Invasion repelled.

[blackangst1]

Donny wants "merit based immigration".. The only "merit" this little bitch had, was between her legs..

View attachment 995

Mary, if only you had swallowed that one load..

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-mother-illegal-immigrant/

Pay special note to the last paragraph.

 

[ivwshane]

In regards to applying for asylum what law has been passed in Trump's term?

You think a law has to be passed in order to change policy? How naïve of you. What he's done is to close off ports of entry so asylum can not be made and he's limited the amount of refugees the US will take in per year.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/trump-asylum-policy-entrapment.html

This shouldn't be news to anyone praying attention to this issue.

 

[Meghan54]

Are you aware of the difference between asylum and refugee?

Refugee is for people outside of the US, Asylum is for people already in.

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

"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States."

So settle down.

Well aware. But I'm not the one quibbling like the response you, Captain Quibbler, have chosen to run with.

One can claim refugee status, which is different than claiming asylum. Interesting you brought this up.....I suppose your quibbling nature makes you do this.

If the "invasion force" of people is making the claim they want refugee status, I suppose you are correct in that they have to apply outside the U.S., but that's not what they're doing. They want to apply for asylum. That's been stated as their purpose all along, so I tend to look at rules/laws governing what they want to do, not what a quibbler wants to turn them into to win an argument.

They want to apply for asylum, period. They have to get to a U.S. entry point to apply. Period. No other discussion involved.

Asylum status and refugee status are two distinct and separate things, but you know that. And yet you quibble and try to assign them what you feel they are trying to do despite what they are claiming to want to do.

P.S. Applying for asylum gets them to the U.S. and essentially codifies their refugee status, as your link showed:

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

And that's why these people do this, like Cuban exiles, etc. They'd rather take their chances under asylum vs. almost automatically be denied refugee status by this administration. I suppose no one thought the Trump administration would break the law on immigration to deny them the ability to apply for asylum. After all, the law states their claim must be accepted for asylum while applying for refugee status can take infinity these days.

So, not only a quibbler but dishonest. Figures.

 

[Viper1j]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-mother-illegal-immigrant/

Pay special note to the last paragraph.

Like MSB...

Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. Neither condition orevented her from swallowing one more load.

 

[Viper1j]

I guess then the 14th amendment and The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 are bullshit?

Pretty sure Lady Liberty wasn't talking about slaves dragged here against their will.

 

[brycejones]

Well aware. But I'm not the one quibbling like the response you, Captain Quibbler, have chosen to run with.

One can claim refugee status, which is different than claiming asylum. Interesting you brought this up.....I suppose your quibbling nature makes you do this.

If the "invasion force" of people is making the claim they want refugee status, I suppose you are correct in that they have to apply outside the U.S., but that's not what they're doing. They want to apply for asylum. That's been stated as their purpose all along, so I tend to look at rules/laws governing what they want to do, not what a quibbler wants to turn them into to win an argument.

They want to apply for asylum, period. They have to get to a U.S. entry point to apply. Period. No other discussion involved.

Asylum status and refugee status are two distinct and separate things, but you know that. And yet you quibble and try to assign them what you feel they are trying to do despite what they are claiming to want to do.

P.S. Applying for asylum gets them to the U.S. and essentially codifies their refugee status, as your link showed:

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

And that's why these people do this, like Cuban exiles, etc. They'd rather take their chances under asylum vs. almost automatically be denied refugee status by this administration. I suppose no one thought the Trump administration would break the law on immigration to deny them the ability to apply for asylum. After all, the law states their claim must be accepted for asylum while applying for refugee status can take infinity these days.

So, not only a quibbler but dishonest. Figures.

I finally put him on ignore, the dishonesty is never ending. Its like dealing with a wordy version of a certain slow 8 legged creature or the lover of throwing grenades at children. They are here to troll only.

 

[realibrad]

Well aware. But I'm not the one quibbling like the response you, Captain Quibbler, have chosen to run with.

One can claim refugee status, which is different than claiming asylum. Interesting you brought this up.....I suppose your quibbling nature makes you do this.

If the "invasion force" of people is making the claim they want refugee status, I suppose you are correct in that they have to apply outside the U.S., but that's not what they're doing. They want to apply for asylum. That's been stated as their purpose all along, so I tend to look at rules/laws governing what they want to do, not what a quibbler wants to turn them into to win an argument.

