Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Their presence may be authorized if they filed Form I-589. If they have not done that, then their presence is still not authorized.

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Their presence may be authorized if they filed Form I-589. If they have not done that, then their presence is still not authorized.

---

You are quibbling. I am sure they did the paperwork- there are folks that help them with that.

So the point is that they are not currently illegally in the United States.

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Their presence may be authorized if they filed Form I-589. If they have not done that, then their presence is still not authorized.

---

You are quibbling. I am sure they did the paperwork- there are folks that help them with that.

So the point is that they are not currently illegally in the United States.

---

The point is you don't know that. You are just guessing at this juncture and trying to make it sound like a legal argument.

Canada2017 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

2,000,000 illegals into the United States in one year .

Almost four times the population of the state of Wyoming…..in one year .

Really think this surge of humanity from central and South America is going is going to stop on it's own ?

Why would it ?

Who is going to feed these increasing millions ….who is going to pay for their medical care ?

Really think any country can absorb the annual surplus work force of two continents indefinitely ?

---

They're the ones feeding you, unless you're spending your days picking corn.

---

Corn?

---

He's not aware that they use combines to harvest corn.

---

The dude has totally lost his mind ….seriously.

Mechanization took over most of agriculture decades ago .
Only a relatively few sectors utilize raw labor .

Even on my farm we only employed 6 full time workers year round .

And they were all legal .

Can't put a man worth 8 dollars an hour on a $ 200,000 piece of equipment and expect things to work out .

---

Dairy still utilizes human labor, but not at the numbers our legal immigration can t handle.

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Their presence may be authorized if they filed Form I-589. If they have not done that, then their presence is still not authorized.

---

You are quibbling. I am sure they did the paperwork- there are folks that help them with that.

So the point is that they are not currently illegally in the United States.

---

The point is you don't know that. You are just guessing at this juncture and trying to make it sound like a legal argument.

---

1 It is a very educated guess.

2. If they are residing illegally, you don't think DeSantis and Abbott would find that out?

3. Most importantly, it is the people claiming that they are illegal that need to prove their claim. I don't need to disprove it.

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Fine, so Florida doesn't have the right to help them get to Mass to wait for their hearings?

Do you believe non-border states should be allowed to determine immigration laws? If they are, then there should be no issue taking g a small amount until hearings. After all asylum is not planned, so Florida has no idea how many will show up and when.

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Their presence may be authorized if they filed Form I-589. If they have not done that, then their presence is still not authorized.

---

You are quibbling. I am sure they did the paperwork- there are folks that help them with that.

So the point is that they are not currently illegally in the United States.

---

The point is you don't know that. You are just guessing at this juncture and trying to make it sound like a legal argument.

---

1 It is a very educated guess.

2. If they are residing illegally, you don't think DeSantis and Abbott would find that out?

3. Most importantly, it is the people claiming that they are illegal that need to prove their claim. I don't need to disprove it.

---

Wow! A very educated guess? That you know the legal status of 50 people who entered this country without inspection and you think they all have legal authorization to be present in the United States? I would like to think that lawyers have the superpowers you are trying to ascribe to yourself, but I don't. And I don't because they don't.

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Fine, so Florida doesn't have the right to help them get to Mass to wait for their hearings?

Do you believe non-border states should be allowed to determine immigration laws? If they are, then there should be no issue taking g a small amount until hearings. After all asylum is not planned, so Florida has no idea how many will show up and when.

---

Florida can do what it wants to help people awaiting asylum heaqrings. If Florida lies to people, takes them in place where they have no shot at work, to prove a political point, then Florida is a jerk.

The federal government sets immigration policy. It has to be that way.

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Their presence may be authorized if they filed Form I-589. If they have not done that, then their presence is still not authorized.

---

You are quibbling. I am sure they did the paperwork- there are folks that help them with that.

So the point is that they are not currently illegally in the United States.

---

The point is you don't know that. You are just guessing at this juncture and trying to make it sound like a legal argument.

---

1 It is a very educated guess.

2. If they are residing illegally, you don't think DeSantis and Abbott would find that out?

3. Most importantly, it is the people claiming that they are illegal that need to prove their claim. I don't need to disprove it.

---

Wow! A very educated guess? That you know the legal status of 50 people who entered this country without inspection and you think they all have legal authorization to be present in the United States? I would like to think that lawyers have the superpowers you are trying to ascribe to yourself, but I don't. And I don't because they don't.

---

Notice you did not address the other two points. My educated guess is based onthe fact that asylum seekers are routinely assisted by lawyers who know the law and know what paeprwork to fill out. I have zero reason to suspect that the paperwork did not happen here.

What is your proof that the group sent to Martha's Vineyard is in the country illegally?

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Their presence may be authorized if they filed Form I-589. If they have not done that, then their presence is still not authorized.

---

You are quibbling. I am sure they did the paperwork- there are folks that help them with that.

So the point is that they are not currently illegally in the United States.

---

The point is you don't know that. You are just guessing at this juncture and trying to make it sound like a legal argument.

---

1 It is a very educated guess.

2. If they are residing illegally, you don't think DeSantis and Abbott would find that out?

3. Most importantly, it is the people claiming that they are illegal that need to prove their claim. I don't need to disprove it.

---

Wow! A very educated guess? That you know the legal status of 50 people who entered this country without inspection and you think they all have legal authorization to be present in the United States? I would like to think that lawyers have the superpowers you are trying to ascribe to yourself, but I don't. And I don't because they don't.

---

Notice you did not address the other two points. My educated guess is based onthe fact that asylum seekers are routinely assisted by lawyers who know the law and know what paeprwork to fill out. I have zero reason to suspect that the paperwork did not happen here.

What is your proof that the group sent to Martha's Vineyard is in the country illegally?

---

Who cares if DeSantis or Abbott are aware that all 50 folks are here unlawfully? They don't have deportation powers so they move them around to places inside the United States where the tolerant leftist, Democrats provide them with the sanctuary as they promised call the National Guard on them.

Just one day after Gov. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.) flew roughly 50 illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts is giving them the boot.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/illegal-immigrants-get-the-boot-after-one-day-on-marthas-vineyard/

That and the fact that these transports are in response to the federal government encouraging illegal immigration and that they all entered the country without inspection and that these transports have not been available as free trips for the general public.

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Fine, so Florida doesn't have the right to help them get to Mass to wait for their hearings?

Do you believe non-border states should be allowed to determine immigration laws? If they are, then there should be no issue taking g a small amount until hearings. After all asylum is not planned, so Florida has no idea how many will show up and when.

---

Florida can do what it wants to help people awaiting asylum heaqrings. If Florida lies to people, takes them in place where they have no shot at work, to prove a political point, then Florida is a jerk.

The federal government sets immigration policy. It has to be that way.

