|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 3, 2019 19:47:49 GMT -5
You're trying to pull in Freedom of Speech as if it's synonymous to freedom to come to the US? Am I wrong? I have been very explicitly and deliberately making comparison between freedom of speech and freedom of movement (which include, as you put it “freedom to come to the US”). Freedom of movement is a real freedom Whembly. Multiple candidate has argued that those illegally crossing the border or overstaying visa should NOT be a criminal offense. If you don't see the difference between this and “no border”, you haven't thought enough about it (or you are ideologically blinded). One is “If you somehow manage to cross the desert, avoid all the patrols, leave everything behind you, start your life anew, you are allowed to stay”, the other is “There are no more border controls”… Are you ignoring my previous posts that legit asylum cases should stay? Where is your outrage at how bad legit asylum cases are treated? Surely that must trump your concern about a few economic migrants slipping through, right? Also, are you ignoring that most asylum cases are denied when adjudicated? Are you somehow implying that “most asylum case are denied” with “most asylum case should be denied”? |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 3, 2019 20:20:36 GMT -5
No, they really can't. Anymore than those damn Polynesians can do back to their radioactive and/or submerged islands, or the Yemenis can go back to their country that can no longer support it's (diminished) population.
Whemb, it's not hyperbole. As I pointed out, it is literally and EXACTLY how we created Elmira and Andersonville. And, frankly, their choice is maybe dying here or definitely dying there.
But, hey, guys like you once used the same logic before. 'Send these Jews back to Germany. They're illegal, and it's all hyperbola anyway.' And then we sent them back, right into German hands, where the SS met them at the port and took them directly to the camps. Of the ones we sent back, about 500 survived the war. To point out the obvious, these are only the first wave. And if your only solution to the issue is the Final one, GTFO.
Most are abusing the Asylum process. Most are trying to migrate here in search of "better life" or economic reasons. Those are not legit asylum cases. They can go home (or in many cases back into Mexico) at any time. That is the criteria I'm talking about. Not the actual asylum cases that are the absolute minority of those trying to illegally enter the US. [citation needed] |
|
dusa
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 555
|
Post by dusa on Jul 3, 2019 20:25:10 GMT -5
Asylum cases being denied can be because of many factors:
- People risking the lives of their kids for bullshit reason.
- Not having a legitimate claim.
- A backed up administrative system existing outside the judicial system.
- “Judges” with biases and overworked case loads.
- clients without good representation.
Results don’t always mean what they imply on the surface.
Look at court results in Jim Crow land, as a good example.
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 3, 2019 20:33:34 GMT -5
You're trying to pull in Freedom of Speech as if it's synonymous to freedom to come to the US? Am I wrong? I have been very explicitly and deliberately making comparison between freedom of speech and freedom of movement (which include, as you put it “freedom to come to the US”). Freedom of movement is a real freedom Whembly. You can move freely provided you follow existing laws. If thought plenty. There is a legal process here. I've stated, in record numerous times, that we should SPEND more resources to handle this. No. |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 3, 2019 20:43:52 GMT -5
You can move freely provided you follow existing laws. Yeah, and you can say whatever you want as long as you follow all the laws regulating speech. “You can do whatever you want as long as you follow the laws restricting what you can do” is a tautology in a state of law. Doesn't mean that your right to free speech or to free movement are respected. What you just wrote amount to “Any law restricting free speech is fine because you can still say whatever you want that isn't forbidden by this or another law” If thought plenty. There is a legal process here. “There is a legal process” isn't an answer to “Amnesty for certain people isn't the same as legalization”. I've stated, in record numerous times, that we should SPEND more resources to handle this. And you have made it clear, in numerous time, that you would rather things keep the same as they are now, with the camps, rather than the previous policy, too! Then why are you trying to say with those stats? |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 4, 2019 1:14:56 GMT -5
As a court martial for war crimes ends, does anyone remember the constant cries of “undue command influence” every time Obama said anything about anything? Lots of silence when some other President tweets all the time about cases. I remember one of those episodes from Dakkadakka. This is far worse with the President actually defending war criminals. But now its patriotic! On that note I was thinking about the military exercise in Texas and the nuts going crazy that this was going to be the Obama coup everyone was waiting for yaddayadda. Now Trump is driving tanks into the capital and its crickets, who knew all those conspiracy nutters had such a vicious white supremacist streak? |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 4, 2019 5:54:00 GMT -5
If it is of paramount importance that immigrants follow the law in applying for asylum or the right to stay in the US, why the fuck would you support a president who consistently makes it harder to do so? Like, we're both in agreement that you need more staff and better opportunities for the immigrants to have their cases heard, right? Because Trump sure as hell isn't making that better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 6:43:54 GMT -5
Most are abusing the Asylum process. Most are trying to migrate here in search of "better life" or economic reasons. Those are not legit asylum cases. They can go home (or in many cases back into Mexico) at any time. That is the criteria I'm talking about. Not the actual asylum cases that are the absolute minority of those trying to illegally enter the US. Time to Axe the Fox News lies.
1) The statistics you yourself site in a later post do not support this.
2) Famine, water shortage, and your country being SUBMERGED UNDER THE OCEAN are considered 'economic reasons' under the current administration.
3) See 2)
4) No, they really cannot (without dying or breaking additional laws). It's illegal for them to stay, and it is ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO LEAVE VIA MEXICO. (Mexican law regarding illegal immigration is actually much harsher than the US, even now, it's just that enforcement of those laws are spotty at best and Mexico is willing to admit that migrants are human and subject to due process).
