Could we stop with "these are asylum seekers" nonsense

DougBH · 2024-04-21T08:08:22.406Z

There were some good things in the Senate bill. Remove the poison pill of preventing a future President from securing our border 365 days per year at any level of illegal entry, and go for it. It would pass. Or just pass HR2. Or just reinstate Trumps policies made under current law. The border will be secure.

Eagle-Keeper · 2024-04-21T14:05:14.818Z

DougBH:

There were some good things in the Senate bill.

There’s really nothing in this bill (regarding enforcement) that’s not already in current law. Here’s how Marco Rubio put it:

*Let’s be clear. There have never been zero illegal people getting into America. But how did this happen? Let’s start with our law, because when people talk about immigration around here, they pretend like immigration is completely unregulated. They say, “We need new laws to fix it, because the laws are all messed up, and we don’t regulate the law.” Immigration is a complex area of law, but at its core, quite simple. Here’s what immigration law in America is. It says: “These are the people that are allowed to be in the United States of America, and if someone who is not allowed to be in the United States of America enters illegally, you are to detain them through removal,” meaning you are to detain them until their case is resolved or they are removed from the country. *

That is the law of the United States, and that’s been the law of the United States for quite some time. Now, we’ve always had exceptions. They’re narrow exceptions. For example, if the Dalai Lama shows up at the border of the United States and says, “I’m here because the Chinese are trying to kill me,” you can grant him an exception. These are supposed to be narrow exceptions, and they’re supposed to apply to individuals, case by case. But for the first time in American history, the president of the United States has decided to make the exception into the rule. It became the rule that if you arrived here, we would not detain you. I just gave you the numbers of the people who were released. The exceptions ate up the rule, and that’s how this happens.

He goes on:

They don’t know what the immigration law is. Here’s what they know. They know people that have come here, turned themselves in, said, “I’m here blah blah blah,” and were released. They know people who did it, and those people tell other people, and the traffickers advertise it. Human beings are incentive-based creatures. That’s why we pass laws to punish crime. That’s why we raise taxes on cigarettes. When people know that if you can make it inside of the United States and turn yourself in, your chances of being released are 85%, 90%, more people are going to come. The numbers don’t lie.

But the worst part of this utterly ■■■■ bill is that it effectively changes asylum to pretty much fit ANYONE showing up at the border!

The law says they can do it under the convention against torture, which is an international treaty. But let me tell you how that’s been applied. How it’s been applied is that the convention against torture isn’t just used against, “We’re going to send you back somewhere where they’re going to waterboard you.” How the convention against torture has been applied is, most of the activist groups argue that we cannot remove people from this country if we’re going to send them back to a place where they might be kidnapped or where they might be assaulted, not by just the government, but by non-government criminal gangs. Basically, if you come from a country where gangs kidnap people, kill people, extort people, threaten people, and assault people, we cannot send you back there, under the convention of torture. That’s their interpretation of it. My friends, that’s like 100 countries on Earth. That’s almost every country represented in the number of people that arrive at the border.

Striker840 · 2024-04-21T20:21:46.257Z

STODR:

WHAT Allan was wrong again with his facts?

Wait, he told me he was NEVER wrong and ONLY used facts…

biggestal99 · 2024-04-22T10:09:04.965Z

mot1man:

They don’t care. Al, and those like him(progressives), do not give two ■■■■■ how much damage is caused by the invasion of our country.

not a prog.

Allan

Chris_Monti · 2024-04-22T10:47:54.508Z

The concept of asylum indeed has a complex and multifaceted history, deeply intertwined with global conflicts, human rights, and international law. While it’s true that the modern legal framework for asylum primarily emerged in response to wartime situations, its application has evolved to encompass a broader range of circumstances, including persecution on account of various social factors beyond just war-related issues.

biggestal99 · 2024-04-22T12:36:06.586Z

Chris_Monti:

The concept of asylum indeed has a complex and multifaceted history, deeply intertwined with global conflicts, human rights, and international law. While it’s true that the modern legal framework for asylum primarily emerged in response to wartime situations, its application has evolved to encompass a broader range of circumstances, including persecution on account of various social factors beyond just war-related issues.

exactly. asylum has evolved into what it is now.

asylum laws were enacted into United states law in 1952 and modified 10 times (last time in 2008) needs some more tweaking.