---

Why do they have no shot at work? Are you saying Martha's Vineyard is racist? That is illegal. Will Garland investigate why these asylum seekers are denied work in Martha's Vineyard?


Why do you assume Florida is easy to find work? This is a National issue, the Feds are making the policy. All the States should help.

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Fine, so Florida doesn't have the right to help them get to Mass to wait for their hearings?

Do you believe non-border states should be allowed to determine immigration laws? If they are, then there should be no issue taking g a small amount until hearings. After all asylum is not planned, so Florida has no idea how many will show up and when.

---

Florida can do what it wants to help people awaiting asylum heaqrings. If Florida lies to people, takes them in place where they have no shot at work, to prove a political point, then Florida is a jerk.

The federal government sets immigration policy. It has to be that way.

---

It most certainly does set immigration policy, and it most certainly does have to be that way. The federal government is also certainly doing a very bad job of setting immigration policy, but it most certainly does not have to be that way.

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

2,000,000 illegals into the United States in one year .

Almost four times the population of the state of Wyoming…..in one year .

Really think this surge of humanity from central and South America is going is going to stop on it's own ?

Why would it ?

Who is going to feed these increasing millions ….who is going to pay for their medical care ?

Really think any country can absorb the annual surplus work force of two continents indefinitely ?

---

They're the ones feeding you, unless you're spending your days picking corn.

---

Corn?

---

He's not aware that they use combines to harvest corn.

---

The dude has totally lost his mind ….seriously.

Mechanization took over most of agriculture decades ago .
Only a relatively few sectors utilize raw labor .

Even on my farm we only employed 6 full time workers year round .

And they were all legal .

Can't put a man worth 8 dollars an hour on a $ 200,000 piece of equipment and expect things to work out .

---

Dairy still utilizes human labor, but not at the numbers our legal immigration can t handle.

---

Only to a point .

You can milk hundreds of cows within an 8 hour shift in a double 20 herringbone parlor employing only 3 men .

2 guys milking and one prepping .

Some parlors are even larger with more machines .

Just like every other industry .....dairies have been looking for ways to reduce labor needs for many decades .

This whole dialogue that US agriculture needs or can absorb millions of raw laborers every year is simply wrong .

BTW the most cost effective way to find and keep good American farm labor was to provide clean/quality housing .
If the man's wife liked the house....she made damn sure her husband showed up to work .

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Fine, so Florida doesn't have the right to help them get to Mass to wait for their hearings?

Do you believe non-border states should be allowed to determine immigration laws? If they are, then there should be no issue taking g a small amount until hearings. After all asylum is not planned, so Florida has no idea how many will show up and when.

---

Florida can do what it wants to help people awaiting asylum heaqrings. If Florida lies to people, takes them in place where they have no shot at work, to prove a political point, then Florida is a jerk.

The federal government sets immigration policy. It has to be that way.

---

Why do they have no shot at work? Are you saying Martha's Vineyard is racist? That is illegal. Will Garland investigate why these asylum seekers are denied work in Martha's Vineyard?


Why do you assume Florida is easy to find work? This is a National issue, the Feds are making the policy. All the States should help.

---

Because Martha's Vineyard's economy is wholly seasonal.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Fine, so Florida doesn't have the right to help them get to Mass to wait for their hearings?

Do you believe non-border states should be allowed to determine immigration laws? If they are, then there should be no issue taking g a small amount until hearings. After all asylum is not planned, so Florida has no idea how many will show up and when.

---

Florida can do what it wants to help people awaiting asylum heaqrings. If Florida lies to people, takes them in place where they have no shot at work, to prove a political point, then Florida is a jerk.

The federal government sets immigration policy. It has to be that way.

---

It most certainly does set immigration policy, and it most certainly does have to be that way. The federal government is also certainly doing a very bad job of setting immigration policy, but it most certainly does not have to be that way.

---

Agree 100%

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Most of these migrants are seeking asylum. Venezuela is a failed state. Whether they qualify for asylum is a question to be decided by immigration courts that have been poorly staffed and overburdened under both Dems and Reps, but they do have a legal right to request it.

How is lying to desperate people and then dumping them out like stray dogs and cats dumped on the side of rural highways to fend for themselves in any way Christian? These migrants weren't even in Florida. Jesus Christ was a refugee. Mary and Joseph fled Harod's murder campaign into Egypt. Where would DeSantis have dumped them?

America needs immigrants. We have an aging population and lots of work that needs doing. Bush tried & his own party wouldn't support him. DeSantis pulling a stunt like this doesn't bode well for any serious attempts to fix the situation, and the unending GOP talking points blaming the "border crisis" on Biden are disingenuous when Republicans also refuse to work with Biden / Democrats on anything.

---

The law is very clear on qualifying for refugee status. People must be fleeing religious or ethnic or political persecution, imprisonment or death for who they are or what they believe. Among the many things NOT qualifying for refugee status: poverty, hunger, crime, political instability.

NONE of these migrants qualify. +90% of them will, should they actually show for their hearings, ultimately be rejected for asylum. Because they do not qualify for it. But they are here. And because we are a free society with limited internal controls on movement or employment, we cannot round up illegal immigrants for deportation in this country. They have to actually break a law to get arrested before deportation is anything more than a theoretical threat.

.....because federal bureaucracy is refusing to uphold its enumerated constitutional responsibility to defend the border, as a matter of partisan policy.

We need to immigrate 2-4x more people every year than current statute allows. But political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) knows the American people would never support changing law to add 2-4x more legal immigants. So. Our government just stands back from the border and facilitates illegal crossing, and goes thru the processing an arraignment for deportation proceedings they all know will never happen Ergo we have a de facto open border, facilitating thru the back door the levels of immigration we need to benefit our society but cannot get thru the front door because the American people do not want it. The price is, we don't get well educated immigrants who bring skills, knowledge, and capital into the country. We get the poorest of the poor illiterates along with large percentages of convicted felons and gang members.

But hey, consumption rises with every body that crosses the border, and JBK gets to virtue posture about how racist it is to talk about rule of law, so there are at least a few winners.

---

I assume you then disagree with the federal judge who yesterday ruled that persons under felony indictment have a 2nd amendment right to purchase firearms. After all, 90% of them will be convicted to or plead to a felony.

---

non sequitur. There is no "asylum" visa. One must qualify for a visitor visa, obtain one under any of the several categories available, typically J, O, or Q. The Shah came here under Q. Solzehytsen was invited by the USG and IIRC came with a J. THEN, after arrival, one files to adjust status as a refugee. One need not be here legally to apply, and that is the loophole that the cartels are exploiting. The refugee processing system is set up to handle about 1500 per week. Now, we're having about 5x that number per day. So an illegal with no claim on asylum whatsoever, has a years long waitlist for a hearing (at which they will not appear).