5) Only as the US refuse to admit that legitimate grounds exist. As the UN has not as of yet been able to determine a framework for 'climate refugees' (thanks to the Trump Administrations efforts to stymie that) there's no international treaty in place to deal with the situation. Which, over the next ten years, is gong to deteriorate further and further. When the effect reaches southern Mexico, expect things to get much, much worse.
|
|
dusa
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 555
|
Post by dusa on Jul 4, 2019 7:56:25 GMT -5
USA: Shuts down programs for applying for asylum at embassy in source countries. Severely limits hours and resources for applying for asylum in person at ports-of-entry. Severely cuts aid programs aimed at preventing asylum seekers from leaving their country. Does everything they can to undermine the legal asylum process.
Also USA: why won’t people use the legal asylum process.
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 4, 2019 8:33:00 GMT -5
USA: Shuts down programs for applying for asylum at embassy in source countries. Severely limits hours and resources for applying for asylum in person at ports-of-entry. Severely cuts aid programs aimed at preventing asylum seekers from leaving their country. Does everything they can to undermine the legal asylum process. Also USA: why won’t people use the legal asylum process. This.
Trump talks the talk, but he sure as fuck doesn't walk the walk.
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 4, 2019 10:17:16 GMT -5
You can move freely provided you follow existing laws. Yeah, and you can say whatever you want as long as you follow all the laws regulating speech. “You can do whatever you want as long as you follow the laws restricting what you can do” is a tautology in a state of law. Doesn't mean that your right to free speech or to free movement are respected. What you just wrote amount to “Any law restricting free speech is fine because you can still say whatever you want that isn't forbidden by this or another law” You still don't get what our 1st amendment laws mean then. Free speach is shorthand for the 1st amendment. I never literally means you can say whatever you want free from potential consequences. I cannot falsely say 'Not HMBC' is a pederast in a malicious effort to impugn your reputation or adversely effect your livelihood. Well.. back up. I CAN do that, but then I open myself up to libel/slander liabilities in which you can sue me for damages. Likewise, we have immigration laws dictating how you can legally migrate here in the states. If you follow the laws, you do have "freedom of movement" as the US doesn't have "checkpoints" or the likes between the states. But, if you break those laws, you open yourself up to legal liabilities up to deportation. Of course it is the answer. You want to migrate/work/live here? Get in line and do it legally. Yes. I'd rather those detained in humane way instead of the old "catch and release" program. I can hold that position AND advocate that the situation need more resources to handle the crisis. Most adjudicate Asylum cases are rejected. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 4, 2019 10:21:11 GMT -5
As a court martial for war crimes ends, does anyone remember the constant cries of “undue command influence” every time Obama said anything about anything? Lots of silence when some other President tweets all the time about cases. I remember one of those episodes from Dakkadakka. This is far worse with the President actually defending war criminals. But now its patriotic! On that note I was thinking about the military exercise in Texas and the nuts going crazy that this was going to be the Obama coup everyone was waiting for yaddayadda. Now Trump is driving tanks into the capital and its crickets, who knew all those conspiracy nutters had such a vicious white supremacist streak? The SEAL medic admitted to aphinxiating the captured (who himself has immunity... wtf prosecutor!?!?). This case was whacked to begin with (prosecution was literally spying on the defense team) and I don't think Trump's "influence" really amounted to much. Why are ya'll losing your shit over Tanks in a parade?? Tanks are cool! Do you object to Fleet week in the harbors? OR the planes flying over sporting events? |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 4, 2019 10:27:16 GMT -5
No one is objecting to the presence of tanks, they're objecting to the blatant hypocrisy coming from the people who went crazy over Jade Helm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 4, 2019 10:32:09 GMT -5
I remember one of those episodes from Dakkadakka. This is far worse with the President actually defending war criminals. But now its patriotic! On that note I was thinking about the military exercise in Texas and the nuts going crazy that this was going to be the Obama coup everyone was waiting for yaddayadda. Now Trump is driving tanks into the capital and its crickets, who knew all those conspiracy nutters had such a vicious white supremacist streak? The SEAL medic admitted to aphinxiating the captured (who himself has immunity... wtf prosecutor!?!?). This case was whacked to begin with (prosecution was literally spying on the defense team) and I don't think Trump's "influence" really amounted to much. Why are ya'll losing your shit over Tanks in a parade?? Tanks are cool! Do you object to Fleet week in the harbors? OR the planes flying over sporting events? Given all the other evidence presented and the fact that the witness radically altered his testimony it seems more likely that the witness was lying no? Regardless, Trump's influence was probably close to if not non existent (although he congratulated himself on the verdict). The issue being don't start praising people who have obviously committed criminal acts and likely far worse war crimes. You don't want these people in the military, its fodder for opponents of every stripe not to mention just morally bankrupt. Its just that his side hasn't been up in arms while they would have been if Obama only so much as glanced in the general direction of the trial. As for the tanks, its not so much the military display that bothers me (as a European its not that uncommon to see). Its more the way Trump uses it, its not a display or parade for the nation, its a display for Trump. He could have ordered the military to do it and not be there, then it wouldn't be an issue aside from logistics and cost. Also the outrage if it was Obama. But you probably figured the above out already. |
|
dusa
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 555
|
Post by dusa on Jul 4, 2019 10:33:34 GMT -5
It’s a natural extension of him pardoning people convicted of war crimes. It’s not patriotic.
|
|
