|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months.
This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities.
You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum.
So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever.
|
On February 12 2019 06:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 06:00 Doodsmack wrote:On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. Omar apologized, dem leadership called her out. Trumps use of tropes still stands though. Just the media making a sheriffs star out to be the star of David (set against a background of dollar Bills in a trump tweet). she's been doing this for weeks. but again, that is not the point. also her apology was a joke. Steve King got all his assignments stripped away, I'm still waiting for that here.
Honestly, I am getting pretty tired of the hyper-sensitivity to anything related to Israel. You cannot even criticize one bit of it without being branded a racist/antisemit. The military cooperation and money flows go very deep, the politics are also deeply intertwined between the two countries, yet if someone complains about the lobbying done by that country and its nationals or just jews supporting israel-US cooperation by whatever mean (money, influence, you name it), it is considered as antisemit etc etc.
(ps : yes I perfectly know about the Holocaust, the Memorial is based in my hometown and it covers it perfectly as well as school lessons, and the French govt of that time had a huge responsibility in it related to French jews. This is not the subject. However that empathy is not supposed to last forever when we witness what policies (the state of) Israel is enforcing. So that ship as sailed and I consider myself entitled to criticize current actions.)
Israel has got the same f****** status as EVERY other country, we should be able to criticize it exactly the same as the others. Or boycott, for that matter. It's supposed to be freedom of expression, it's not inciting racial hate.
Stop being snowflakes.
You can't even begin to compare what King said to what that Dem Rep said. (She might be a bit borderline sometimes since it looks like she has strong convictions on this topic and looks clearly on the side of Palestine, but hey, US politics are full of over-borderline idiots. Hello Senator Hyde-Smith for example...)
|
On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found.
All of the statements I've seen were fine. Went something like, "AIPAC is the reason why so many members of Congress are pro-Israel" / "HOW DARE YOU BE ANTISEMITIC"
Meanwhile people like Zeldin receive an antisemitic threat from a random person and immediately go on Twitter to hold Ilhan Omar accountable for it when she has nothing to do with it, but nobody is going to care that he did that obviously.
And also, as you correctly point out, you don't get to talk about dog whistles ever again.
|
At worst her statements suffered from twitters lack of nuance. Which is fine for almost any special interest except for one that deals with The Jewish people because of the centuries of anti Semitic tropes.
Steve King is a garbage human.
|
On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months.
Why do you even want to put everyone in jail ?
People who legally apply for asylum and are not convicted or anything in their home country do not deserve jail. Jail is supposed to be where you put criminals. The current policy is to put everyone in jail without distinguishing, even children. The US is not flooded. There are 90% LESS immigrants than 15 years ago. *Ninety* percent.
Have you not understood that the longer you put someone in jail, the less chance he has to integrate and contribute to society ? Instead you increase his chances to be a future criminal. Or maybe that's your whole point ? Then you have an excuse to throw them out.
(I AM talking about legal immigrants/asylum seekers going in from ports of entry, mind you)
|
On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever.
No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away.
and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families.
|
On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families.
But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum.
There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem.
|
On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families.
Is it not entirely possible that claims are increasing because conditions in those countries are getting worse? You assume (mistakenly) that claims are increasing because people have some kind of shady intentions. And even if many were using it as a method to enter the country just to get in (which they aren't), then so what? The courts will catch them and deny their access.
They all seem to want to get jobs and reunite with family and pursue the American Dream. Such as it is now I guess. So even if you were right to any degree (which you aren't), that doesn't seem terrible. If these people are vetted (which they are) then let them in.
Right-leaning people have these weird ass talking points. You argue from the basic assumption that having some people come in is a bad thing. It's not. Like.... it categorically is not. You need to start from there and then frame an argument on that basis. And at the risk of going off on a tangent, that seems to be super common these days in conservative circles.
Take bad premise > support with false information or bad faith argument > deny factual counterargument > rinse and repeat.
|
On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem.
In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue?
|
I wonder when the last time the GOP actually forced one of its own who is or did something terrible to step down. Dems seem to do it but I don't really remember much from GOP (I mean most of them still supported ppl like Moore ffs).
|
On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue?
We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings.
The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis.
|
On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you.
[quote]
WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis.
You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources.
but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability.
|
On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability.
Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen.
|
On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability.
This is all bullshit from the claims of flooding over the border to claims that they are linked to cartels. As alway, you live in this fictional world where asylum seekers are this evil invading the country.
We have a legal process for asylum seekers and even conservatives have to admit that 90% show up for their hearings. You are just not one of them. You choose the fantasy land, like Trump.
And the reason there is less money for detention facilities is not all of these people need to be detained. It is really that simple. ICE doesn’t get a blank check to construct unlimited child abuse prisons. Really there should be zero dollars, we would need a super majority in the senate to force that.
Oh Ryan, don’t argue those facilities are safe either. Because all the reporting about them tells a very different story.
|
As I said before, they just repeat false claims over and over and say that "we" (the thinking people) are brainwashed by "da medias".
Facts don't matter to ~40% of America.
|
On February 12 2019 12:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. This is all bullshit from the claims of flooding over the border to claims that they are linked to cartels. As alway, you live in this fictional world where asylum seekers are this evil invading the country. We have a legal process for asylum seekers and even conservatives have to admit that 90% show up for their hearings. You are just not one of them. You choose the fantasy land, like Trump. https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1095158911223713794And the reason there is less money for detention facilities is not all of these people need to be detained. It is really that simple. ICE doesn’t get a blank check to construct unlimited child abuse prisons. Really there should be zero dollars, we would need a super majority in the senate to force that. Oh Ryan, don’t argue those facilities are safe either. Because all the reporting about them tells a very different story.
You apparently didn't even read what I wrote. Cartels and traffickers exploit a tied up BP. That says nothing about the asylum seekers. Before this asylum wave they were still doing it. I'm not just the one saying this, everyone knows this, the BP has been pointing this out for years now, but your head is firmly in the sand. This is an easy one, a gimme. Diversions are not always a complicated idea.
edit: also the denial rate involves people who make it past the first few rounds of screening, so it is, again, entirely irrelevant to what I wrote. That's a separate issue.
|
On February 12 2019 12:34 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen.
Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. And you don't want this talking point, because showing up unannounced at the border is an "official channel."
|
On February 12 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 12:34 Gahlo wrote:On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:[quote] Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. [quote] They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen. Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. And you don't want this talking point, because showing up unannounced at the border is an "official channel."
If asylum seekers were willing to stay in their home countries and shuffle paperwork they wouldn't be asylum seekers in the first place.
|
by definition asylum is come first, apply later. because the death squad isn't going to wait around nicely while you fill out your immigration application.
|
On February 12 2019 13:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 12:34 Gahlo wrote:On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen. Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. And you don't want this talking point, because showing up unannounced at the border is an "official channel." If asylum seekers were willing to stay in their home countries and shuffle paperwork they wouldn't be asylum seekers in the first place.
A) that is not always true, but mostly true. it is the way the law works right now, however.
B) strange how people thought to reply that to my post, in which I allude to that fact (since it is true in general), and not the one I responded to.
edit: I assume Gahlo meant apply from the home country because I don't know else he could possibly mean. if not my bad.
edit2:
the "deal" they came to may be better than it looked at first glance. We'll see. Given how "no new wall" was the mantra here I'm curious to see how even 55 miles plays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://goo.gl/images/p8urTt)
