The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Are we sure he is even literate. I have my suspicions

[Gatefan1976]

Are we sure he is even literate. I have my suspicions

He uses braile, never dislikes anything he can grab or feel.

[Chaka-Z0]

It always does.
The real question is, what did it gain?

Political capital for the upcoming election, what else?

It's quite obvious this is a manufactured crisis which aims to blame the Dems for ''open borders'' on the 2020s. Even as dense as he is, Trump clearly knew that his Wall initiative would never receive approval, and I don't think he wanted it to go through prior the elections.

That's the easiest way to sway the pseudo-xenophobes MAGA jarheads to his favor. Once he gets the Wall, he's got nothing left to offer really.

[Coco Pops]

Bible classes really that's important ..... sigh.

[Annoyed]

Political capital for the upcoming election, what else?

It's quite obvious this is a manufactured crisis which aims to blame the Dems for ''open borders'' on the 2020s. Even as dense as he is, Trump clearly knew that his Wall initiative would never receive approval, and I don't think he wanted it to go through prior the elections.

That's the easiest way to sway the pseudo-xenophobes MAGA jarheads to his favor. Once he gets the Wall, he's got nothing left to offer really.

No, it's about protecting the nation from invasion. A good percentage of people in the US are concerned about the illegal immigrant problem, and want it solved, not just Trump supporters. And you can knock off the racist labeling. How many times do I have to say this isn't about race. It's about illegal immigration, regardless of the source.

You yourself have said that you wouldn't want this flood of illegals coming in to Canada. Since you are not willing to welcome them into Canada and provide their food, room, board, cell phones and whatever else, (which is your country's right), what sort of hypocrite are you to say we should welcome them into ours?

[Gatefan1976]

No, it's about protecting the nation from invasion. A good percentage of people in the US are concerned about the illegal immigrant problem, and want it solved, not just Trump supporters. And you can knock off the racist labeling. How many times do I have to say this isn't about race. It's about illegal immigration, regardless of the source.

You yourself have said that you wouldn't want this flood of illegals coming in to Canada. Since you are not willing to welcome them into Canada and provide their food, room, board, cell phones and whatever else, (which is your country's right), what sort of hypocrite are you to say we should welcome them into ours?

Tell ya what, learn the difference between what constitutes the difference between an illegal immigrant and a Asylum seeker, and we'll talk.

[Annoyed]

Tell ya what, learn the difference between what constitutes the difference between an illegal immigrant and a Asylum seeker, and we'll talk.

As soon as you understand that I don't care if they call themselves a ham sandwich, come in through the front door or stay the hell out.

[Gatefan1976]

As soon as you understand that I don't care if they call themselves a ham sandwich, come in through the front door or stay the hell out.

So you are simply incapable of making a simple distinction?
Illegals use the back door, and they almost always use air and sea-lanes to arrive to the US, and most other countries, NOT border crossings which are more defended.
Asylum seekers come in big, obvious groups for protection and media attention to their plight, and they are 100% LEGAL under international, and your own countries law.
They ARE coming through your proverbial front door.
So, the question is really, is it what I want (which is the law) or what you want (which isn't)?

[Annoyed]

So you are simply incapable of making a simple distinction?
Illegals use the back door, and they almost always use air and sea-lanes to arrive to the US, and most other countries, NOT border crossings which are more defended.
Asylum seekers come in big, obvious groups for protection and media attention to their plight, and they are 100% LEGAL under international, and your own countries law.
They ARE coming through your proverbial front door.
So, the question is really, is it what I want (which is the law) or what you want (which isn't)?

By "Coming in the front door", I mean showing up at an official point of entry, applying for admittance, and complying with all regulations. Just saying "I want in" doesn't cut it.

For example, afaik, we are currently requiring all applicants to remain in Mexico while they are processed.

And also, afaik, there is no legal requirement that any nation accept anyone as a refugee.

