Immigration

[O Really]

Could you explain what "open border" policy is and how it violated the laws existing at the time? I'm pretty sure that is you give it more than a cursory look, you'll see that Biden followed the law exactly and that the real cause of the "invasion" was the laws regarding asylum.

[Supsalemgr]

Could you explain what "open border" policy is and how it violated the laws existing at the time? I'm pretty sure that is you give it more than a cursory look, you'll see that Biden followed the law exactly and that the real cause of the "invasion" was the laws regarding asylum.

I have not said at any point Biden broke any laws. He and Mayorkas chose not to enforce the existing laws, an opinion shared by many as the 2024 election confirms. Also, the indisputable fact Biden attempted to shut down all border wall construction when he took office is further proof. Injecting the asylum issue is a distraction from the "ILLEGAL" fact.

[GoCubsGo]

Supes and company seems to like immigration enforcement akin to treating a stolen candy bar like crash and grab jewelry robbery with fatalities.

These people are so incompetent that they have to make illegal "arrests" of people with jackboot tactics because they can't find as many actual violators as Biden?

OMFG.

[1 CAT FAN]

Could you explain what "open border" policy is and how it violated the laws existing at the time? I'm pretty sure that is you give it more than a cursory look, you'll see that Biden followed the law exactly and that the real cause of the "invasion" was the laws regarding asylum.

Can you explain why a hypocritical leftist resides in a gated community?

[O Really]

Could you explain what "open border" policy is and how it violated the laws existing at the time? I'm pretty sure that is you give it more than a cursory look, you'll see that Biden followed the law exactly and that the real cause of the "invasion" was the laws regarding asylum.

I have not said at any point Biden broke any laws. He and Mayorkas chose not to enforce the existing laws, an opinion shared by many as the 2024 election confirms. Also, the indisputable fact Biden attempted to shut down all border wall construction when he took office is further proof. Injecting the asylum issue is a distraction from the "ILLEGAL" fact.

I don't think you have specific examples of choosing not to enforce existing laws, so I won't ask you to give any. But asylum is not a distraction - in fact the majority of those involved in undocumented or improper border crossing are those seeking asylum. A lot of other "illegals" are here because they overstayed their visit. The number of the stereotyped "wetback" sneaking across the river is not what it once was. Now see, I agree with the idea that a person seeking asylum should have to "stay in Mexico" while their application is processed. And I don't know that we have to accept anybody who was in danger in their own country if they are now in a safe one, such as Mexico. Accept refugees only directly from places of peril. But that's not the law. Trump could claim one of his "emergencies" and require that for Covid - all the while downplaying the seriousness of Covid - but Biden didn't have that excuse.

[Vrede too]

Soupy Sales LIES, so typical of MAGA bigots. Under current law people seeking asylum are not "ILLEGAL" unless they've had a hearing in front of a judge, the judge denies their asylum request and they then refuse to leave. Period. That is not me shading the law in any way. Of course, Congress passed a very con-leaning bipartisan bill that would have resolved many immigration issues. Candidate TRE45QN nixed it because he didn't want Joltin' Joe to get a win. So, we're stuck with the same old problematic law. TACO Don, Friendly Fire Barbie and InHoman have been found to be violating the law over and over, thus making them the real ILLEGALS here. Soupy Sales doesn't care about that because they are WHITE MAGAts.

These people are so incompetent that they have to make illegal "arrests" of people with jackboot tactics because they can't find as many actual violators as Biden?

OMFG.

The one officer has "ERO" on the back of his vest. That is Enforcement and Removal Operations, a section of ICE. The others have shoulder patches that read _________?

[1 CAT FAN]

Soupy Sales LIES, so typical of MAGA bigots. Under current law people seeking asylum are not "ILLEGAL" unless they've had a hearing in front of a judge, the judge denies their asylum request and they then refuse to leave. Period. That is not me shading the law in any way. Of course, Congress passed a very con-leaning bipartisan bill that would have resolved many immigration issues. Candidate TRE45QN nixed it because he didn't want Joltin' Joe to get a win. So, we're stuck with the same old problematic law. TACO Don, Friendly Fire Barbie and InHoman have been found to be violating the law over and over, thus making them the real ILLEGALS here. Soupy Sales doesn't care about that because they are WHITE MAGAts.