Why are we so understaffed? 1) see above. We are set up for political refugees coming from all across the world, meaning across the pond. We have a moat to prevent them from pitching up here illegally. 2) as far a pitching up here illegally, only Mexico and Canada would be eligible. International refugees fleeing war, famine, political unrest have the right to cross borders, but only until they reach safety from the crisis they are fleeing. So anyone south of Mexico should, by international law and US statute be seeking asylum in Mexico. Mexico, of course, would not accept them because none of them qualify under international law. BUT. We have winked & nodded at Mexico...."shhhh, we'll take them...." So Mexico lets them come.

Finally, those refugees should wait in Mexico, as Trump had them do. Biden ended that.


As to your question about yesterday's ruling on the 2nd vis-a-vis arms purchases by people under indictment....yes, that ruling makes sense. We should not be curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people until they have actually been convicted. At state or federal level.


And that isn't an analog to refugees. No one is contesting they crossed the border illegally, including the people who crossed the border illegally. So their guilt is not in question. They should be returned upon apprehension to the nearest US border port of entry to present their paperwork to passport control officers. When those passport control officers find that paperwork deficient for legal entry to the USA (as they most assuredly will, given lack of passport and visa), all applicants should be marched back across the bridge into Mexico. We start doing that and Mexico will put a halt to the transit operations, as they do not want millions of central and south Americans stacking up in Northern Mexico.

(that's how you know this is all a wink wink nudge nudge thing. No way Mexico lets a single one of these refugees cross their border without tacit assurance from USG that they will be allowed into the USA.)

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Most of these migrants are seeking asylum. Venezuela is a failed state. Whether they qualify for asylum is a question to be decided by immigration courts that have been poorly staffed and overburdened under both Dems and Reps, but they do have a legal right to request it.

How is lying to desperate people and then dumping them out like stray dogs and cats dumped on the side of rural highways to fend for themselves in any way Christian? These migrants weren't even in Florida. Jesus Christ was a refugee. Mary and Joseph fled Harod's murder campaign into Egypt. Where would DeSantis have dumped them?

America needs immigrants. We have an aging population and lots of work that needs doing. Bush tried & his own party wouldn't support him. DeSantis pulling a stunt like this doesn't bode well for any serious attempts to fix the situation, and the unending GOP talking points blaming the "border crisis" on Biden are disingenuous when Republicans also refuse to work with Biden / Democrats on anything.

---

The law is very clear on qualifying for refugee status. People must be fleeing religious or ethnic or political persecution, imprisonment or death for who they are or what they believe. Among the many things NOT qualifying for refugee status: poverty, hunger, crime, political instability.

NONE of these migrants qualify. +90% of them will, should they actually show for their hearings, ultimately be rejected for asylum. Because they do not qualify for it. But they are here. And because we are a free society with limited internal controls on movement or employment, we cannot round up illegal immigrants for deportation in this country. They have to actually break a law to get arrested before deportation is anything more than a theoretical threat.

.....because federal bureaucracy is refusing to uphold its enumerated constitutional responsibility to defend the border, as a matter of partisan policy.

We need to immigrate 2-4x more people every year than current statute allows. But political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) knows the American people would never support changing law to add 2-4x more legal immigants. So. Our government just stands back from the border and facilitates illegal crossing, and goes thru the processing an arraignment for deportation proceedings they all know will never happen Ergo we have a de facto open border, facilitating thru the back door the levels of immigration we need to benefit our society but cannot get thru the front door because the American people do not want it. The price is, we don't get well educated immigrants who bring skills, knowledge, and capital into the country. We get the poorest of the poor illiterates along with large percentages of convicted felons and gang members.

But hey, consumption rises with every body that crosses the border, and JBK gets to virtue posture about how racist it is to talk about rule of law, so there are at least a few winners.

---

I assume you then disagree with the federal judge who yesterday ruled that persons under felony indictment have a 2nd amendment right to purchase firearms. After all, 90% of them will be convicted to or plead to a felony.

---

non sequitur. There is no "asylum" visa. One must qualify for a visitor visa, obtain one under any of the several categories available, typically J, O, or Q. The Shah came here under Q. Solzehytsen was invited by the USG and IIRC came with a J. THEN, after arrival, one files to adjust status as a refugee. One need not be here legally to apply, and that is the loophole that the cartels are exploiting. The refugee processing system is set up to handle about 1500 per week. Now, we're having about 5x that number per day. So an illegal with no claim on asylum whatsoever, has a years long waitlist for a hearing (at which they will not appear).

Why are we so understaffed? 1) see above. We are set up for political refugees coming from all across the world, meaning across the pond. We have a moat to prevent them from pitching up here illegally. 2) as far a pitching up here illegally, only Mexico and Canada would be eligible. International refugees fleeing war, famine, political unrest have the right to cross borders, but only until they reach safety from the crisis they are fleeing. So anyone south of Mexico should, by international law and US statute be seeking asylum in Mexico. Mexico, of course, would not accept them because none of them qualify under international law. BUT. We have winked & nodded at Mexico...."shhhh, we'll take them...." So Mexico lets them come.

Finally, those refugees should wait in Mexico, as Trump had them do. Biden ended that.


As to your question about yesterday's ruling on the 2nd vis-a-vis arms purchases by people under indictment....yes, that ruling makes sense. We should not be curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people until they have actually been convicted. At state or federal level.


And that isn't an analog to refugees. No one is contesting they crossed the border illegally, including the people who crossed the border illegally. So their guilt is not in question. They should be returned upon apprehension to the nearest US border port of entry to present their paperwork to passport control officers. When those passport control officers find that paperwork deficient for legal entry to the USA (as they most assuredly will, given lack of passport and visa), all applicants should be marched back across the bridge into Mexico. We start doing that and Mexico will put a halt to the transit operations, as they do not want millions of central and south Americans stacking up in Northern Mexico.

(that's how you know this is all a wink wink nudge nudge thing. No way Mexico lets a single one of these refugees cross their border without tacit assurance from USG that they will be allowed into the USA.)

---

That is the point. On the one hand, we cannot assume that indicted felons will be convicted. Onthe other hand, we can assume asylum seekers will not be granted asylum. But the success rate is likely equal between those two groups.

Your post has a lot about what the law should be. Not much about how the law actually is.

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Most of these migrants are seeking asylum. Venezuela is a failed state. Whether they qualify for asylum is a question to be decided by immigration courts that have been poorly staffed and overburdened under both Dems and Reps, but they do have a legal right to request it.

How is lying to desperate people and then dumping them out like stray dogs and cats dumped on the side of rural highways to fend for themselves in any way Christian? These migrants weren't even in Florida. Jesus Christ was a refugee. Mary and Joseph fled Harod's murder campaign into Egypt. Where would DeSantis have dumped them?

America needs immigrants. We have an aging population and lots of work that needs doing. Bush tried & his own party wouldn't support him. DeSantis pulling a stunt like this doesn't bode well for any serious attempts to fix the situation, and the unending GOP talking points blaming the "border crisis" on Biden are disingenuous when Republicans also refuse to work with Biden / Democrats on anything.