[Chaka-Z0]

You yourself have said that you wouldn't want this flood of illegals coming in to Canada. Since you are not willing to welcome them into Canada and provide their food, room, board, cell phones and whatever else, (which is your country's right), what sort of hypocrite are you to say we should welcome them into ours?

Nice try twisting what I said. I said I would gladly welcome as many as humanly possible and pointed out that we do not have the resource potential of the US. You just latch on things that corroborates your discourse. Canada is already doing much more in terms of immigrants IN vs population so spare me your lessons.

Columbia took in 2 million refugees, without any actual problems. If they can, the US certainly can do it tenfold.

No, it's about protecting the nation from invasion. A good percentage of people in the US are concerned about the illegal immigrant problem, and want it solved, not just Trump supporters.

''Good'' is probably the only thing you can call your precious percentage because it's not the majority, and far from it. What you fail to understand is the current situation right now is abnormal, because of the Venezuela crisis.

And you can knock off the racist labeling. How many times do I have to say this isn't about race. It's about illegal immigration, regardless of the source.

I'll knock it off when the core of Trump's base, blatant racist bigots, are gone. Wanna take a ride in Mississippi or Arizona to see what people really think of immigrants? Like it or not that's the gang you aligned yourself with when you gave allegiance to McDonald Trump.

Bible classes really that's important ..... sigh.

Yep saw that too, thought it was an April fools or something. Seems like the good old Christian education homeschooling is making a comeback. Quoting apostles will come in handy for the next job interviews and leaders of tomorrow for sure, who needs maths and science really?

[Gatefan1976]

By "Coming in the front door", I mean showing up at an official point of entry, applying for admittance, and complying with all regulations. Just saying "I want in" doesn't cut it.

2 things.
1: Yes they do
2: Your border patrol agents have been told to deny them access to the legal methods of entry so they try illegal means.
You are creating a false standard.

For example, afaik, we are currently requiring all applicants to remain in Mexico while they are processed.

You have no say in Mexican internal affairs.

And also, afaik, there is no legal requirement that any nation accept anyone as a refugee.

Actually, there is.
I ask you to educate yourself, you ignore it.
I use harsh language, and you claim victimhood.
That's what children do.

[Annoyed]

Nice try twisting what I said. I said I would gladly welcome as many as humanly possible and pointed out that we do not have the resource potential of the US. You just latch on things that corroborates your discourse. Canada is already doing much more in terms of immigrants IN vs population so spare me your lessons.

Canada can do as much as we can, or more. All they have to do is levy high enough taxes on you to pay for it.

You know, like they do here.

[Chaka-Z0]

2 things.
1: Yes they do
2: Your border patrol agents have been told to deny them access to the legal methods of entry so they try illegal means.
You are creating a false standard.

Check aaannd... Check.

You have no say in Mexican internal affairs.

Trump could only wish.

Actually, there is.
I ask you to educate yourself, you ignore it.
I use harsh language, and you claim victimhood.
That's what children do.

You know what, I retract my previous statement, harsh language is justified. Facts don't sink in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asyl..._United_States

Follow GF's advice and educate yourself. Ever heard of Human Rights Law Annoyed?

Canada can do as much as we can, or more. All they have to do is levy high enough taxes on you to pay for it.

You know, like they do here.

Got some news for you, you're not the special little snowflake you think Americans are.

https://montrealgazette.com/business...he-oecd-report

In the rest of Canada, the average tax burden was 30.4 per cent of GDP. It was 26 per cent in the United States.

I pay much more taxes than you buddy. Do you see me stomp my feet and WAAAAAAAAAAAA about it like you do? Perhaps I have the ability to recognize that paying taxes can actually benefit our society as a whole?

[Annoyed]

2 things.
1: Yes they do
2: Your border patrol agents have been told to deny them access to the legal methods of entry so they try illegal means.
You are creating a false standard.

If the front door on a house is locked, does that give the burglar the right to pick the lock or pry open a side window? No.

You have no say in Mexican internal affairs.

