Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being in a state of poverty is not a legitimate reason to legally seek asylum. These people must be turned back and not allowed entry, as allowing them in would incentivize this and more would come.
I'm saying that Democrats won't allow changing how those claiming asylum are processed, a democrat open borders judge issued the Flores settlement ruling, don't want families separated, don't want interior enforcement against those who don't show up for their asylum hearing, Democrats won't fund the border wall etc. Democrats hide behind the loopholes they helped create and won't fix them.
No, a Democrat open borders judge did not issue the Flores settlement. It was a settlement, that means that both parties to the case agreed on how to handle it, the presiding judge did nothing more than sign the agreement reached by the parties- no ruling was issued.
The GOP wouldn't even come to the table. You have to start somewhere. So nope, the Dems can't take all the blame. Sorry.
Why should the republicans "come to the table" when it comes to amnesty? After all, the dems won't "come to the table" when it comes to E-verify and funding the wall. Sorry.
I am not one to quake in my boots, though quacking is also appropriate for those taking a "caravan" of poor unarmed peasants who would barely fill up a small amphitheater and turning them into the Wehrmacht.
Ah...now you've resorted to invoking Godwin's Law. You lose.
So...you won't mind one bit if they all relocated to your community? After all, you are cheering on their arrival. Are you getting your home ready to take in some of them? Does the thought of them coming to your community make you squirm? I noticed you avoided addressing that. Do you have a problem with thousands settling where you live?
How do you know they are all "unarmed"? You are very naive if you think that are all sweet, innocent people. In fact, none of them are sweet and innocent. Sweet and innocent people don't force their way into another country like they did to Mexico.
And I told you that the US is not part of any treaty that requires immigrants to apply for asylum in Mexico, that is the truth and I have already posted a link to that in this thread, but you come back and call it a loophole? It's not a loophole - it's the way things are until the US is successful in reaching a first safe country rule with Mexico.
A loophole is a way to get around a law, in this case there is NO law supporting your claim to get around.
The Trump administration was trying to negotiate this with Mexico earlier this year, under what authority could Democrats go to Mexico and reach a deal with them?
It is a loophole. And asylum claimers who crossed Mexico should just be returned home as inadmissable.
Why should the republicans "come to the table" when it comes to amnesty? After all, the dems won't "come to the table" when it comes to E-verify and funding the wall. Sorry.
e-verify was part of the 2013 immigration reform act, there were over 60 bipartisan senate votes, enough to pass it but Boehner refused to introduce it in the house. And then in 2018 fourteen Senate Republicans oppose Trump's immigration bill: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...tion-framework
You can't put the failure of Republicans to do anything about immigration on Democrats, Republicans clearly want the status quo and there's no reason that Dem's should bail them out.
No, a Democrat open borders judge did not issue the Flores settlement. It was a settlement, that means that both parties to the case agreed on how to handle it, the presiding judge did nothing more than sign the agreement reached by the parties- no ruling was issued.
The settlement could be altered, the original judge was asked to alter it and refused. The final agreement was under Democrat Clinton administration. You seem to gloss over leftist are the ones that caused the lawsuits to prevent immigration enforcement in the first place.
Ah...now you've resorted to invoking Godwin's Law. You lose.
So...you won't mind one bit if they all relocated to your community? After all, you are cheering on their arrival. Are you getting your home ready to take in some of them? Does the thought of them coming to your community make you squirm? I noticed you avoided addressing that. Do you have a problem with thousands settling where you live?
How do you know they are all "unarmed"? You are very naive if you think that are all sweet, innocent people. In fact, none of them are sweet and innocent. Sweet and innocent people don't force their way into another country like they did to Mexico.
Obviously, you did not understand my reference to the Wehrmacht. Try again.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,649 posts, read 12,553,459 times
Reputation: 10491
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom
Okay. Could you provide me links and sources for what you're referencing?
Links and sources for what .. you don't know that they are using our hospitals, our schools, stolen id's, getting EITC's, etc.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
I am not one to quake in my boots, though quacking is also appropriate for those taking a "caravan" of poor unarmed peasants who would barely fill up a small amphitheater and turning them into the Wehrmacht.
*pheasants
maybe stick with the theme you started
Sure, "this" group, what about the next group, and the groups after that, and what about all of the previous groups and loners..how many amphitheaters could they fill up? Meh, forget amphitheaters, they are way too small. Let's talk filling up cities instead. The number of illegals that are currently in this country is estimated at 12 million to 20 million (and could be even higher). 12 million would match the current population that is in NYC and LA. 20 million would match the populations that are currently in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix and Philadelphia. (pffft amphitheaters)
The settlement could be altered, the original judge was asked to alter it and refused. The final agreement was under Democrat Clinton administration. You seem to gloss over leftist are the ones that caused the lawsuits to prevent immigration enforcement in the first place.
Flores has been revisited several times, but I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that the "original judge was asked to alter it", and how could a judge alter a settlement without reopening the matter and having both parties stipulate to the change? Maybe I'm missing something here which is why I am asking you for a source that supports your allegation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
