I live in a country that puts babies in cages

[JSt0rm]

Don’t know don’t care

that about sums you up

 

[BoomerD]

The difference here is the Trump admin is charging everyone with a crime. A misdemeanour no less. How many people kid their kids seized for a misdemeanour? No other admin has ever done that. Then they want to blame the democrats. It’s all them. It’s all on them. They can’t even keep their own arguments straight and just keep moving the goal posts as each justification collapses when defending this.

I mean come on man. How can you in anyway defend this bullshit? The Trump admin set the house on fire and now is demanding more money for fire trucks. These kids are not pawns. The damage they are doing just to get funding for a border wall that you don’t fucking need and won’t do a god damn thing is shameful.

They are losing children. 1500 October to December last year. Don’t defend this nonsense. It’s just disgusting and shameful.

If the parents bring their children along to rob a bank and get caught...what happens to those children? They don’t just get set free to become free-range children...they get taken into custody or released to the custody of family members. (no, I’m NOT actually comparing illegal immigration to bank robbery as to the severity of the crime, but when the parents ARE arrested, something has to be done with the kids.)

IMO, the best thing would be to house the kids with the parents (or at least the mother if possible) until they’re deported...which should happen post haste.

What does this have to do with Asylum seekers? Are you intentionally confusing the two issues or just confusing them out of ignorance? never mind that it really doesn't matter either way, as this current administration's policy to separate children is in no way due to any law--moral or legislative.

Just because their home countries have become crime-filled shitholes controlled by the drug cartels, that shouldn’t qualify as a valid reason for refugee status...

They’re illegal immigrants. PERIOD, and as such, subject to the immigration laws of the USA.

 

[UberNeuman]

If the parents bring their children along to rob a bank and get caught...what happens to those children? They don’t just get set free to become free-range children...they get taken into custody or released to the custody of family members. (no, I’m NOT actually comparing illegal immigration to bank robbery as to the severity of the crime, but when the parents ARE arrested, something has to be done with the kids.)

IMO, the best thing would be to house the kids with the parents (or at least the mother if possible) until they’re deported...which should happen post haste.



Just because their home countries have become crime-filled shitholes controlled by the drug cartels, that shouldn’t qualify as a valid reason for refugee status...

They’re illegal immigrants. PERIOD, and as such, subject to the immigration laws of the USA.

You got what you wanted. Quit bitching.

 

[MrSquished]

A lot of folks on FB defending this shit, and most blame it on the democrats saying they did it first.

 

[BoomerD]

You got what you wanted. Quit bitching.

What is it that you think I wanted?

Is The Donald rounding up and deporting ALL illegal immigrants?

If not, then............

 

[UberNeuman]

What is it that you think I wanted?

Is The Donald rounding up and deporting ALL illegal immigrants?

If not, then............

If it goes on long enough maybe you can take a bus tour down to the holding sights and poke at the caged children with sharp sticks.

 

[glenn1]

You got what you wanted. Quit bitching.

How about you be honest and say what you are really asking for is that illegal immigration not be prosecuted and those who commit it should just be released into the U.S. After all, "they have kids." The catch and release policy of before isn't coming back unless there's a change to the law (and that isn't happening unless there's a Democratic wave election that brings a huge supermajority), so now it's simply a question about what to do with the children of the kids who are prosecuted. Bringing up asylum is a complete red herring since that's a tiny fraction of those attempting immigration without legal clearance to do so. You might as well base your policy of whether to prosecute people for running red lights on the fact that some small percentage of them might be heading to the hospital with a medical emergency and thus saying we shouldn't prosecute anyone for running that red light because think about the children.

If it goes on long enough maybe you can take a bus tour down to the holding sights and poke at the caged children with sharp sticks.

Hopefully they won't be in this country for long enough for that poking to even happen.

 

[feralkid]

Applying for asylum is a legal act, no matter how much some folks wish it wasn't

 

[UberNeuman]

How about you be honest and say what you are really asking for is that illegal immigration not be prosecuted and those who commit it should just be released into the U.S. After all, "they have kids." The catch and release policy of before isn't coming back unless there's a change to the law, so now it's simply a question about what to do with the children of the kids who are prosecuted. Bringing up asylum is a complete red herring since that's a tiny fraction of those attempting immigration without legal clearance to do so. You might as well base your policy of whether to prosecute people for running red lights on the fact that some small percentage of them might be heading to the hospital with a medical emergency and thus saying we shouldn't prosecute anyone for running that red light because think about the children.

How about I give you the courtesy to let you know I've read your post and others like it and I simply don't give one goddamn shit about you or your opinion.

I'd put you on Ignore Member, but I like to keep up with what the White Hood crowd is afraid of today.

 

[glenn1]

IMO, the best thing would be to house the kids with the parents (or at least the mother if possible) until they’re deported...which should happen post haste.



Just because their home countries have become crime-filled shitholes controlled by the drug cartels, that shouldn’t qualify as a valid reason for refugee status...

They’re illegal immigrants. PERIOD, and as such, subject to the immigration laws of the USA.

Applying for asylum is a legal act, no matter how much you wish it wasn't

So is barring those falsely claiming asylum from ever getting immigration benefits again for having filed a frivolous claim. And the threshold for being granted asylum is pretty damn high, we turn away the vast majority of claimants here and Japan accepts about 1 in 1,000 claims.

 

[glenn1]

How about I give you the courtesy to let you know I've read your post and others like it and I simply don't give one goddamn shit about you or your opinion.