Allan

Rodeo · 2024-04-22T13:30:36.577Z

biggestal99:

exactly. asylum has evolved into what it is now.

asylum laws were enacted into United states law in 1952 and modified 10 times (last time in 2008) needs some more tweaking.

Allan

No we just need to actually focus on stopping the flow of people coming illegally into the country swamping the system in the process.

There is no good reason, none, for more than 10 million, probably 11 or 12 now…to have entered this country illegally in record setting fashion over the last three years.

It is not our responsibility to just take everyone who wants to bee bop into this country. We have a right and a responsibility to vet immigrants, to determine who and how many will be allowed and fit what purpose.

Seriously are you insane because the results of the ideas you keep defending are pure insanity.

biggestal99 · 2024-04-22T16:07:55.673Z

Rodeo:

No we just need to actually focus on stopping the flow of people coming illegally into the country swamping the system in the process.

but they arent illegal! they are legit asylum seekers. they fill out the paperwork and everything.

Allan

Guvnah · 2024-04-22T22:36:02.050Z

biggestal99:

but they arent illegal! they are legit asylum seekers.

This whole thread tells you that you need to stow it.

Rodeo · 2024-04-22T22:46:19.482Z

biggestal99:

but they arent illegal! they are legit asylum seekers.

The overwhelming majority are not.

biggestal99 · 2024-04-23T08:49:49.013Z

Guvnah:

This whole thread tells you that you need to stow it.

and as long as immigrants continue to follow US law, i wont.

Allan

biggestal99 · 2024-04-23T08:51:27.968Z

Rodeo:

The overwhelming majority are not

and thats why we have immigration judges.

to separate the wheat from the chaff.

its a really easy concept.

change the asylum law if you can.

Allan

DougBH · 2024-04-23T09:35:59.740Z

So, when selling asylum, let’s not falsely fall back on something like Jewish refuges in WWII Germany. As you say, that is not what we are talking about. And let’s agree that no law or tradition accepts economic necessity (and certainly not just want) as asylum.
Rather than say the definition of asylum has changed, I would say some are selling as asylum that which is not asylum.

biggestal99 · 2024-04-23T09:41:34.088Z

DougBH:

So, when selling asylum, let’s not falsely fall back on something like Jewish refuges in WWII Germany. As you say, that is not what we are talking about. And let’s agree that no law or tradition accepts economic necessity (and certainly not just want) as asylum.
Rather than say the definition of asylum has changed, I would say some are selling as asylum that which is not asylum.

well i will agree that too many people are claiming asylum noted by the asylum grants v deportations after the immigration courts have have their say. of course the most difficult thing is determining a true asylum seeker from a phony one.

Allan

Rodeo · 2024-04-23T12:26:41.425Z

biggestal99:

well i will agree that too many people are claiming asylum noted by the asylum grants v deportations after the immigration courts have have their say. of course the most difficult thing is determining a true asylum seeker from a phony one.

Allan

What you fail to recognize and will never admit is this.

This president has been terrible, particularly on the border.

We know that an overwhelming majority of your precious asylum claims are rejected. We know further that this administration has allowed the system to be overwhelmed. As a result there are asylum hearings that have been extended out 8-10 years. I’m not going to repost the links that’s all been discussed and you won’t read them anyway.

What are we supposed to do with these people for a decade?

And we know despite all the braindead leftwing ■■■■■■■■ that the border was at its most secure in more than 40 years when Trump left and Biden moved in. Biden rescinded all of the policies that were working and plunged us into this nightmare, the result being well over 10 maybe 11 or 12 million illegals entering this country from if memory serves like 100+ countries. The cartels have gotten rich, human trafficking and fentanyl deaths are at all time highs and the system is overwhelmed.