When a group of people trespasses inside O Really's gated community and sets up camp on his front lawn, the police have to call a judge before they can arrest them? Meanwhile, Lady O is giving O Really hell because he was/is afraid to confront the trespassers.

These people are so incompetent that they have to make illegal "arrests" of people with jackboot tactics because they can't find as many actual violators as Biden?

Cancer ridden Joe allowed the country to be flooded with them, might be a blessing that Joe has dementia, he'll forget that he's dieing.
Did Illinois refuse several bus loads of illegal immigrants back when incompetent disease ridden Joe pretended to be in the White House?

[Vrede too]

I don't think you have specific examples of choosing not to enforce existing laws, so I won't ask you to give any. But asylum is not a distraction - in fact the majority of those involved in undocumented or improper border crossing are those seeking asylum. A lot of other "illegals" are here because they overstayed their visit. The number of the stereotyped "wetback" sneaking across the river is not what it once was. Now see, I agree with the idea that a person seeking asylum should have to "stay in Mexico" while their application is processed. And I don't know that we have to accept anybody who was in danger in their own country if they are now in a safe one, such as Mexico. Accept refugees only directly from places of peril. But that's not the law. Trump could claim one of his "emergencies" and require that for Covid - all the while downplaying the seriousness of Covid - but Biden didn't have that excuse.

I don't necessarily disagree with your "stay in Mexico" opinion, but Mexico is NOT a "safe" place, especially for refugees and other immigrants. Theft, rape, human trafficking, etc are endemic. Maybe there are things that can be done about that, but we should be honest about the situation as we plot a path forward.

[GoCubsGo]

Am I mistaken in thinking that if any immigrant, illegal or not sets foot on US soil and requests asylum for any legitimate reason they are afforded due process such as an Immigration hearing to determine if there's merit?

[GoCubsGo]

More Jackbooting of kids.

[O Really]

Am I mistaken in thinking that if any immigrant, illegal or not sets foot on US soil and requests asylum for any legitimate reason they are afforded due process such as an Immigration hearing to determine if there's merit?

True. Along with the "wet foot dry foot" rule. If you catch them in the water you can send them back. If they get to land you have to give due process of whatever their individual case is. The fact they came in improperly or without documentation does not automatically make them "illegal' and that determination must be made by a court. Unless of course you're a trumpet and then a kangaroo court will do.

[Vrede too]

Am I mistaken in thinking that if any immigrant, illegal or not sets foot on US soil and requests asylum for any legitimate reason they are afforded due process such as an Immigration hearing to determine if there's merit?

Correct. A big issue is that the immigration courts are not adequately funded. If they could get timely due process most would be rapidly deported, not that I agree with it. The others would get green cards.

True. Along with the "wet foot dry foot" rule. If you catch them in the water you can send them back. If they get to land you have to give due process of whatever their individual case is. The fact they came in improperly or without documentation does not automatically make them "illegal' and that determination must be made by a court. Unless of course you're a trumpet and then a kangaroo court will do.

I think you're confusing 2 policies. AFAIK "wet foot dry foot" only applied to Cubans. Wet foot meant immediate return to Cuba even if asylum was requested. Dry foot meant automatic residency. Asylum was automatically granted and there was no need for due process. I'm not sure, but I think "wet foot dry foot" has been abandoned.

[O Really]

Thanks, yeah I hadn't heard the term for a while, but didn't know it had only applied to Cubans.

[1 CAT FAN]

Soupy Sales LIES, so typical of MAGA bigots. Under current law people seeking asylum are not "ILLEGAL" unless they've had a hearing in front of a judge, the judge denies their asylum request and they then refuse to leave. Period. That is not me shading the law in any way. Of course, Congress passed a very con-leaning bipartisan bill that would have resolved many immigration issues. Candidate TRE45QN nixed it because he didn't want Joltin' Joe to get a win. So, we're stuck with the same old problematic law. TACO Don, Friendly Fire Barbie and InHoman have been found to be violating the law over and over, thus making them the real ILLEGALS here. Soupy Sales doesn't care about that because they are WHITE MAGAts.

When a group of people trespasses inside O Really's gated community and sets up camp on his front lawn, the police have to call a judge before they can arrest them? Meanwhile, Lady O is giving O Really hell because he was/is afraid to confront the trespassers.