---

The law is very clear on qualifying for refugee status. People must be fleeing religious or ethnic or political persecution, imprisonment or death for who they are or what they believe. Among the many things NOT qualifying for refugee status: poverty, hunger, crime, political instability.

NONE of these migrants qualify. +90% of them will, should they actually show for their hearings, ultimately be rejected for asylum. Because they do not qualify for it. But they are here. And because we are a free society with limited internal controls on movement or employment, we cannot round up illegal immigrants for deportation in this country. They have to actually break a law to get arrested before deportation is anything more than a theoretical threat.

.....because federal bureaucracy is refusing to uphold its enumerated constitutional responsibility to defend the border, as a matter of partisan policy.

We need to immigrate 2-4x more people every year than current statute allows. But political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) knows the American people would never support changing law to add 2-4x more legal immigants. So. Our government just stands back from the border and facilitates illegal crossing, and goes thru the processing an arraignment for deportation proceedings they all know will never happen Ergo we have a de facto open border, facilitating thru the back door the levels of immigration we need to benefit our society but cannot get thru the front door because the American people do not want it. The price is, we don't get well educated immigrants who bring skills, knowledge, and capital into the country. We get the poorest of the poor illiterates along with large percentages of convicted felons and gang members.

But hey, consumption rises with every body that crosses the border, and JBK gets to virtue posture about how racist it is to talk about rule of law, so there are at least a few winners.

---

I assume you then disagree with the federal judge who yesterday ruled that persons under felony indictment have a 2nd amendment right to purchase firearms. After all, 90% of them will be convicted to or plead to a felony.

---

non sequitur. There is no "asylum" visa. One must qualify for a visitor visa, obtain one under any of the several categories available, typically J, O, or Q. The Shah came here under Q. Solzehytsen was invited by the USG and IIRC came with a J. THEN, after arrival, one files to adjust status as a refugee. One need not be here legally to apply, and that is the loophole that the cartels are exploiting. The refugee processing system is set up to handle about 1500 per week. Now, we're having about 5x that number per day. So an illegal with no claim on asylum whatsoever, has a years long waitlist for a hearing (at which they will not appear).

Why are we so understaffed? 1) see above. We are set up for political refugees coming from all across the world, meaning across the pond. We have a moat to prevent them from pitching up here illegally. 2) as far a pitching up here illegally, only Mexico and Canada would be eligible. International refugees fleeing war, famine, political unrest have the right to cross borders, but only until they reach safety from the crisis they are fleeing. So anyone south of Mexico should, by international law and US statute be seeking asylum in Mexico. Mexico, of course, would not accept them because none of them qualify under international law. BUT. We have winked & nodded at Mexico...."shhhh, we'll take them...." So Mexico lets them come.

Finally, those refugees should wait in Mexico, as Trump had them do. Biden ended that.


As to your question about yesterday's ruling on the 2nd vis-a-vis arms purchases by people under indictment....yes, that ruling makes sense. We should not be curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people until they have actually been convicted. At state or federal level.


And that isn't an analog to refugees. No one is contesting they crossed the border illegally, including the people who crossed the border illegally. So their guilt is not in question. They should be returned upon apprehension to the nearest US border port of entry to present their paperwork to passport control officers. When those passport control officers find that paperwork deficient for legal entry to the USA (as they most assuredly will, given lack of passport and visa), all applicants should be marched back across the bridge into Mexico. We start doing that and Mexico will put a halt to the transit operations, as they do not want millions of central and south Americans stacking up in Northern Mexico.

(that's how you know this is all a wink wink nudge nudge thing. No way Mexico lets a single one of these refugees cross their border without tacit assurance from USG that they will be allowed into the USA.)

---

They are contesting whether they crossed the border illegally. It is not illegal to ask for asylum.

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

2,000,000 illegals into the United States in one year .

Almost four times the population of the state of Wyoming…..in one year .

Really think this surge of humanity from central and South America is going is going to stop on it's own ?

Why would it ?

Who is going to feed these increasing millions ….who is going to pay for their medical care ?

Really think any country can absorb the annual surplus work force of two continents indefinitely ?

---

They're the ones feeding you, unless you're spending your days picking corn.

---

Corn?

---

He's not aware that they use combines to harvest corn.

---

The dude has totally lost his mind ….seriously.

Mechanization took over most of agriculture decades ago .
Only a relatively few sectors utilize raw labor .

Even on my farm we only employed 6 full time workers year round .

And they were all legal .

Can't put a man worth 8 dollars an hour on a $ 200,000 piece of equipment and expect things to work out .

---

Dairy still utilizes human labor, but not at the numbers our legal immigration can t handle.

---

Only to a point .

You can milk hundreds of cows within an 8 hour shift in a double 20 herringbone parlor employing only 3 men .

2 guys milking and one prepping .

Some parlors are even larger with more machines .

Just like every other industry .....dairies have been looking for ways to reduce labor needs for many decades .

This whole dialogue that US agriculture needs or can absorb millions of raw laborers every year is simply wrong .

BTW the most cost effective way to find and keep good American farm labor was to provide clean/quality housing .
If the man's wife liked the house....she made damn sure her husband showed up to work .

---

Agree.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Most of these migrants are seeking asylum. Venezuela is a failed state. Whether they qualify for asylum is a question to be decided by immigration courts that have been poorly staffed and overburdened under both Dems and Reps, but they do have a legal right to request it.

How is lying to desperate people and then dumping them out like stray dogs and cats dumped on the side of rural highways to fend for themselves in any way Christian? These migrants weren't even in Florida. Jesus Christ was a refugee. Mary and Joseph fled Harod's murder campaign into Egypt. Where would DeSantis have dumped them?

America needs immigrants. We have an aging population and lots of work that needs doing. Bush tried & his own party wouldn't support him. DeSantis pulling a stunt like this doesn't bode well for any serious attempts to fix the situation, and the unending GOP talking points blaming the "border crisis" on Biden are disingenuous when Republicans also refuse to work with Biden / Democrats on anything.

---

The law is very clear on qualifying for refugee status. People must be fleeing religious or ethnic or political persecution, imprisonment or death for who they are or what they believe. Among the many things NOT qualifying for refugee status: poverty, hunger, crime, political instability.

NONE of these migrants qualify. +90% of them will, should they actually show for their hearings, ultimately be rejected for asylum. Because they do not qualify for it. But they are here. And because we are a free society with limited internal controls on movement or employment, we cannot round up illegal immigrants for deportation in this country. They have to actually break a law to get arrested before deportation is anything more than a theoretical threat.

.....because federal bureaucracy is refusing to uphold its enumerated constitutional responsibility to defend the border, as a matter of partisan policy.

