Illegals in Martha's Vineyard

85,466 Views | 1489 Replies | Last: 16 hrs ago by whiterock
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 6:06p, 2/8/23
boognish_bear said:


Honesty can't believe China is still letting their citizens leave.

Last year China lost 850,000 citizens. And will be losing between 1-3 million a year from now on until probably the end of the century.

And since the average Han is law abiding and high IQ the gov. is very foolish to let them leave.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:25p, 2/8/23
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


Honesty can believe China is still letting their citizens leave.

Last year the China lost 850,000 citizens. And will be losing between 1-3 million a year from now on until probably the end of the century.

And since the average Han is law abiding and high IQ the gov. is foolish to let them leave.
Letting? Those are Honey Pots heading for Democrat congressmen offices.
Reply Quote
2
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 11:43a, 2/9/23
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 1:48p, 2/9/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.

Reply Quote
1
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 2:14p, 2/9/23
Harrison Bergeron said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


Honesty can believe China is still letting their citizens leave.

Last year the China lost 850,000 citizens. And will be losing between 1-3 million a year from now on until probably the end of the century.

And since the average Han is law abiding and high IQ the gov. is foolish to let them leave.
Letting? Those are Honey Pots heading for Democrat congressmen offices.
Bingo
Reply Quote
2
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 11:40a, 2/10/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 11:45a, 2/10/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.
Reply Quote
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 11:49a, 2/10/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
1
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 12:00p, 2/10/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.
Reply Quote
2
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:21p, 2/10/23
Mass migration can change you fast…



Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 8:32a, 2/11/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.

That in bold is what international law actually dictates. People are free to cross borders to flee imminent peril to their lives (war, famine, pestilence, etc....), but only until they escape the imminent peril. NO ONE has the right to flee across as many borders as they desire to reach the country they desire.

That is not asylum.
That is IMMIGRATION.

We have laws on such things. And those laws have quotas, in both aggregate numbers as well as geographic quotas. They also have preference hierarchy (skills, family ties, etc....). Economic refugees are specifically excluded. Our asylum law is written for POLITICAL refugees, to give sanctuary for people to escape death or incarceration due to belief, language, ethnicity, things which cannot or should not be forced to change. NONE of these people crossing our border qualify.

Our government is expanding the parameters of prosecutorial discretion (on apprehension and deportation) to engage indefacto immigration at 5x or greater the annual statutory limit.

No alien has a right to come to, or reside in, the USA.
None.

Stop, please.
It's wrong.
The American People overwhelmingly oppose it.
And our politicians, knowing that, are circumventing law to do it anyway.
Reply Quote
3
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:19p, 2/13/23
Reply Quote
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 11:14a, 2/15/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 11:57a, 2/15/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.
Reply Quote
1
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 2:36p, 2/16/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 2:42p, 2/16/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Jack Bauer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:52p, 2/16/23
...
Reply Quote
1 edit
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 5:07a, 2/17/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.
Refugees do not have under international law a right to asylum anywhere other than the first safe country.*
Refugees do not have under international law a right to menu options of which country they may have asylum.
Refugees do not have under US law a right to obtain asylum.

US statute is written to admit POLITICAL refugees, not other classes. "I'm poor/hungry" is doesn't cut it.

*meaning, Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war there may only cross borders until they escape war. They do not have a legal right to keep walking all the way to Copenhagen. That requires acquiescence of every country along the way.

The real dilemma: Western countries are demographic collapse. Governments in those countries see refugee inflows as a solution to an imminent problem. The inflows are (predictably) generating increasing popular resentment.

You deal with refugees where they are, not halfway around the damned world....lots easier to move money than people.

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:59a, 2/17/23
whiterock said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.
Refugees do not have under international law a right to asylum anywhere other than the first safe country.*
Refugees do not have under international law a right to menu options of which country they may have asylum.
Refugees do not have under US law a right to obtain asylum.

US statute is written to admit POLITICAL refugees, not other classes. "I'm poor/hungry" is doesn't cut it.

*meaning, Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war there may only cross borders until they escape war. They do not have a legal right to keep walking all the way to Copenhagen. That requires acquiescence of every country along the way.

The real dilemma: Western countries are demographic collapse. Governments in those countries see refugee inflows as a solution to an imminent problem. The inflows are (predictably) generating increasing popular resentment.

You deal with refugees where they are, not halfway around the damned world....lots easier to move money than people.



Right. Anything other than the first safe country and it looks like rent seeking behavior.
Reply Quote
2
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 11:30a, 2/18/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.

You answered my question with a cite to a law that doesn't answer the question.

Nothing in your cited law provides authority to turn back refugees coming to the US through Mexico.

If I missed the authority you think is in the law then do what I did: quote it. We can go from there
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:55a, 2/18/23
Abort your first world children that would expect personal rights, import millions of third world poor every single year that will accept far less rights. A few decades later and the powerful will never be threatened and the ignorant masses will give up any right demanded be given up by the all powerful government or starve. The is has nothing to do with helping "refugees" or asylum seekers.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Reply Quote
1
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 12:46p, 2/18/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.

You answered my question with a cite to a law that doesn't answer the question.

Nothing in your cited law provides authority to turn back refugees coming to the US through Mexico.