They want to apply for asylum, period. They have to get to a U.S. entry point to apply. Period. No other discussion involved.

Asylum status and refugee status are two distinct and separate things, but you know that. And yet you quibble and try to assign them what you feel they are trying to do despite what they are claiming to want to do.

P.S. Applying for asylum gets them to the U.S. and essentially codifies their refugee status, as your link showed:

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

And that's why these people do this, like Cuban exiles, etc. They'd rather take their chances under asylum vs. almost automatically be denied refugee status by this administration. I suppose no one thought the Trump administration would break the law on immigration to deny them the ability to apply for asylum. After all, the law states their claim must be accepted for asylum while applying for refugee status can take infinity these days.

So, not only a quibbler but dishonest. Figures.

You are so stuck in your perspective that you cannot see what I am saying. I am not even coming close to making the situation out to be an invasion. I have said before that the people at the border are coming from horrible backgrounds. I also think Trump cutting down the number of people that get approved is stupid and immoral.

What I am saying is that while people are processed, they are prevented from getting access to the US.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A lesser use of force. How many times do I need to answer this?

I think he's looking for specifics so I'll offer one and that is pepper spray. Tear gas is pretty nasty and indiscriminate. Capsaicin hurts but isn't nearly as harmful unless some idiot swallows a bunch of worlds hottest peppers.

 

[blackangst1]

You think a law has to be passed in order to change policy? How naïve of you. What he's done is to close off ports of entry so asylum can not be made and he's limited the amount of refugees the US will take in per year.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/trump-asylum-policy-entrapment.html

This shouldn't be news to anyone praying attention to this issue.

He closed ONE port for 5 hours and that triggers you?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Build the wall.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You mean like how as the number of people at DMV increases, wait times slow to a crawl?

Jesus youre dense.

More like lets cut the DMV staff to increase the wait times. Trump could have taken his farce which cost a hundred million dollars and increased processing staff. Nope. Trump has no intention of allowing migrants in if he can stop them and for that to happen it must be a herculean task to get through legally. That's Trump's realized goal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Build the wall.

Throw over a rope ladder!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Throw over a rope ladder!

Build it taller.

 

[fskimospy]

Build it taller.

Hasn't Trump wasted enough of our money on stupid border stunts? Look, the wall is dumb and everyone knows it. Its only purpose is to make you guys feel good emotionally and frankly that's a lot of money to spend just on your feelings.

 

[Viper1j]

Build the wall.

We'll charge the ladders to your Visa.

Build it taller.

See above.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Hasn't Trump wasted enough of our money on stupid border stunts? Look, the wall is dumb and everyone knows it. Its only purpose is to make you guys feel good emotionally and frankly that's a lot of money to spend just on your feelings.

It isn't like a barrier, fence, wall, etc. hasn't been proposed before and widely used at sections of the border already. Given what we spend on social programs and the military, the wall is a drop in the bucket. It won't solve the problem of people coming here illegally, but it will sure stop a lot of the low hanging fruit that simply walk across the border in areas that are not secure. Sad that it has gotten to this point, but the Democrats sure are trying hard to get more on the plantation, need those votes.

 

[K1052]

It isn't like a barrier, fence, wall, etc. hasn't been proposed before and widely used at sections of the border already. Given what we spend on social programs and the military, the wall is a drop in the bucket. It won't solve the problem of people coming here illegally, but it will sure stop a lot of the low hanging fruit that simply walk across the border in areas that are not secure. Sad that it has gotten to this point, but the Democrats sure are trying hard to get more on the plantation, need those votes.

If you make the wall bigger then they have to throw the big bags of drugs higher to get them over, very dangerous.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol you obviously have never crossed the border. Your claim is pulled out of your ass. No such zone exists. At least at the Nogales or Tiajuana entry.

For your education-

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/01/border-asylum-port-of-entry-texas-mexico/

 

[fskimospy]

It isn't like a barrier, fence, wall, etc. hasn't been proposed before and widely used at sections of the border already. Given what we spend on social programs and the military, the wall is a drop in the bucket. It won't solve the problem of people coming here illegally, but it will sure stop a lot of the low hanging fruit that simply walk across the border in areas that are not secure. Sad that it has gotten to this point, but the Democrats sure are trying hard to get more on the plantation, need those votes.

Social programs directly benefit American citizens.

