the century the US will have over 1 billion people.  China, at 1.3 billion has a state mandated population control policy. In the next century the US will have a state mandated population control policy.  Let take action now to avoid the catastrophe then.   Alex, are you a Ruskie?

i have no idea why i wrote 800 million, i got confused with another nation, its 300 million, sorry for the mistake. increased greenhouse gases dont come from the U.S being overpopulated. U.S produces the most greenhouse gases, thats because some of us drive those huge monstretrucks down the road. China has the biggest poppulation, but yet it doesnt make the biggest C02 emmisions.

And U.S actually has a bigger land mass than China. Add to the fact that China's land is mostly mountanious. U.S is equavently flat in most areas, open you geographical atlas.

About placing a cap to how many children you could have, i agree with you. im not gona name who, have 6-7 kids and live on welfare.

U.S.A being the world's 3rd most populated country, its way off from #2 India (behind 700 million)... so yea we have alot of catching up to do.

U.S also has a lower birth to death ratio. for some reason people die alot here. more than they are born.

off topic, but you cant blame overpopulation on immigration. most of the people u see on the street corners waiting for a construction van to pull along, they dont want to stay here. they just want to work and go back.

(my numbers are not exact, i got lazy not to open up the statistics).

and nope, im not Ruskie.

Alex;     You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

ha,ha...yeah, Bill Maher must be channeling my thoughts! Please don't stress over the words of some ignoramus.  The haters are a dying breed, while you are young and full of potential (that's probably why you threaten them). I think you could be a good advocate for social justice because you know what injustice feels like. You are the future of this country. So, hold your head high and don't let the bastards get you down, Alex! ;-)

You are the future of this country

God help us!

Kurt theres many who dont agree with us... but your just one of a kind.

you just remind me of Joe the plumber. lol. start your own t.v reality show "Kurt Knows Best"...