I'd put you on Ignore Member, but I like to keep up with what the White Hood crowd is afraid of today.

Why not, you don't give a shit about the law and make it up as you go along.

 

[BoomerD]

Applying for asylum is a legal act, no matter how much some folks wish it wasn't

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership in a particular social group
• Political opinion

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

I don’t see anything there about the country being a crime-filled shithole.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And that there’s a lot of progressives who totally miss the ducking point of the immigration laws they passed.

Progressives like Franklin Graham, Laura Bush, Melania Trump, Anthony Scaramucci, Sen. Orin Hatch, Sen. Jeff Flake, Sen. Ben Sasse, Sen. James Lankford, Sen. Susan Collins, Rep. Will Hurd, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, Sen. Pat Roberts, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. John McCain, Rep. Steve Stivers, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Gov John Kassich, Jeb Bush, Sen. John Cornyn?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lame lie is still a lie.

Carry that water.

And polish those boots at the same time.

 

[UNCjigga]

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum



I don’t see anything there about the country being a crime-filled shithole.

Particular social group is a very broad category...and there is a precedent that it can include belonging to a particular family. A Salvadoran could claim PSG if their family was targeted for reprisals based on the actions of another family member. Heard one case on the radio about a woman being targeted because her father took out a loan from a private bank owned by a cartel (WTF??) and couldn't pay it back. They were literally trying to kidnap her while she was fleeing, pregnant, in multiple countries along the way to the US border.

Yes, the burden is on the asylum seeker to show that they qualify. But that means they at least deserve to be heard.

 

[ivwshane]

Dude, your losing your shit. You haven't condemned commuism in this thread so you must be a total pinko.

Is that your problem? You vote for the GOP but are a secret pinko? How conflicted you must be. But it's ok both pinkos and the modern GOP are total authoritarians so you will be able to find a way. Although if you keep throwing shit mom won't buy you anymore cheesy Poof's.

Incorruptible is one of those "both sides" bitches. A former Paul bot. He's a libertarian because he doesn't live in reality where libertarianism is a complete failure.

 

[glenn1]

Particular social group is a very broad category...and there is a precedent that it can include belonging to a particular family. A Salvadoran could claim PSG if their family was targeted for reprisals based on the actions of another family member. Heard one case on the radio about a woman being targeted because her father took out a loan from a private bank owned by a cartel (WTF??) and couldn't pay it back. They were literally trying to kidnap her while she was fleeing, pregnant, in multiple countries along the way to the US border.

Yes, the burden is on the asylum seeker to show that they qualify. But that means they at least deserve to be heard.

They already get heard in a credible fear interview and then judicial hearing if they pass that. Most don’t because their claims are BS.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Incorruptible is one of those "both sides" bitches. A former Paul bot. He's a libertarian because he doesn't live in reality where libertarianism is a complete failure.

Socks are that complex? Huh.

 

[ivwshane]

Socks are that complex? Huh.

He ain't smart enough to be a sock puppet.

 

[UNCjigga]

They already get heard in a credible fear interview and then judicial hearing if they pass that. Most don’t because their claims are BS.

No, they're not getting heard. Have you not been paying attention? Border agents are blocking the entry lanes at official ports of entry, because once an asylum seeker has 2 feet on US soil they are protected by law. So Trump's solution is to bar them from getting in legally, force the desperate ones to enter illegally, and then arrest them and charge them with a misdemeanor. No guarantee of a hearing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

He ain't smart enough to be a sock puppet.

None of the sock puppets here post anything that would indicate that they have functioning brains. Taj? Bucky? 'Indefatigable'? Yeah, not much in the way of smarts happening there.

 

[ivwshane]

None of the sock puppets here post anything that would indicate that they have functioning brains. Taj? Bucky? 'Indefatigable'? Yeah, not much in the way of smarts happening there.

True.

 

[HomerJS]

How about you be honest and say what you are really asking for is that illegal immigration not be prosecuted and those who commit it should just be released into the U.S. After all, "they have kids." The catch and release policy of before isn't coming back unless there's a change to the law (and that isn't happening unless there's a Democratic wave election that brings a huge supermajority), so now it's simply a question about what to do with the children of the kids who are prosecuted. Bringing up asylum is a complete red herring since that's a tiny fraction of those attempting immigration without legal clearance to do so. You might as well base your policy of whether to prosecute people for running red lights on the fact that some small percentage of them might be heading to the hospital with a medical emergency and thus saying we shouldn't prosecute anyone for running that red light because think about the children.



Hopefully they won't be in this country for long enough for that poking to even happen.

First of all are you going to take the word of an administration that lies more times then they tell the truth? That makes you an idiot. Second they knew they were going to have a crackdown and didn't get off their fat rich assess and staff up detention centers and immigration judges so these cases could be adjudicated.

 

[Phokus]

lol at arguing with someone who argues in bad faith like glenn1

 

[MrSquished]

If the parents bring their children along to rob a bank and get caught...what happens to those children? They don’t just get set free to become free-range children...they get taken into custody or released to the custody of family members. (no, I’m NOT actually comparing illegal immigration to bank robbery as to the severity of the crime, but when the parents ARE arrested, something has to be done with the kids.)

IMO, the best thing would be to house the kids with the parents (or at least the mother if possible) until they’re deported...which should happen post haste.



Just because their home countries have become crime-filled shitholes controlled by the drug cartels, that shouldn’t qualify as a valid reason for refugee status...

They’re illegal immigrants. PERIOD, and as such, subject to the immigration laws of the USA.

This is what Obama did and he was the deporter in chief actually.