Jump to content

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Dog said:

70,000 last month, a possible 100,000 this month. This is arguably the issue that Trump won the presidency on and the Democrats, with their heads in the sand, are giving it away again.

Because idiots like you can’t differentiate between illegals sneaking across a border and asylum seekers, a fully legal process. As the head of the ICE southwest said today in an interview, a wall would do nothing to stop legal asylum seekers. We need to beef up our processing infrastructure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would be all in for spending $5.7 billion on building a wall in the US...   between church and state.    That would do a helluva lot more to keep us safe than the Trump Maginot L

It's troubling that you support Milo being able to go where ever he wants but don't want hard working immigrants looking for a better life into our country. If these folks were trying to get into

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Because idiots like you can’t differentiate between illegals sneaking across a border and asylum seekers, a fully legal process. As the head of the ICE southwest said today in an interview, a wall would do nothing to stop legal asylum seekers. We need to beef up our processing infrastructure.

Dude......A border wall, new or existing, is not intended to stop legal asylum seekers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
1 hour ago, Dog said:

70,000 last month, a possible 100,000 this month. This is arguably the issue that Trump won the presidency on and the Democrats, with their heads in the sand, are giving it away again.

Because idiots like you can’t differentiate between illegals sneaking across a border and asylum seekers, a fully legal process. As the head of the ICE southwest said today in an interview, a wall would do nothing to stop legal asylum seekers. We need to beef up our processing infrastructure.

Nope.  The wall is going to stem the flow of violent criminals and drugs into the US.  How do I know this?  The President told me -

“If we build a powerful and fully designed see-through steel barrier on our southern border, the crime rate and drug problem in our country would be quickly and greatly reduced. Some say it could be cut in half.”

“We can stop heroin.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once they all swallowed the shit sandwich President Trump fed them that the caravans were folks who were going to storm the border and run illegally into the US, their minds were made up - We.  Need.  That.  Wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, Dog said:
29 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Because idiots like you can’t differentiate between illegals sneaking across a border and asylum seekers, a fully legal process. As the head of the ICE southwest said today in an interview, a wall would do nothing to stop legal asylum seekers. We need to beef up our processing infrastructure.

Dude......A border wall, new or existing, is not intended to stop legal asylum seekers.

According to the Washington Post, they detained 70K migrants which includes the asylum seekers. As you said, the wall won't do anything to stop that, so you might want to look at using a different number for your argument. Or you could keep pushing an emergency that you admit the wall cannot solve. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Once they all swallowed the shit sandwich President Trump fed them that the caravans were folks who were going to storm the border and run illegally into the US, their minds were made up - We.  Need.  That.  Wall.

Did you see the video of the caravan people who did in fact storm the border but something stopped them....What was it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

 

According to the Washington Post, they detained 70K migrants which includes the asylum seekers. As you said, the wall won't do anything to stop that, so you might want to look at using a different number for your argument. Or you could keep pushing an emergency that you admit the wall cannot solve. 

Legal asylum seekers can always apply at a point of entry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Did you see the video of the caravan people who did in fact storm the border but something stopped them....What was it?

How many were there in the video?  The 58,000 from January?  The 70,000 from February?  Or, the 100,000 for March?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

How many were there in the video?  The 58,000 from January?  The 70,000 from February?  Or, the 100,000 for March?

It was the wall that stopped them, how the fuck did that happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

Did you see the video of the caravan people who did in fact storm the border but something stopped them....What was it?

the existing fence/wall.

What do YOU think it was?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

Legal asylum seekers can always apply at a point of entry. 

And they will. And more miles of wall in dirt-country won't stop it. 

So, what's the deal, you have stock in Cemex?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

It's amazing the people who believe the border is porous and unguarded - this only goes to 2016, bunch of bucks more spent since then.

the_cost_of_immigration_enforcement_and_

No price is too great to protect our precious white daughters from those brown men!

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dog said:

Did you see the video of the caravan people who did in fact storm the border but something stopped them....What was it?

51 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude......A border wall, new or existing, is not intended to stop legal asylum seekers.

The Washington Post article you relied on included legal asylum seekers. Decide what your argument is going to be here then let us know. I'm not chasing you all over the back yard because you want to play fetch but won't drop the ball. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Well crafted and strongly stated.

Now go back and read what I was responding to. Both seemed to feel I spend too much time on intellectual pursuits and felt getting more sleep and alcohol serves better...………. personal testimony I trust.

