all democrats. 
only dems want to get paid.
Reps want to forego checks and build a wall.
Allan
1 Like
But they should be able to give you a copy of a nice letter from an admiral, requesting your patience and forbearance. So there’s that.
This made me think to contact my management company to tell them to waive any late fees because it isn’t my tenants fault that the President is a man child.
7 Likes
If your last name were Trump, you would just evict them over the situation created, ironically enough, by a man with the last name of Trump. I suspect you are a better person than that though.
1 Like
I seriously think they are claiming to be refugees (or perhaps “asylum seekers” is the term).
And those claims need to be adjudicated, according to US law, and a determination made. Much cheaper than holding them in detention.
As I’ve said in other contexts, the judiciary system in this country is overwelmed. A system designed to try facts and come to resolutions is so understaffed that it isn’t working properly.
Criminal trials are being replaced with plea deals. (Where being held waiting for trial is leverage to plea guilty to a lesser charge.)
Civil trials are being replaced with private negotiations. (Where the injured’s immediate need for some money is inducing NDA’s to keep wrongdoing hidden.)
Asylum hearings are being replaced with indefinite detention.
We need more courts and more trials to get the speedy trials that our constitution guarantees everyone.
1 Like
Neat this talking point again…
If they’re truly seeking asylum, why wait for it until they get here? There are plenty of other countries that also offer it. Countries, which I’ll say again: they’re having to go through to make their way here.
Because as Ronald Reagan so eloquently said, America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.
Oh right because that’s how asylum works. If your life is miserable, you get to live in the country of your choice 
That’s exactly how asylum to the US works under current law…
No. It isn’t. Under US law, asylum seekers are required to seek asylum at their first Port of entry outside of their home country.
Absolutely wrong…
Ah yes, defensive asylum:
The loophole.
Not just polling. The idiot admitted it before denying it. This is the trump shutdown. Believe me.
Not even the right reference… The principle to which you are referring is an international agreement called “first safe country” and is part of international law. It requires asylum seekers to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter… This requires agreements between countries for “first safe country” status… We do not have that agreement with Mexico… Regardless, under current US asylum law, there is no requirement for those presenting themselves at the border, regardless of whether it is at a port entry, to have applied for asylum in Mexico or anywhere else.
which liberal said the following:
“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”
Allan
Yeah, and I wonder who orchestrated that into the law? Possibly as part of that deal that they reneged on with a different President nearly 30 years ago?
Yeah, back when he still thought he was getting a deal from the Democrats.
Good, so we can dismiss your assertion that under US law they are required to seek asylum at their first port of entry outside their home country.
If the president was really trying to change asylum law, he would be working with congress to change asylum law instead of shutting down the government over a wall that will not change the current asylum law.
Lets see the non-existent US statute for this US “law”
LOL. Its completely made up by you.
any immigrant (Legal or illegal) can claim asylum by filling out a handy dandy I589 form (as long as it is submitted within a year of arriving in the United States)
Allan.
