Governor Abbott drops off busload of migrants outside of Kamala Harris residence to celebrate 8,400th passenger to DC (interview, FBI)
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.
He's likely done all he can on his end to "solve the border crisis" that democrats have no intention of solving. What Abbott it doing now is making everyone aware, in the most glaringly obvious way possible, that there is a border crisis and democrats are doing nothing to fix it. They've actually made the situation far worse, and likely by design. Abbott is making sure this issue is impossible to ignore. I'd much rather see these issues confronted and dealt with vs being ignored.
It's stupid and makes conservatives look stupid(er). It makes no sense. Like imagine if some atheist were like "oh you think baptizing people is good you dumb Christian well here's a million Hindus in your front yard WHERES YOUR GOD NOW".
It's stupid and makes conservatives look stupid(er). It makes no sense. Like imagine if some atheist were like "oh you think baptizing people is good you dumb Christian well here's a million Hindus in your front yard WHERES YOUR GOD NOW".
LOL........ and this post makes liberals look stupid(er). It makes no sense! Is this the best analogy you can come up with?
So it is okay to protest by dropping off migrants in front of a politician's home but wrong for people to go and protest at politician's home.
Y'all the rules are so blurred.
I don't agree with politican's being harassed in their personal lives for any agenda...Abbot included.
If you do -- you might be blinded by your loyalty and bless your little heart.
It depends on the politician.
The President lives (and, IIRC, is required to live) in the White House....the people's house....owned by the country.
The VP can choose to live at the official residence (on the Naval Observatory grounds) or another government building when that has been under repair.....or provide their own housing. If they chose to live in government housing, then it's the same principle as with the White House. If the government (the people) are providing the housing, people have a moral right to protest in front.
So you are in favor of moving tens of thousands of immigrants into the interior of the country at random to protest thousands of immigrants coming into the interior of the country at random?
That checks. Got it. They appreciate the transportation.
Out of curiosity - Do you keep a bucket of gasoline on hand to put out fires...?
It is the feds who are supposed to deport illegal aliens and they aren't doing it nor are they preventing them from getting into our country. What part of my post didn't you get when I said instead of Texas being stuck with them they are transporting them to those who do want and defend them, didn't you get? What part of a bus ticket is cheaper than Texas having to spend millions of their tax dollars to care for them by allowing them to remain there, didn't you get?
Your analogy at the end makes no sense at all. Abbott is actually using water not gasoline.
"Wrongamundo. Asylum seekers have the legal right to be here while they await a determination on their claims"
Wrongamundo, right back at you.
They have enter through a "LEGAL port of entry".
Do you have stats on how many immigrants formally seeking asylum do not?
It still makes no sense to anyone but republicans to bus the immigrants deeper into the interior of the country to discourage them from crossing the border.
Wrongamundo. Asylum seekers have the legal right to be here while they await a determination on their claims. As a matter of fact, they have to cross the border to declare asylum.
Our asylum policies need to change. Now those that don't have a valid claim are either sneaking into our country or showing up at a legal port of entry making bogus claims and then are allowed into our country. 80% of them are making bogus claims so that warrants changes in our asylum policies.
Do you have stats on how many immigrants formally seeking asylum do not?
It still makes no sense to anyone but republicans to bus the immigrants deeper into the interior of the country to discourage them from crossing the border.
I'm sure it makes a lot of sense for the border towns that are struggling with the invasion of illegals in their cities, draining their resources. To me sitting here in MI, yeah, it seems like a political ploy. Although, when we have an administration not willing to listen, or help, drastic measures must be taken.
Our asylum policies need to change. Now those that don't have a valid claim are either sneaking into our country or showing up at a legal port of entry making bogus claims and then are allowed into our country. 80% of them are making bogus claims so that warrants changes in our asylum policies.
I'd be curious what some of these asylum seekers are claiming. What kind of persecution are they being subjected to, to travel two or three countries to seek asylum in ours ?
Yes, but aren't they required to go through a port of entry ? Crossing the border illegally, getting caught, then claiming your seeking asylum isn't the normal process. Also, wasn't there a "first entry" clause ? Many of these individuals have gone through a couple of countries, to get here.
From what I understand a foreigner can cross our border illegally and then claim asylum. That is a part of our asylum policy that needs changing. You are right though they are supposed to ask for asylum in the first country that they enter. Mexico offered many of them asylum in their country along with jobs but they refused because they liked the goodies that our country offers them instead. They should have been denied asylum in our country based on that.
From what I understand a foreigner can cross our border illegally and then claim asylum. That is a part of our asylum policy that needs changing. You are right though they are supposed to ask for asylum in the first country that they enter. Mexico offered many of them asylum in their country along with jobs but they refused because they liked the goodies that our country offers them instead. They should have been denied asylum in our country based on that.
Found this :
Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, it is a crime for any noncitizen to enter (or even to "attempt" to enter) the United States anywhere other than a designated entry point, or "port of entry" or "POE." Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to the United States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border. While many asylum seekers follow the proper procedure by applying for asylum at a port of entry, many asylum seekers continue to illegally cross the border. When they are apprehended by Customs and Border Protection, there are two possibilities. First, they may be criminally charged with illegal entry (a misdemeanor) or illegal reentry (a felony) and, only after they finish their criminal cases, further detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to await their credible or reasonable fear interviews. Second, they may not be prosecuted, and simply detained by ICE to await their interviews in an immigration detention center.
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.