These people are so incompetent that they have to make illegal "arrests" of people with jackboot tactics because they can't find as many actual violators as Biden?

Cancer ridden Joe allowed the country to be flooded with them, might be a blessing that Joe has dementia, he'll forget that he's dieing.
Did Illinois refuse several bus loads of illegal immigrants back when incompetent disease ridden Joe pretended to be in the White House?

Rainbow Superstar Cultmaster wrote: SuperSales doesn't care about that because they are WHITE MAGA's

You've shown your racism. Don't you know several race of people voted for Trump? Thanks for establishing that you're a hypocrite along with O Really who babbles about immigration from inside a gated community.

[Vrede too]

Thanks, yeah I hadn't heard the term for a while, but didn't know it had only applied to Cubans.

I'm right that it ended.

... On January 12, 2017, Barack Obama announced the immediate end of the policy, saying, "Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal." ...

They now have to make and prove cases for asylum like everyone else.

[O Really]

I don't necessarily disagree with your "stay in Mexico" opinion, but Mexico is NOT a "safe" place, especially for refugees and other immigrants. Theft, rape, human trafficking, etc are endemic. Maybe there are things that can be done about that, but we should be honest about the situation as we plot a path forward.

I'm not sure the political asylum laws are intended to protect people from the risk of garden variety crime, even if it's a high rate of crime. But if it is, then we don't need to be offering asylum. As compared to Mexico, the US is worse in most categories, excluding murder. And probably if you excluded the murders by one cartel killing members of another, even that is probably comparable. US rape rate is about twice that of Mexico. Total crime rate is about 3 times that of Mexico, including violent crime not murder.

https://oceanposse.com/mexico-united-st ... red-crime/

[Vrede too]

I don't necessarily disagree with your "stay in Mexico" opinion, but Mexico is NOT a "safe" place, especially for refugees and other immigrants. Theft, rape, human trafficking, etc are endemic. Maybe there are things that can be done about that, but we should be honest about the situation as we plot a path forward.

I'm not sure the political asylum laws are intended to protect people from the risk of garden variety crime, even if it's a high rate of crime. But if it is, then we don't need to be offering asylum. As compared to Mexico, the US is worse in most categories, excluding murder. And probably if you excluded the murders by one cartel killing members of another, even that is probably comparable. US rape rate is about twice that of Mexico. Total crime rate is about 3 times that of Mexico, including violent crime not murder.

https://oceanposse.com/mexico-united-st ... red-crime/

I can't argue with your national figures, but I do know that refugees and other immigrants are especially vulnerable. It doesn't do the discussion any good to call Mexico "safe" for them and it isn't "garden variety crime" when they're targeted because they're immigrants.

Here, there, wherever, there has to be a better way of dealing with refugees. We better figure it out before the waves of climate refugees really start moving.

[O Really]

It could be argued that asylum seekers are at greater risk from the US government than from the Mexican bandidos. But here's a real-ish example that may help my point: About 8 million Venezuelans have fled that country in the past decade, primarily for reasons of " economic hardship, political instability, and a lack of access to essential services." 85% of those refugees have settled in Caribbean and Latin America countries, with a large number of them seeking to come to the US. If you're leaving Venezuela, you've got a bunch of South American countries, plus 5 or so Central American places you could land before you got to the US. Most any of those is probably better than Venezuela. So why would it be inhumane to require that those applying for asylum who are not in immediate danger to stay there while their application is processed?

[Vrede too]

It could be argued that asylum seekers are at greater risk from the US government than from the Mexican bandidos. But here's a real-ish example that may help my point: About 8 million Venezuelans have fled that country in the past decade, primarily for reasons of " economic hardship, political instability, and a lack of access to essential services." 85% of those refugees have settled in Caribbean and Latin America countries, with a large number of them seeking to come to the US. If you're leaving Venezuela, you've got a bunch of South American countries, plus 5 or so Central American places you could land before you got to the US. Most any of those is probably better than Venezuela. So why would it be inhumane to require that those applying for asylum who are not in immediate danger to stay there while their application is processed?

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with your "stay in Mexico" (or wherever) opinion. We should just be realistic about relative safety and strive to be as humanitarian as we have the resources for. After all, we're not blameless for the fix Latin America finds itself in, even Venezuela.

[GoCubsGo]

They're coming.....