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.
Read it again, and then smack your head again. That was her partner. She's 17, he's 25. That's not legal.
What are you talking about, this is what the post said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
[url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6442527/Migrants-
I would also like to point out one of the photos of a 17 year old girl with her "25 year old partner" where she's sitting next to him holding a baby. That's not legal in this country - but that's the mindset that would be brought here, that it's okay.
Not only is sitting next to someone not a criminal offense, the federal law for age of consent is 16. In Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions 2017 The Supreme Court held that “in the context of statutory rape offenses focused solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of 'sexual abuse of a minor' under [section 101(a)(43)(A)] of the INA] requires the age of the victim to be less than 16.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit because the California statute under which the respondent had been convicted also allowed for convictions where the victim was older than 16 but younger than 18
So, bottom line is, a 17 year old sitting next to a 25 year old is not against federal law and is not cause for deportation under any circumstances. I suppose a state court could waste several thousand dollars and do a DNA test on their child but if conception did not occur in the US what are you going to charge them with?
I agree it is the truth, it is however the future, like it or not. It is profitable, just like free trade is profitable, so long as you are in better position for it. Even Trump would flip on his immigration stand if he is able to stay in power for a second period. Why? Because his job is to serve big business interest, not the people.
Sorry, but I disagree. Since he is fighting illegal immigration and wants a wall and he ran on that to gain the election that isn't serving big or any other sized business interests. It is serving the people.
Cons: "Democrats are the party of open borders."
Libs: "No we're not. That's a lie. Stop lying, you lying liar."
Cons: "Here's a photo of the DNC co-chair wearing a t-shirt that literally says 'I don't believe in borders.'"
Libs: "Oh, come on. That's hyperbole. No one actually supports open borders as a policy."
Cons: "Ok, so can we build a wall to secure the border?"
Libs: "Nope. It would be ugly. Also, people could use ladders. Also, animals might be inconvenienced."
Cons: "All right, how about we use the military to secure the border?"
Libs: "No way. Our military belongs in the middle east."
Cons: "Well, when illegals try to rush the border, can the border patrol use tear gas to repel them?"
Libs: "So, you want to gas people now? Like the Nazis!?"
Cons: "Ok, when we catch a family trying to sneak over the border, can we detain them?"
Libs: "Heavens no. They should be released into the interior of the country. Think of the children."
Cons: "All right, when the cops arrest someone whom they suspect of being in the country illegally, should they be able to call ICE to investigate the matter?"
Libs: "Nope! In fact, that should be against the law. Immigration enforcement is for the feds, not local cops."
Cons: "I see. Well, since immigration enforcement is a federal issue, you're OK with ICE rounding up illegals and deporting them, right?"
Libs: "Nah. In fact we should just abolish ICE."
Cons: "Let me ask you something. Do you think there should be any numerical limits on immigration at all?"
Libs: "No. Everyone who wants to come here for a better life should be able to."
Cons: …
Libs: "But we're not for open borders!"
Anyone wealthy enough to be a tourist is probably going to have some type of health care. 1/2 of all immigrants come in illegally and there have been hundreds if not thousands from these caravans that have split off coming in at the desert. That's a bigger issue than these tent cities. We know absolutely nothing about these illegals, not names, crimes, diseases.
Bottom line is it's the damn caravans that are pulling this off. Need a wall? Nah, we'll have 30 million illegals before we know it and liberals will welcome them with open Democrat vote open arms.
Hopefully each one will get to experience what many of us have. Crashes, crime like burglaries, DUI's, gangs. You'll reap what you sow.
The only time that the health of a visitor entering the US is scrutinized is when there is a public health warning about a communicable disease like Ebola. In the absence of that customs officials don't make judgments about your health.
First, learn the difference between customs and immigration.
Second, immigration officials can pull you aside for any reason at all. You think they are only there to look at your passport? It is their job to look at your demeanor and make judgments about your admissibility.
Third, you ignored that airlines can and do deny boarding if you appear sick. They don't even need to verify it or justify it. You can simply be hung over. Andthe vast majority of tourists, except some Canadians and handful of Mexicans, arrive here by air.
The tear gas was shot into .Mexico. the BP has no authority to do that. Should have pulled back and called the Mexican authorities.
If the pro-immigration forces believe the border should be porous as to people moving north, why not for tear gas canisters moving south? Either it's a border or it is not.
Utter garbage. And if the Mexicans start lobbing tear gas back?
The US should simply set up a suitable holding facility. Load the caravan on buses and hold them until hearings are held. We are behaving like a banana republic not a leading nation.
That runs into a Sixth Amendment problem if the holding facility is on U.S. soil.
Originally Posted by lvmensch Utter garbage. And if the Mexicans start lobbing tear gas back?
The US should simply set up a suitable holding facility. Load the caravan on buses and hold them until hearings are held. We are behaving like a banana republic not a leading nation.
6,000 people in Tijuana who are anxious to get here and America should build a suitable holding facility?
And then what? Build a second one for the next 6,000? And a third for the 6,000 after that?
Nah, we'll just build a wall and send everyone else home since we're already so far behind it can take six months to two years before we grant anyone asylum.
For someone who insists you're only pro-amnesty because it's unrealistic to remove so many people, you sure seem in a big hurry to accommodate more.
That runs into a Sixth Amendment problem if the holding facility is on U.S. soil.
No criminal charge. And they might run into a problem for unreasonable detention. Simple fix. Get the
immigration courts current within a few months and no problem.
And the only rational way to do that is to resolve the immigration status of most illegal aliens. In other words legalize the illegal aliens until we are wiling to pay for that size immigration system. My guess is it will turn out somewhat less than a half million illegals left.
6,000 people in Tijuana who are anxious to get here and America should build a suitable holding facility?
And then what? Build a second one for the next 6,000? And a third for the 6,000 after that?
Nah, we'll just build a wall and send everyone else home since we're already so far behind it can take six months to two years before we grant anyone asylum.
For someone who insists you're only pro-amnesty because it's unrealistic to remove so many people, you sure seem in a big hurry to accommodate more.
Nonsense. They legally present themselves to a US port of entry and request asylum. They then have a right to a reasonable and timely hearing. Refusing to let them in except in small quantities is simply ignoring our own laws.
And practically we could set up a workable facility at the Marine base that could easily hold 20,000 people in reasonable comfort. And the US should be prepared to do that routinely.
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.