Now STFU unless you want to engage in proper discussion instead of your usual rantings.

you said something false and idiotic, and I replied. there's your proper discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

The Washington Post article you relied on included legal asylum seekers. Decide what your argument is going to be here then let us know. I'm not chasing you all over the back yard because you want to play fetch but won't drop the ball. 

The Washington Post article I cited said that in one month we apprehended 70,000 people who had crossed the border illegally. Border patrol has estimated that they apprehend about 50%. So we have approximately 140,000 illegal crossings last month alone. Some here think that's not a problem, I do.

Sometime around January 2017 something happened that caused Democrats who had previously supported border walls to believe they are no longer helpful and in fact are immoral, racist and monuments to white supremacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sometime around January 2017 something happened that caused Democrats who had previously supported border walls to believe they are no longer helpful and in fact are immoral, racist and monuments to white supremacy.

In the 2 years between January 2017 and January 2019, with the GOP in firm control of the WH and both chambers of Congress, why didn't they solve this crisis?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

In the 2 years between January 2017 and January 2019, with the GOP in firm control of the WH and both chambers of Congress, why didn't they solve this crisis?

There can be no principled reason for ignoring the problem and it is a problem. It's either incompetence, their patrons wanted the cheap labor or they wanted to keep it as a political issue. If it's the latter Democrats have swallowed the bait bigly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

There can be no principled reason for ignoring the problem and it is a problem. It's either incompetence, their patrons wanted the cheap labor or they wanted to keep it as a political issue. If it's the latter Democrats have swallowed the bait bigly.

I just love how you make sure to include a dig at Democrats when addressing the inaction of the GOP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

I just love how you make sure to include a dig at Democrats when addressing the inaction of the GOP.

Not that you would do it, but with their walls don't work, are immoral, racist and there is no problem bullshit Democrats deserve a dig.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

The Washington Post article I cited said that in one month we apprehended 70,000 people who had crossed the border illegally. Border patrol has estimated that they apprehend about 50%. So we have approximately 140,000 illegal crossings last month alone. Some here think that's not a problem, I do.

No. The Washington Post article stated that it detained 70,000 migrants. It did not stated they were detained for illegally crossing the border, just that they were migrants. Asylum seekers are also migrants, seeking asylum is not illegal, their detention is part of your legal process in assessing whether or not they are valid refugees, and according to you they will continue to come & be processed (including detention) regardless of the wall

Make up your mind. You cannot both state that the wall won't stop asylum seekers AND use that number to defend the wall. You need to know how many of the detained migrants are asylum seekers before you do that... and you haven't even tried to figure out that figure.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

No. The Washington Post article stated that it detained 70,000 migrants. It did not stated they were detained for illegally crossing the border, just that they were migrants. Asylum seekers are also migrants, seeking asylum is not illegal, their detention is part of your legal process in assessing whether or not they are valid refugees, and according to you they will continue to come & be processed (including detention) regardless of the wall

Make up your mind. You cannot both state that the wall won't stop asylum seekers AND use that number to defend the wall. You need to know how many of the detained migrants are asylum seekers before you do that... and you haven't even tried to figure out that figure.

 

Wrong....Asylum seekers who present themselves at border points of entry are not detained. They have to wait in Mexico while being processed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Wrong....Asylum seekers who present themselves at border points of entry are not detained. They have to wait in Mexico while being processed.

Wrong. It took me less than thirty seconds to find out explicit proof otherwise

 

ICE Releases 15 Babies Detained With Mothers Seeking Asylum

Quote

During one week in February, Murdza spoke to nine mothers in the jail with infants under the age of 1, including a 5-month-old child. All are from Honduras and said they were detained after arriving in Eagle Pass, Texas, (note: Eagle Pass is a port of entry) with a caravan of asylum seekers. Murdza said the only other time she has seen such young children in the South Texas facility was after a caravan of migrants arrived last May at the San Ysidro port of entry in California.

Asylum seekers are being detained after arriving at ports of entry in the USA. You need to know the proportion of detained asylum seekers vs those attempting to illegally cross the border before you make the argument you're trying to. At least, if you want to make the argument honestly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

Wrong....Asylum seekers who present themselves at border points of entry are not detained. They have to wait in Mexico while being processed.

Not according to President Trump's Director of Homeland Security. She was on the news this evening and specifically said that asylum seekers were being detained, and they're included in the "record number of illegal border crossings" the Repugnicans are pointing to in order to justify this "national emergency."