We also know this…the Biden’s have both lied repeatedly about the status of the border it’s never been secure they’ve never had operational control and those border agents never strapped anybody.

And we know that existing laws aren’t even being followed as was outlined in the Mayorkas impeachment that fraud Schumer ignored, so stop telling us “change the asylum laws”, talk about moving the deck chairs around on the titanic. Your stupid “asylum” argument is pointless when looking at the big picture. No responsible leader of this or any country would allow the level of foreign invasion and the system overload it has created that Biden has allowed. The House should have impeached Biden and Mayorkas as a double play because these are Biden’s failed policies mayorkas has been lying to us all about.

Part of me feels sorry for anyone who is so liberal blind as to not see the nightmare this administration and the Democrat party have created resulting in an unprecedented invasion of America by largely unvetted foreign nationals from all over the world and the death, destruction, crime, and all the money it’s costing all of us.

Even if everyone of these so called “asylum seekers”, they aren’t that’s just what the cartels told them to say so stupid liberals would endorse their illegitimate arrival into the country…

But even if they all were legit there is no excuse, none for the shear volume of people Biden and Mayorkas have allowed to just walk into America. None. We as a nation are not required to just let anyone come…we have a right and responsibility as a nation to determine who gets in, who stays, who goes, and what benefit that person will bring.

You libs seem to have missed that part.

When the system is so overwhelmed that the alleged asylum seekers are being given notices to appear 8 years from now, no one will show for that, then responsible leadership would take meaningful steps to slow the flow. The only responsible leader in this whole disaster has been governor Abbott and the idiot Biden has fought him every step of the way.

Would have cost a helluva lot less to just keep the policies in place that were working doncha think?

Rodeo · 2024-04-23T12:52:21.598Z

Sorry that was really long.

biggestal99 · 2024-04-23T15:08:39.694Z

Rodeo:

We know that an overwhelming majority of your precious asylum claims are rejected

depends on the country (Figures from 2023)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/dl

south and central america and Mexico asylum decisions in 2023

Brazil 10%
cuba 5%
el salvador 9%
guatamala 8%
hondorous 7%
nicarurga 23%
mexico 4%
Venezaula 28%

so we have the very low countries (1 in 20 genuine asylum seekers)
mid countries (1 in 12)
and the high countries (1 in 4)

Allan

Rodeo · 2024-04-23T15:19:56.679Z

biggestal99:

depends on the country (Figures from 2023)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/dl

south and central america and Mexico asylum decisions in 2023

Brazil 10%
cuba 5%
el salvador 9%
guatamala 8%
hondorous 7%
nicarurga 23%
mexico 4%
Venezaula 28%

so we have the very low countries (1 in 20 genuine asylum seekers)
mid countries (1 in 12)
and the high countries (1 in 4)

Allan

So the best you can do is less than 25%. I should just rest my case.

None of that is worth the chaos, expense, homelessness, fentanyl deaths, now mounting migrant crime being created in America by this stupid process that has overwhelmed the border and numerous American streets and cities.

We have a right and moreover a responsibility to determine who will and will not be allowed in this country.

It’s not our responsibility to just take anybody who can pay off the cartels and then meander across that big river at the Texas border.

biggestal99 · 2024-04-23T15:29:17.843Z

Rodeo:

None of that is worth the chaos, expense, homelessness, fentanyl deaths, now mounting migrant crime being created in America by this stupid process that has overwhelmed the border and numerous American streets and cities.

and that were we disagree. to save a person from persecution by granting asylum is when America is at its best. lets say for comparion there was no asylum (or refugee) process for the United states. you would throw out the truly deserving along with the pretenders.

in my america, it is worth it to save people.

in your america, it is not.

simple disagreement among citizens.

Allan

DougBH · 2024-04-23T16:11:03.406Z

You might have an argument in normal times. That was all thrown out when a certain politician announced to the world that asylum seekers should serge our border.
Until our border is back under control, we need to reinstitute remain in Mexico,…or in a third country.

But no to “remain in Texas”.