Bringing up how much money we waste on the military is hardly a reason to waste more on a stupid wall that will be ineffective. You do bring up a good point though that Democrats, after reigning in Trump's wasteful spending on the military, need to make sure he doesn't waste more on a wall. That can go towards social programs.

 

[Homerboy]

Zones.
Safe zones.
In a layered/tiered construction you set up people in camps in mini societies. To advance to the next zone, closer to the actual country, there be tests, education, participation etc.. We all know that the human genome is capable of extraordinary things, what you want to do is to prime it for optimal odds of success.
In essence we want to deploy these zones not only at our own borders(EU, US) but in the hot zones where these people are fleeing from in the first place.
First things first.

Can we send ALL existing US Citizens through this process as well? There's a lot of people here that aren't contributing very much. (Ironically, many of them are the same people chanting "Build that wall!")

 

[SlowSpyder]

Social programs directly benefit American citizens.

Bringing up how much money we waste on the military is hardly a reason to waste more on a stupid wall that will be ineffective. You do bring up a good point though that Democrats, after reigning in Trump's wasteful spending on the military, need to make sure he doesn't waste more on a wall. That can go towards social programs.

Building a wall directly benefits American citizens, and does so without taking away their work ethic and training them to rely on the government and to vote for the party that promises more free stuff. Sounds like a great use of money given how bloated our social spending and military budgets are.

 

[fskimospy]

Building a wall directly benefits American citizens, and does so without taking away their work ethic and training them to rely on the government and to vote for the party that promises more free stuff. Sounds like a great use of money given how bloated our social spending and military budgets are.

Yeah, I'm sure the average American is going to see a great return on investment for that border wall, hahahaha. Look, you aren't fooling anyone. I'm sure you know the wall is stupid as much as we do.

It's odd how all those European countries with much higher social spending than we have seem to have no problem with work ethic or training and in fact generally enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. Durrrrrrrr.

 

[blackangst1]

Speaking of the wall...its interesting how times have changed. When the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed, it got overwhelming support from both sides. It passed 80-19.

I wonder how many Senators who voted for that are still in office and are now against it?

Anyway. Just interesting.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Speaking of the wall...its interesting how times have changed. When the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed, it got overwhelming support from both sides. It passed 80-19.

I wonder how many Senators who voted for that are still in office and are now against it?

Anyway. Just interesting.

It is simply because Trump campaigned on it, so the left doesn't think at all, they just react and say it is bad. It is the partisan world we live in today.

 

[fskimospy]

Speaking of the wall...its interesting how times have changed. When the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed, it got overwhelming support from both sides. It passed 80-19.

I wonder how many Senators who voted for that are still in office and are now against it?

Anyway. Just interesting.

Oh I’m sure there are some, and while naked politics has something to do with it I’m sure if we live in a sane world the fact that the fence was totally ineffective and very expensive would be a good reason to oppose it now after supporting it before.

From wiki:

A report in May 2008 by the Congressional Research Service found "strong indication" that illegal border-crossers had simply found new routes.[13] A 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, found that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015, the U.S.-Mexico border fence had been breached 9,287 times, at an average cost of $784 per breach to repair.[14] The same GAO report concluded that "CBP cannot measure the contribution of fencing to border security operations along the southwest border because it has not developed metrics for this assessment."[12] GAO noted that because the government lacked such data, it was unable to assess the effectiveness of border fencing, and therefore could not "identify the cost effectiveness of border fencing compared to other assets the agency deploys, including Border Patrol agents and various surveillance technologies."[15]

The fence is routinely climbed or otherwise circumvented.[9] The GAO reported in 2017 that both pedestrian and vehicle barriers have been defeated by various methods, including using ramps to drive vehicles "up and over" vehicle fencing in the sector; scaling, jumping over, or breaching pedestrian fencing; burrowing or tunneling underground; and even using small aircraft.[16] New York Times op-ed writer Lawrence Downes wrote in 2013: "A climber with a rope can hop it in less than half a minute. ... Smugglers with jackhammers tunnel under it. They throw drugs and rocks over it. The fence is breached not just by sunlight and shadows, but also the hooded gaze of drug-cartel lookouts, and by bullets. Border agents describe their job as an unending battle of wits, a cat-mouse game with the constant threat of violence."[9][17]

After a performance like that isn’t the smart move to oppose the next wall idea?