Correct. But if Mexico doesn't wish to allow them to remain at the border, in Mexico, Mexico can deport them to their point of entry into Mexico. They have no right to force the US to allow them entry.

Actually, there is.
I ask you to educate yourself, you ignore it.
I use harsh language, and you claim victimhood.
That's what children do.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7552621.html

Yes, it's true, under treaties and intl. law, we can't reject all asylum seekers.

But the cited article point out something interesting;

That said, a person cannot claim asylum unless they are on US soil.

That is a loophole, that does give a way to stem the flow. Once they enter legally, through an official entry point, we are required to hear their case. But we can legally deny them entry.

Oh, and whatever happened to the intl. concept that an asylum seeker is entitled to seek asylum in the first country he reaches where he is safe from persecution by the govt. he is fleeing? Wasn't that one of the big argument points about this discussion when it was a hot topic in Europe, and one of the triggers for Brexit?

Oh, and again, we come into the realm of altered definitions. Asylum was intended to provide an escape for people who have been politically persecuted by the government or other authorities in their home countries. But many of the "asylum seekers" outright claim that they're seeking protection from harsh economic conditions?

I'm sorry, just because your home country's economy is in the tank does not mean you're being persecuted. They are entirely separate things, and there is no legal justification for a nation having to take in folks fleeing a bad economy.

[aretood2]

If the front door on a house is locked, does that give the burglar the right to pick the lock or pry open a side window? No.

This is a false equivalency. Someone going to a port of entry to claim asylum is in no way comparable to an attempt to break in. By law, the US has to allow people to access ports of entry where they can speak to immigration/border officials on US soil. By law if said people request asylum, that request must be processed. This is a law that the Senate ratified under the applicable articles of the Constitution which dictate that said law becomes second only to the Constitution itself.

You claim to believe in rule of law yet you don't wish to abide by it? That's hypocrisy and duplicity at its finest.

Correct. But if Mexico doesn't wish to allow them to remain at the border, in Mexico, Mexico can deport them to their point of entry into Mexico. They have no right to force the US to allow them entry.

If someone leaves Mexican soil and are not a Mexican citizen, then they have no obligation to take said person back. Imagine Mexico offloading its illegals to the US....oh wait....what was I saying about hypocrisy?


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7552621.html

Yes, it's true, under treaties and intl. law, we can't reject all asylum seekers.

But the cited article point out something interesting;


That is a loophole, that does give a way to stem the flow. Once they enter legally, through an official entry point, we are required to hear their case. But we can legally deny them entry.

The article doesn't say that (the bolded). It mentions visa restrictions to make migration to the desired country difficult, but once they are on US soil (or any nation's soil) they can claim asylum. This is why none of the caravans wanted to accept asylum from Mexico (when offered) because that could easily disqualify them from US Asylum. No, it is downright illegal to block a port of entry with the intent of preventing an asylum request. Illegal. Against the Law. A violation of the law. Not Legal.

Oh, and whatever happened to the intl. concept that an asylum seeker is entitled to seek asylum in the first country he reaches where he is safe from persecution by the govt. he is fleeing? Wasn't that one of the big argument points about this discussion when it was a hot topic in Europe, and one of the triggers for Brexit?

It never existed, not the way you describe it. And that is a very simplistic notion of Brexit. The British are nowhere near as xenophobic as Americans.

Oh, and again, we come into the realm of altered definitions. Asylum was intended to provide an escape for people who have been politically persecuted by the government or other authorities in their home countries. But many of the "asylum seekers" outright claim that they're seeking protection from harsh economic conditions?

Cool, so why not allow them to ask for asylum and then deny them following the legal process instead of trying to do something illegal like keeping them from asking? Oh right...scary brown people.

I'm sorry, just because your home country's economy is in the tank does not mean you're being persecuted. They are entirely separate things, and there is no legal justification for a nation having to take in folks fleeing a bad economy.

Asylum seekers from that area have precedent though, your opinion notwithstanding. After all, we are talking about the law not opinions. Two totally different things.