If I missed the authority you think is in the law then do what I did: quote it. We can go from there


You asked a general question about where authority comes from. Keep up with your own posts.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46a, 2/20/23
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:33p, 2/20/23
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:03p, 2/22/23
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 6:44a, 2/23/23
Redbrickbear said:
have said here and elsewhere countless times - our government is by sleight of hand surreptitiously executing policy it knows full well the American people do not support.
Reply Quote
2
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 10:53a, 2/23/23
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
have said here and elsewhere countless times - our government is by sleight of hand surreptitiously executing policy it knows full well the American people do not support.
The EU is doing the same.

Executing immigration policy it knows full well that most European citizens do not want.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:17p, 2/23/23
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:12p, 2/23/23
Reply Quote
2
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 12:35p, 2/28/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.

You answered my question with a cite to a law that doesn't answer the question.

Nothing in your cited law provides authority to turn back refugees coming to the US through Mexico.

If I missed the authority you think is in the law then do what I did: quote it. We can go from there


You asked a general question about where authority comes from. Keep up with your own posts.


Again, the law yu cited has nothing to do with refugees at our southern border.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 12:37p, 2/28/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.

You answered my question with a cite to a law that doesn't answer the question.

Nothing in your cited law provides authority to turn back refugees coming to the US through Mexico.

If I missed the authority you think is in the law then do what I did: quote it. We can go from there


You asked a general question about where authority comes from. Keep up with your own posts.


Again, the law yu cited has nothing to do with refugees at our southern border.
You are not a real bright bulb. Your question asked generally where the authority comes from. You got an answer to that question. You just don't like the response.
Reply Quote
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 12:41p, 2/28/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.

You answered my question with a cite to a law that doesn't answer the question.

Nothing in your cited law provides authority to turn back refugees coming to the US through Mexico.

If I missed the authority you think is in the law then do what I did: quote it. We can go from there


You asked a general question about where authority comes from. Keep up with your own posts.


Again, the law yu cited has nothing to do with refugees at our southern border.
You are not a real bright bulb. Your question asked generally where the authority comes from. You got an answer to that question. You just don't like the response.


You are correct, I do not like an answer that fails to do what you claim it does.

Show me authority for making refugees seek asylum before they reach our southern border.

Or be honest and say you can't find any.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 12:53p, 2/28/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.

You answered my question with a cite to a law that doesn't answer the question.

Nothing in your cited law provides authority to turn back refugees coming to the US through Mexico.

If I missed the authority you think is in the law then do what I did: quote it. We can go from there


You asked a general question about where authority comes from. Keep up with your own posts.


Again, the law yu cited has nothing to do with refugees at our southern border.
You are not a real bright bulb. Your question asked generally where the authority comes from. You got an answer to that question. You just don't like the response.


You are correct, I do not like an answer that fails to do what you claim it does.

Show me authority for making refugees seek asylum before they reach our southern border.

Or be honest and say you can't find any.
Here it comes, dummy.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-to-limit-asylum-to-migrants-who-pass-through-a-3rd-nation
Reply Quote
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 5:21p, 2/28/23
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.

You answered my question with a cite to a law that doesn't answer the question.

Nothing in your cited law provides authority to turn back refugees coming to the US through Mexico.

If I missed the authority you think is in the law then do what I did: quote it. We can go from there


You asked a general question about where authority comes from. Keep up with your own posts.


Again, the law yu cited has nothing to do with refugees at our southern border.
You are not a real bright bulb. Your question asked generally where the authority comes from. You got an answer to that question. You just don't like the response.


You are correct, I do not like an answer that fails to do what you claim it does.

Show me authority for making refugees seek asylum before they reach our southern border.

Or be honest and say you can't find any.
Here it comes, dummy.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-to-limit-asylum-to-migrants-who-pass-through-a-3rd-nation

"Never took effect because it was blocked in court"

Court said the president has no such authority.

Strike two, what else you got?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to quash • 5:27p, 2/28/23
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
quash said:
He Hate Me said:
boognish_bear said:
What if prospective asylees had to seek refuge in the first safe country they entered or be barred from claiming asylum? That makes too much sense.


Makes no sense. You don't get to decide what safe is.
That is why we have statutes and regs. They can describe what is safe and whether a credible fear exists or not. We can move this process along in a much more expeditious fashion than we currently are.



Putting up arbitrary barriers does not expedite anything


You are a silly boy.

Refugee wants to seek asylum in the US.

You want him to be forced to stop in some country that is safe. As defined by some bureaucrat.

You find that expeditious. And call me silly.

Just say it: you don't want people coming to America. The home of the free is closed.



Bless your heart. Asylum seeking is not the same thing as venue shopping which is what you want it to be.


Again, what gives the authority to regulate venue?
Federal law

Treaties and international agreements such as the Dublin III Regulation and US-Canada Safe Third Agreement.

Nope. "The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:

at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
by train or
at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S."
You asked a different question. I answered your question about where the authority comes from.

You answered my question with a cite to a law that doesn't answer the question.

Nothing in your cited law provides authority to turn back refugees coming to the US through Mexico.

If I missed the authority you think is in the law then do what I did: quote it. We can go from there


You asked a general question about where authority comes from. Keep up with your own posts.


Again, the law yu cited has nothing to do with refugees at our southern border.
You are not a real bright bulb. Your question asked generally where the authority comes from. You got an answer to that question. You just don't like the response.


You are correct, I do not like an answer that fails to do what you claim it does.

Show me authority for making refugees seek asylum before they reach our southern border.

Or be honest and say you can't find any.
Here it comes, dummy.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-to-limit-asylum-to-migrants-who-pass-through-a-3rd-nation

"Never took effect because it was blocked in court"

Court said the president has no such authority.

Strike two, what else you got?


It is going to happen, dummy.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.