Are you dumb as hell, and pay no attention to what's going on around you; or are you a partisan liar? Hmm, that's a toughie

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Are you dumb as hell, and pay no attention to what's going on around you; or are you a partisan liar? Hmm, that's a toughie

He clearly didn't know how trivial it was to prove that the government DOES detain asylum seekers, or he wouldn't have stepped on that rake. Watch as he tries to weasel his way out of accepting that he was wrong. Didn't give himself much wiggle room on this one, so we're probably in for some novel definition of "present" or "detain". When all else fails, Dog loves to try semantic excuses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not according to President Trump's Director of Homeland Security. She was on the news this evening and specifically said that asylum seekers were being detained, and they're included in the "record number of illegal border crossings" the Repugnicans are pointing to in order to justify this "national emergency."

Are you dumb as hell, and pay no attention to what's going on around you; or are you a partisan liar? Hmm, that's a toughie

-DSK

He's dumb as hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not according to President Trump's Director of Homeland Security. She was on the news this evening and specifically said that asylum seekers were being detained, and they're included in the "record number of illegal border crossings" the Repugnicans are pointing to in order to justify this "national emergency."

Are you dumb as hell, and pay no attention to what's going on around you; or are you a partisan liar? Hmm, that's a toughie

-DSK

Exactly, asylum seakers who crossed the border illegally are detained. The are included in the 76,000 illegal border crossings last month.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Wrong. It took me less than thirty seconds to find out explicit proof otherwise

 

ICE Releases 15 Babies Detained With Mothers Seeking Asylum

Asylum seekers are being detained after arriving at ports of entry in the USA. You need to know the proportion of detained asylum seekers vs those attempting to illegally cross the border before you make the argument you're trying to. At least, if you want to make the argument honestly.

Wrong...The 76,000 number for February represents illegal border crossings.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/trump-plan-breaks-with-past-immigration-policy

https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-us-border-crossings-swell-76-000-february-210656494.html;_ylt=AwrDQq7rCIFcQAMAERwPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

The reality is that that the crisis is real and it's the "manufactured crisis" that was manufactured.

How do you think a functioning democracy would deal with with this problem?

Even if the problem is bigger than it used to be, it has been building for decades. 

A government capable of handling problems would have addressed this long ago, this declaration of emergency recognizes that the current status quo is incompetent.

Thats the crisis. This issue exposes a crisis of leadership.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

How do you think a functioning democracy would deal with with this problem?

Even if the problem is bigger than it used to be, it has been building for decades. 

A government capable of handling problems would have addressed this long ago, this declaration of emergency recognizes that the current status quo is incompetent.

Thats the crisis. This issue exposes a crisis of leadership.

By managing immigration which necessarily requires preventing illegal entry.

And BTW... any barriers used in that effort are not racist, immoral or monuments to white supremacy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Dog said:

The reality is that that the crisis is real and it's the "manufactured crisis" that was manufactured.

Why wasn't it a crisis last year, or the year before that?

1 hour ago, Dog said:

Exactly, asylum seakers who crossed the border illegally are detained. The are included in the 76,000 illegal border crossings last month.

Seeking asylum isn't a crime

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

How do you think a functioning democracy would deal with with this problem?

Even if the problem is bigger than it used to be, it has been building for decades. 

A government capable of handling problems would have addressed this long ago, this declaration of emergency recognizes that the current status quo is incompetent.

Thats the crisis. This issue exposes a crisis of leadership.

Yup - a serious attempt was made in 1986, and since then both sides completely ignored the agreements that they'd made to address immigration reform.  IMHO - neither party really considers this a serious issue, beyond the talking points that they can extract to keep their base pissed off and suspicious of the other side. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

Why wasn't it a crisis last year, or the year before that?    It was, but it's getting worse.

Seeking asylum isn't a crime No one is arguing that it is.

-DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - a serious attempt was made in 1986, and since then both sides completely ignored the agreements that they'd made to address immigration reform.  IMHO - neither party really considers this a serious issue, beyond the talking points that they can extract to keep their base pissed off and suspicious of the other side. 

You mean, like all the ballyhooing that "Democrats want totally open borders with no security!"

FWIW I agree with you but extrapolate a little further, that it's not that big of a problem.

 

8 minutes ago, Dog said:
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Seeking asylum isn't a crime

 

No one is arguing that it is.

Then why are they included in the "Crisis Number"?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You mean, like all the ballyhooing that "Democrats want totally open borders with no security!"

FWIW I agree with you but extrapolate a little further, that it's not that big of a problem.

 

Then why are they included in the "Crisis Number"?

-DSK

Because while seeking asylum is legal breaking into the country is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's not "breaking into the country" if you come here to seek asylum.