We need to immigrate 2-4x more people every year than current statute allows. But political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) knows the American people would never support changing law to add 2-4x more legal immigants. So. Our government just stands back from the border and facilitates illegal crossing, and goes thru the processing an arraignment for deportation proceedings they all know will never happen Ergo we have a de facto open border, facilitating thru the back door the levels of immigration we need to benefit our society but cannot get thru the front door because the American people do not want it. The price is, we don't get well educated immigrants who bring skills, knowledge, and capital into the country. We get the poorest of the poor illiterates along with large percentages of convicted felons and gang members.

But hey, consumption rises with every body that crosses the border, and JBK gets to virtue posture about how racist it is to talk about rule of law, so there are at least a few winners.

---

I assume you then disagree with the federal judge who yesterday ruled that persons under felony indictment have a 2nd amendment right to purchase firearms. After all, 90% of them will be convicted to or plead to a felony.

---

non sequitur. There is no "asylum" visa. One must qualify for a visitor visa, obtain one under any of the several categories available, typically J, O, or Q. The Shah came here under Q. Solzehytsen was invited by the USG and IIRC came with a J. THEN, after arrival, one files to adjust status as a refugee. One need not be here legally to apply, and that is the loophole that the cartels are exploiting. The refugee processing system is set up to handle about 1500 per week. Now, we're having about 5x that number per day. So an illegal with no claim on asylum whatsoever, has a years long waitlist for a hearing (at which they will not appear).

Why are we so understaffed? 1) see above. We are set up for political refugees coming from all across the world, meaning across the pond. We have a moat to prevent them from pitching up here illegally. 2) as far a pitching up here illegally, only Mexico and Canada would be eligible. International refugees fleeing war, famine, political unrest have the right to cross borders, but only until they reach safety from the crisis they are fleeing. So anyone south of Mexico should, by international law and US statute be seeking asylum in Mexico. Mexico, of course, would not accept them because none of them qualify under international law. BUT. We have winked & nodded at Mexico...."shhhh, we'll take them...." So Mexico lets them come.

Finally, those refugees should wait in Mexico, as Trump had them do. Biden ended that.


As to your question about yesterday's ruling on the 2nd vis-a-vis arms purchases by people under indictment....yes, that ruling makes sense. We should not be curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people until they have actually been convicted. At state or federal level.


And that isn't an analog to refugees. No one is contesting they crossed the border illegally, including the people who crossed the border illegally. So their guilt is not in question. They should be returned upon apprehension to the nearest US border port of entry to present their paperwork to passport control officers. When those passport control officers find that paperwork deficient for legal entry to the USA (as they most assuredly will, given lack of passport and visa), all applicants should be marched back across the bridge into Mexico. We start doing that and Mexico will put a halt to the transit operations, as they do not want millions of central and south Americans stacking up in Northern Mexico.

(that's how you know this is all a wink wink nudge nudge thing. No way Mexico lets a single one of these refugees cross their border without tacit assurance from USG that they will be allowed into the USA.)

---

They are contesting whether they crossed the border illegally. It is not illegal to ask for asylum.

---

So as long as someone can yell the word "asylum" while wading the Rio Grande, they are in the country legally?

---

No. There are rules. Here is an example:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/the-affirmative-asylum-process

All of these people are following the rules. Conservatives used to be big on the rule of law. Not so much now, more important to own the libs.

Booray said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Most of these migrants are seeking asylum. Venezuela is a failed state. Whether they qualify for asylum is a question to be decided by immigration courts that have been poorly staffed and overburdened under both Dems and Reps, but they do have a legal right to request it.

How is lying to desperate people and then dumping them out like stray dogs and cats dumped on the side of rural highways to fend for themselves in any way Christian? These migrants weren't even in Florida. Jesus Christ was a refugee. Mary and Joseph fled Harod's murder campaign into Egypt. Where would DeSantis have dumped them?

America needs immigrants. We have an aging population and lots of work that needs doing. Bush tried & his own party wouldn't support him. DeSantis pulling a stunt like this doesn't bode well for any serious attempts to fix the situation, and the unending GOP talking points blaming the "border crisis" on Biden are disingenuous when Republicans also refuse to work with Biden / Democrats on anything.

---

The law is very clear on qualifying for refugee status. People must be fleeing religious or ethnic or political persecution, imprisonment or death for who they are or what they believe. Among the many things NOT qualifying for refugee status: poverty, hunger, crime, political instability.

NONE of these migrants qualify. +90% of them will, should they actually show for their hearings, ultimately be rejected for asylum. Because they do not qualify for it. But they are here. And because we are a free society with limited internal controls on movement or employment, we cannot round up illegal immigrants for deportation in this country. They have to actually break a law to get arrested before deportation is anything more than a theoretical threat.

.....because federal bureaucracy is refusing to uphold its enumerated constitutional responsibility to defend the border, as a matter of partisan policy.

We need to immigrate 2-4x more people every year than current statute allows. But political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) knows the American people would never support changing law to add 2-4x more legal immigants. So. Our government just stands back from the border and facilitates illegal crossing, and goes thru the processing an arraignment for deportation proceedings they all know will never happen Ergo we have a de facto open border, facilitating thru the back door the levels of immigration we need to benefit our society but cannot get thru the front door because the American people do not want it. The price is, we don't get well educated immigrants who bring skills, knowledge, and capital into the country. We get the poorest of the poor illiterates along with large percentages of convicted felons and gang members.

But hey, consumption rises with every body that crosses the border, and JBK gets to virtue posture about how racist it is to talk about rule of law, so there are at least a few winners.

---

I assume you then disagree with the federal judge who yesterday ruled that persons under felony indictment have a 2nd amendment right to purchase firearms. After all, 90% of them will be convicted to or plead to a felony.

---

non sequitur. There is no "asylum" visa. One must qualify for a visitor visa, obtain one under any of the several categories available, typically J, O, or Q. The Shah came here under Q. Solzehytsen was invited by the USG and IIRC came with a J. THEN, after arrival, one files to adjust status as a refugee. One need not be here legally to apply, and that is the loophole that the cartels are exploiting. The refugee processing system is set up to handle about 1500 per week. Now, we're having about 5x that number per day. So an illegal with no claim on asylum whatsoever, has a years long waitlist for a hearing (at which they will not appear).

Why are we so understaffed? 1) see above. We are set up for political refugees coming from all across the world, meaning across the pond. We have a moat to prevent them from pitching up here illegally. 2) as far a pitching up here illegally, only Mexico and Canada would be eligible. International refugees fleeing war, famine, political unrest have the right to cross borders, but only until they reach safety from the crisis they are fleeing. So anyone south of Mexico should, by international law and US statute be seeking asylum in Mexico. Mexico, of course, would not accept them because none of them qualify under international law. BUT. We have winked & nodded at Mexico...."shhhh, we'll take them...." So Mexico lets them come.

Finally, those refugees should wait in Mexico, as Trump had them do. Biden ended that.


