I would make them face the same penalty Lois Lerner received for her abuse of power. THAT would teach our government agencies how to behave…
So…you grouped this guy who came to the U.S. correctly with the illegals…why?
If it was gun violence…crickets. Or…fake news.
1 Like
Anyone and everyone in the world has the right.
We should (and I hope we do) have the right to turn them down.
The right to apply should not mean the right to enter. (And Optrader addressed the right to enter.)
Every country he passed along the way? That’s what O’35 mentioned.
And those rights are expressed through a fair hearing in an immigration court. LYING to the court does not provide for a fair hearing. Obviously, in this case, once the LIE from ICE was uncovered, the immigration judge ruled that this individual could enter.
He mentioned what’s wrong with his country. I answered that question. I thought that was obvious. I guess not.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
And this anecdote AS IT IS PRESENTED HERE is merely the spin of our illustrious media.
He’s sitting in Mexico. (Or was.) They don’t kill gays there. He’s safe from his Cameroon enemies. He doesn’t need asylum here. Mexico let him in. Let Mexico handle him.
It doesn’t matter if ICE allegedly lied. He doesn’t need asylum here. He should be handled under our immigration laws, not our asylum laws.
And he mentioned other countries. You know that.
If you intend to address only half of a one-line reply, then actually quote the half you are addressing so you make clear the half you are disingenuously ignoring.
But either way, yes, your intention was clear, and so I called out your disingenuousness.
It’s not disingenuous to anyone with half a brain and a modicum of attention. Sorry, I’m not going to put up with your pointless critique. Don’t like the way I post, don’t reply.
The second half of his question was answered with a question. Again, pay attention to the obvious context of my posts or don’t reply to me.
Adios
1 Like
Then lobby to change to the asylum laws… Coulda, woulda, shoulda is not going to change the asylum laws…
You cavalier attitude toward perjury is noted…
Betterment?
Why don’t you leave and we’ll bring him in then.
2 Likes
If a mistake was made in applying the current law, then that needs to be corrected. I agree with that.
There is also the question of whether the current laws make sense or should be changed. If a person goes through multiple countries that are not a threat to him then he is in no immediate threat and should not be allowed entry based on asylum. If that is not our current law, then our current law should be changed.
In this instance, changing that law would be the cure required.
What a strange view.
1 Like
Absolutely was. And still is.
Of course, attempting to correct the law would result in charges of racism.
Just to clarify, there is no requirement for an asylum seeker to the US to apply to asylum in the first country they arrive at on the way to the US with the exception of Canada.
Just to clarify, I never said that was, in fact implicit in my post was that this was not the law.
Thus the phrase “changing the law”.
You say that about almost anything. I don’t think you know what it means anymore.
Maybe you should take your own advice and not reply to me any more.
But I know you can’t.