As to your question about yesterday's ruling on the 2nd vis-a-vis arms purchases by people under indictment....yes, that ruling makes sense. We should not be curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people until they have actually been convicted. At state or federal level.


And that isn't an analog to refugees. No one is contesting they crossed the border illegally, including the people who crossed the border illegally. So their guilt is not in question. They should be returned upon apprehension to the nearest US border port of entry to present their paperwork to passport control officers. When those passport control officers find that paperwork deficient for legal entry to the USA (as they most assuredly will, given lack of passport and visa), all applicants should be marched back across the bridge into Mexico. We start doing that and Mexico will put a halt to the transit operations, as they do not want millions of central and south Americans stacking up in Northern Mexico.

(that's how you know this is all a wink wink nudge nudge thing. No way Mexico lets a single one of these refugees cross their border without tacit assurance from USG that they will be allowed into the USA.)

---

They are contesting whether they crossed the border illegally. It is not illegal to ask for asylum.

---

So as long as someone can yell the word "asylum" while wading the Rio Grande, they are in the country legally?

---

No. There are rules. Here is an example:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/the-affirmative-asylum-process

All of these people are following the rules. Conservatives used to be big on the rule of law. Not so much now, more important to own the libs.

---

Those Democrats on the Vineyard apparently did not appreciate that.

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I don't know about dropping them off at Kamela's front door, that's purely politics, but I love the idea that they are getting access to all this welcome and aid all across the US.

---

How many additional illegals should we welcome and provide aid ?

2 million

5 million

10 million

20 million


Unlimited ?

---

Once again, talking about illegals, and legal migrants, are 2 different conversations. I think no state will be bussing illegals up North, they'd get into some serious legal trouble, aiding illegals.

So these are legal migrants. We do not take in unlimited, we theoretically have a plan for these migrants who come to the US the right way, with the right paperwork, backgrounds (maybe) checked.

If you're aware of all this, I don't understand your point.

edit: You guys are howling like hyenas but assuming I'm right and these aren't illegals, you're making leftist points for the left. You see brown people and immediately jump to "deport the illegals." That's not a good look........

As I said, Abbott is doing these people a huge favor. Desantis I'm not sure, if he just keeps flying them to resorts, that doesn't seem like doing them a favor. But bussing to large sanctuary cities with the social services and available jobs to give these people a great chance at a new life is just an amazing opportunity. Why not frame it as that? Why do you guys have to drone on and on about how much you hate
illegals?

---

Funny, you want to pretend illegals are suddenly legal simply because Biden asks them to super duper pinky promise to appear at a court date later. What we see here is as plain as your deflection; democrats wanted to do exactly what you're doing here and play the race card every time anyone sought to secure the border. Democrats pronounced to the world that illegals were welcome in their sanctuary cities (why would legal immigrants need sanctuary?) Now we see you democrats losing your minds that brown people are showing up where they were invited and it's back to the race card. Oh right, YOU claim you're happy and that, despite their own protestations by the cities themselves, these sanctuary cities have a plan to serve these illegals, right? Nevermind what they're saying about not having space or resources, trust you on this, right? Hahaha, hey, we are glad at least one leftist likes this, because forcing democrats to reveal their hypocrisy in such a public fashion is greatness to the rest of us.

---

Thought conservatives wanted to apply the law as written. Characterize it as condescendingly as you want, when those people stepped on the bus they were legally in this country.

---

nope.. doesnt matter what they do in this country, they are not here legally until they are..

I have family friends dealing with this right now. The husband and 3 kids are all legal US citizens by birth. The wife is a dreamer who was brought here illegally at age 5. Now, 26 yr old and still not legal.

Being here doesnt make you legal.

---

Different from the situaiton you describe. When I say that the people shipped to Martha's Vineyard are here legally, I am saying that they followed the laws of the United States in seeking asylum. That gives them a legal right to remain int he country until their asylum request is adjudicated.

You might disagree with the law, but that is the law.

---

Fine, so Florida doesn't have the right to help them get to Mass to wait for their hearings?

Do you believe non-border states should be allowed to determine immigration laws? If they are, then there should be no issue taking g a small amount until hearings. After all asylum is not planned, so Florida has no idea how many will show up and when.

---

Florida can do what it wants to help people awaiting asylum heaqrings. If Florida lies to people, takes them in place where they have no shot at work, to prove a political point, then Florida is a jerk.

The federal government sets immigration policy. It has to be that way.

---

Why do they have no shot at work? Are you saying Martha's Vineyard is racist? That is illegal. Will Garland investigate why these asylum seekers are denied work in Martha's Vineyard?


Why do you assume Florida is easy to find work? This is a National issue, the Feds are making the policy. All the States should help.

---

Because Martha's Vineyard's economy is wholly seasonal.

---

Florida is not a seasonal place. Yeah. 50 people can't find a job in the Martha Vineyard area???? 50. We are talking less than a football team. Yet the economy can't handle it.

---

No, there are not 50 extra jobs in Martha's Vineyard in the off season. The population is about 10% of what it is in-season. Most businesses just close.

It is nothing at all like "off season" Florida. These facts are inconvenient for you, I know.

He Hate Me said:

---

Booray said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Most of these migrants are seeking asylum. Venezuela is a failed state. Whether they qualify for asylum is a question to be decided by immigration courts that have been poorly staffed and overburdened under both Dems and Reps, but they do have a legal right to request it.

How is lying to desperate people and then dumping them out like stray dogs and cats dumped on the side of rural highways to fend for themselves in any way Christian? These migrants weren't even in Florida. Jesus Christ was a refugee. Mary and Joseph fled Harod's murder campaign into Egypt. Where would DeSantis have dumped them?

America needs immigrants. We have an aging population and lots of work that needs doing. Bush tried & his own party wouldn't support him. DeSantis pulling a stunt like this doesn't bode well for any serious attempts to fix the situation, and the unending GOP talking points blaming the "border crisis" on Biden are disingenuous when Republicans also refuse to work with Biden / Democrats on anything.

---

The law is very clear on qualifying for refugee status. People must be fleeing religious or ethnic or political persecution, imprisonment or death for who they are or what they believe. Among the many things NOT qualifying for refugee status: poverty, hunger, crime, political instability.

NONE of these migrants qualify. +90% of them will, should they actually show for their hearings, ultimately be rejected for asylum. Because they do not qualify for it. But they are here. And because we are a free society with limited internal controls on movement or employment, we cannot round up illegal immigrants for deportation in this country. They have to actually break a law to get arrested before deportation is anything more than a theoretical threat.

.....because federal bureaucracy is refusing to uphold its enumerated constitutional responsibility to defend the border, as a matter of partisan policy.

We need to immigrate 2-4x more people every year than current statute allows. But political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) knows the American people would never support changing law to add 2-4x more legal immigants. So. Our government just stands back from the border and facilitates illegal crossing, and goes thru the processing an arraignment for deportation proceedings they all know will never happen Ergo we have a de facto open border, facilitating thru the back door the levels of immigration we need to benefit our society but cannot get thru the front door because the American people do not want it. The price is, we don't get well educated immigrants who bring skills, knowledge, and capital into the country. We get the poorest of the poor illiterates along with large percentages of convicted felons and gang members.

But hey, consumption rises with every body that crosses the border, and JBK gets to virtue posture about how racist it is to talk about rule of law, so there are at least a few winners.

---

I assume you then disagree with the federal judge who yesterday ruled that persons under felony indictment have a 2nd amendment right to purchase firearms. After all, 90% of them will be convicted to or plead to a felony.

---

non sequitur. There is no "asylum" visa. One must qualify for a visitor visa, obtain one under any of the several categories available, typically J, O, or Q. The Shah came here under Q. Solzehytsen was invited by the USG and IIRC came with a J. THEN, after arrival, one files to adjust status as a refugee. One need not be here legally to apply, and that is the loophole that the cartels are exploiting. The refugee processing system is set up to handle about 1500 per week. Now, we're having about 5x that number per day. So an illegal with no claim on asylum whatsoever, has a years long waitlist for a hearing (at which they will not appear).

Why are we so understaffed? 1) see above. We are set up for political refugees coming from all across the world, meaning across the pond. We have a moat to prevent them from pitching up here illegally. 2) as far a pitching up here illegally, only Mexico and Canada would be eligible. International refugees fleeing war, famine, political unrest have the right to cross borders, but only until they reach safety from the crisis they are fleeing. So anyone south of Mexico should, by international law and US statute be seeking asylum in Mexico. Mexico, of course, would not accept them because none of them qualify under international law. BUT. We have winked & nodded at Mexico...."shhhh, we'll take them...." So Mexico lets them come.

Finally, those refugees should wait in Mexico, as Trump had them do. Biden ended that.


As to your question about yesterday's ruling on the 2nd vis-a-vis arms purchases by people under indictment....yes, that ruling makes sense. We should not be curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people until they have actually been convicted. At state or federal level.


And that isn't an analog to refugees. No one is contesting they crossed the border illegally, including the people who crossed the border illegally. So their guilt is not in question. They should be returned upon apprehension to the nearest US border port of entry to present their paperwork to passport control officers. When those passport control officers find that paperwork deficient for legal entry to the USA (as they most assuredly will, given lack of passport and visa), all applicants should be marched back across the bridge into Mexico. We start doing that and Mexico will put a halt to the transit operations, as they do not want millions of central and south Americans stacking up in Northern Mexico.

(that's how you know this is all a wink wink nudge nudge thing. No way Mexico lets a single one of these refugees cross their border without tacit assurance from USG that they will be allowed into the USA.)

---

They are contesting whether they crossed the border illegally. It is not illegal to ask for asylum.

---

So as long as someone can yell the word "asylum" while wading the Rio Grande, they are in the country legally?

---

No. There are rules. Here is an example:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/the-affirmative-asylum-process

All of these people are following the rules. Conservatives used to be big on the rule of law. Not so much now, more important to own the libs.

---

Those Democrats on the Vineyard apparently did not appreciate that.

---

I have made clear multiple times that I don't view either side in this mini-drama as acting honestly. Something you Team Red guys have a hard time admitting.

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Most of these migrants are seeking asylum. Venezuela is a failed state. Whether they qualify for asylum is a question to be decided by immigration courts that have been poorly staffed and overburdened under both Dems and Reps, but they do have a legal right to request it.

How is lying to desperate people and then dumping them out like stray dogs and cats dumped on the side of rural highways to fend for themselves in any way Christian? These migrants weren't even in Florida. Jesus Christ was a refugee. Mary and Joseph fled Harod's murder campaign into Egypt. Where would DeSantis have dumped them?

America needs immigrants. We have an aging population and lots of work that needs doing. Bush tried & his own party wouldn't support him. DeSantis pulling a stunt like this doesn't bode well for any serious attempts to fix the situation, and the unending GOP talking points blaming the "border crisis" on Biden are disingenuous when Republicans also refuse to work with Biden / Democrats on anything.

---

The law is very clear on qualifying for refugee status. People must be fleeing religious or ethnic or political persecution, imprisonment or death for who they are or what they believe. Among the many things NOT qualifying for refugee status: poverty, hunger, crime, political instability.

NONE of these migrants qualify. +90% of them will, should they actually show for their hearings, ultimately be rejected for asylum. Because they do not qualify for it. But they are here. And because we are a free society with limited internal controls on movement or employment, we cannot round up illegal immigrants for deportation in this country. They have to actually break a law to get arrested before deportation is anything more than a theoretical threat.

.....because federal bureaucracy is refusing to uphold its enumerated constitutional responsibility to defend the border, as a matter of partisan policy.

We need to immigrate 2-4x more people every year than current statute allows. But political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) knows the American people would never support changing law to add 2-4x more legal immigants. So. Our government just stands back from the border and facilitates illegal crossing, and goes thru the processing an arraignment for deportation proceedings they all know will never happen Ergo we have a de facto open border, facilitating thru the back door the levels of immigration we need to benefit our society but cannot get thru the front door because the American people do not want it. The price is, we don't get well educated immigrants who bring skills, knowledge, and capital into the country. We get the poorest of the poor illiterates along with large percentages of convicted felons and gang members.

But hey, consumption rises with every body that crosses the border, and JBK gets to virtue posture about how racist it is to talk about rule of law, so there are at least a few winners.

---

I assume you then disagree with the federal judge who yesterday ruled that persons under felony indictment have a 2nd amendment right to purchase firearms. After all, 90% of them will be convicted to or plead to a felony.

---

non sequitur. There is no "asylum" visa. One must qualify for a visitor visa, obtain one under any of the several categories available, typically J, O, or Q. The Shah came here under Q. Solzehytsen was invited by the USG and IIRC came with a J. THEN, after arrival, one files to adjust status as a refugee. One need not be here legally to apply, and that is the loophole that the cartels are exploiting. The refugee processing system is set up to handle about 1500 per week. Now, we're having about 5x that number per day. So an illegal with no claim on asylum whatsoever, has a years long waitlist for a hearing (at which they will not appear).

Why are we so understaffed? 1) see above. We are set up for political refugees coming from all across the world, meaning across the pond. We have a moat to prevent them from pitching up here illegally. 2) as far a pitching up here illegally, only Mexico and Canada would be eligible. International refugees fleeing war, famine, political unrest have the right to cross borders, but only until they reach safety from the crisis they are fleeing. So anyone south of Mexico should, by international law and US statute be seeking asylum in Mexico. Mexico, of course, would not accept them because none of them qualify under international law. BUT. We have winked & nodded at Mexico...."shhhh, we'll take them...." So Mexico lets them come.

Finally, those refugees should wait in Mexico, as Trump had them do. Biden ended that.


As to your question about yesterday's ruling on the 2nd vis-a-vis arms purchases by people under indictment....yes, that ruling makes sense. We should not be curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people until they have actually been convicted. At state or federal level.


And that isn't an analog to refugees. No one is contesting they crossed the border illegally, including the people who crossed the border illegally. So their guilt is not in question. They should be returned upon apprehension to the nearest US border port of entry to present their paperwork to passport control officers. When those passport control officers find that paperwork deficient for legal entry to the USA (as they most assuredly will, given lack of passport and visa), all applicants should be marched back across the bridge into Mexico. We start doing that and Mexico will put a halt to the transit operations, as they do not want millions of central and south Americans stacking up in Northern Mexico.

(that's how you know this is all a wink wink nudge nudge thing. No way Mexico lets a single one of these refugees cross their border without tacit assurance from USG that they will be allowed into the USA.)

---

They are contesting whether they crossed the border illegally. It is not illegal to ask for asylum.

---

Having a valid asylum claim does not make the crossing of the border a legal act. It is illegal under all circumstances to enter the USA anywhere other than a designated port of entry, except for the never before experienced (in this country) scenario of a humanitarian crisis of war, famine, failed state as categorized under international law. Even then, humanitarian refugees are only
allowed (under international treaty) to cross a border to escape crisis. That's ONE border. So only Mexicans and Canadians could possibly qualify under International law to flee a failing state, war, famine to enter the USA. Guatemalans can cross into Mexico, Venezuelans can cross into Colombia, etc….to escape famine, war, etc…..Then international agencies take over.

What we have here is millions of people migrating to escape no crisis but simply to get a better life. The USG could shut it down in days, if it wanted to. By simply telling Mexico (or Nicaragua or Costa Rica or Colombia) that we will be shipping migrants back to them. The flows are happening solely because if winks and nudges from USG….that this Admin wants them

What a convenient way to avoid statutory limitations on immigration limits.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Most of these migrants are seeking asylum. Venezuela is a failed state. Whether they qualify for asylum is a question to be decided by immigration courts that have been poorly staffed and overburdened under both Dems and Reps, but they do have a legal right to request it.

How is lying to desperate people and then dumping them out like stray dogs and cats dumped on the side of rural highways to fend for themselves in any way Christian? These migrants weren't even in Florida. Jesus Christ was a refugee. Mary and Joseph fled Harod's murder campaign into Egypt. Where would DeSantis have dumped them?

America needs immigrants. We have an aging population and lots of work that needs doing. Bush tried & his own party wouldn't support him. DeSantis pulling a stunt like this doesn't bode well for any serious attempts to fix the situation, and the unending GOP talking points blaming the "border crisis" on Biden are disingenuous when Republicans also refuse to work with Biden / Democrats on anything.

---

The law is very clear on qualifying for refugee status. People must be fleeing religious or ethnic or political persecution, imprisonment or death for who they are or what they believe. Among the many things NOT qualifying for refugee status: poverty, hunger, crime, political instability.

NONE of these migrants qualify. +90% of them will, should they actually show for their hearings, ultimately be rejected for asylum. Because they do not qualify for it. But they are here. And because we are a free society with limited internal controls on movement or employment, we cannot round up illegal immigrants for deportation in this country. They have to actually break a law to get arrested before deportation is anything more than a theoretical threat.

.....because federal bureaucracy is refusing to uphold its enumerated constitutional responsibility to defend the border, as a matter of partisan policy.

We need to immigrate 2-4x more people every year than current statute allows. But political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) knows the American people would never support changing law to add 2-4x more legal immigants. So. Our government just stands back from the border and facilitates illegal crossing, and goes thru the processing an arraignment for deportation proceedings they all know will never happen Ergo we have a de facto open border, facilitating thru the back door the levels of immigration we need to benefit our society but cannot get thru the front door because the American people do not want it. The price is, we don't get well educated immigrants who bring skills, knowledge, and capital into the country. We get the poorest of the poor illiterates along with large percentages of convicted felons and gang members.

But hey, consumption rises with every body that crosses the border, and JBK gets to virtue posture about how racist it is to talk about rule of law, so there are at least a few winners.

---

I assume you then disagree with the federal judge who yesterday ruled that persons under felony indictment have a 2nd amendment right to purchase firearms. After all, 90% of them will be convicted to or plead to a felony.

---

non sequitur. There is no "asylum" visa. One must qualify for a visitor visa, obtain one under any of the several categories available, typically J, O, or Q. The Shah came here under Q. Solzehytsen was invited by the USG and IIRC came with a J. THEN, after arrival, one files to adjust status as a refugee. One need not be here legally to apply, and that is the loophole that the cartels are exploiting. The refugee processing system is set up to handle about 1500 per week. Now, we're having about 5x that number per day. So an illegal with no claim on asylum whatsoever, has a years long waitlist for a hearing (at which they will not appear).

Why are we so understaffed? 1) see above. We are set up for political refugees coming from all across the world, meaning across the pond. We have a moat to prevent them from pitching up here illegally. 2) as far a pitching up here illegally, only Mexico and Canada would be eligible. International refugees fleeing war, famine, political unrest have the right to cross borders, but only until they reach safety from the crisis they are fleeing. So anyone south of Mexico should, by international law and US statute be seeking asylum in Mexico. Mexico, of course, would not accept them because none of them qualify under international law. BUT. We have winked & nodded at Mexico...."shhhh, we'll take them...." So Mexico lets them come.

Finally, those refugees should wait in Mexico, as Trump had them do. Biden ended that.


As to your question about yesterday's ruling on the 2nd vis-a-vis arms purchases by people under indictment....yes, that ruling makes sense. We should not be curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding people until they have actually been convicted. At state or federal level.


And that isn't an analog to refugees. No one is contesting they crossed the border illegally, including the people who crossed the border illegally. So their guilt is not in question. They should be returned upon apprehension to the nearest US border port of entry to present their paperwork to passport control officers. When those passport control officers find that paperwork deficient for legal entry to the USA (as they most assuredly will, given lack of passport and visa), all applicants should be marched back across the bridge into Mexico. We start doing that and Mexico will put a halt to the transit operations, as they do not want millions of central and south Americans stacking up in Northern Mexico.

(that's how you know this is all a wink wink nudge nudge thing. No way Mexico lets a single one of these refugees cross their border without tacit assurance from USG that they will be allowed into the USA.)

---

They are contesting whether they crossed the border illegally. It is not illegal to ask for asylum.

---

So as long as someone can yell the word "asylum" while wading the Rio Grande, they are in the country legally?

---

No. They are awaiting deportation, delayed by adjudication of frivolous asylum claims made solely to drag out the process and allow them time to disappear into US life.