-DSK

It's not if you present yourself at a point of entry and ask for asylum. It is if you break in first and then ask for asylum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

By managing immigration which necessarily requires preventing illegal entry.

And BTW... any barriers used in that effort are not racist, immoral or monuments to white supremacy.

That’s it?

The entire response to an emergency declared a “humanitarian crisis” is to build a wall?

And responding only by shutting out those suffering actual emergencies who feel forced to flee their countries isn’t immoral?

I guess if we are declaring a humanitarian emergency, we should work to solve the problem, not just this symptom of it which affects us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

That’s it?

The entire response to an emergency declared a “humanitarian crisis” is to build a wall?

And responding only by shutting out those suffering actual emergencies who feel forced to flee their countries isn’t immoral?

I guess if we are declaring a humanitarian emergency, we should work to solve the problem, not just this symptom of it which affects us.

No that's not it...The term I used was "managing immigration" which of course means processing asylum applications.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So - why the fuck hasn't Trump hired more people to do it?

Only a small percentage of those entering the country illegally have a legitimate asylum claim. The others are banking on being released into the country pending a hearing. If we had effective control of illegal crossings there would be far fewer asylum cases and fewer people needed to process them. Controlling the border is a prerequisite to any immigration solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

so, it's back to Dog lying about how asylum works so he can vomit the Trump line.

that's almost as interesting as watching #6 have another meltdown.

What's the lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's not "breaking into the country" if you come here to seek asylum.

 

It's not if you present yourself at a point of entry and ask for asylum. It is if you break in first and then ask for asylum.

And how many have done this? Director Neilsen did not want to give an answer, she hinted that it's not many

Of course, if you just make shit up to justify your political opinions, it doesn't really matter

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And how many have done this? Director Neilsen did not want to give an answer, she hinted that it's not many

Of course, if you just make shit up to justify your political opinions, it doesn't really matter

-DSK

Does it really matter? Those who want to apply for asylum should do so at a point of entry or at an embassy in their own country.

100% of the 76,000 who were apprehended breaking into the country violated our law. (Not to mention the unknown number who were not apprehended)

What have I made up in the course of this discussion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Does it really matter? Those who want to apply for asylum should do so at a point of entry or at an embassy in their own country.

100% of the 76,000 who were apprehended breaking into the country violated our law. (Not to mention the unknown number who were not apprehended)

What have I made up in the course of this discussion?

The middle part. Director Neilsen was specifically asked that question several times and she dodged answering. It's pretty clear that many, probably most, asylum seekers did exactly what you suggest in your first sentence above.

Honesty......... try it some time, if only for the sake of novelty

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

The middle part. Director Neilsen was specifically asked that question several times and she dodged answering. It's pretty clear that many, probably most, asylum seekers did exactly what you suggest in your first sentence above.

Honesty......... try it some time, if only for the sake of novelty

-DSK

And that's fine. The problem is the 76,000 who broke in.

What have I been dishonest about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You can't apply for asylum in your own country Dog. Why do you keep lieing about this?

Yes, you can apply for asylum at a embassy or consulate in your own country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

I'm sorry BD but to be perfectly frank, I do not see what this has to do with politics nor who controls the lower house. Allow me to explain my take.

Statistically 43.1 million Americans live in poverty, or about 14% of the nation.  If you expand that just outside the definition of "living in poverty" to those living near or below the poverty threshold, it is thought around 100 million or like north of 30%, fall into the bracket. Now the number of illegal immigrants living in the US has been pegged between 11-25 million. We could argue that figure, sure but what is the point really? The bottom line to me is this and let me know if and why you disagree, significantly reducing the illegal immigration numbers frees up far more resources to deal with our citizenry that reside in that pool. Potentially adding 25-50% or more monies we can then use to focus on the poverty issue…. crisis (because 30% of the nation living in poverty is a crisis!). In effect it allows us to allocate 25% or twice that to those here legally who are trapped in this system we call a safety net. This is why I truly believe we need to reform our immigration policy and strengthen our ability to check what looks to be an overwhelming number of people entering or staying in the US who have no right nor business doing so. Not do not get me wrong, I have great sympathy for those who yearn to be free. But to actually be free, not live in fear of being found out or restricted from earning decent wages because of their immigration status, is not freedom.

So again I ask, how do you not see this as a crisis? Forget the politics, the back and forth of a struggle for power in Washington. Focus on what our broken immigration system does to our social services system that prevents us from helping those who are here legally need to find a way out of the abys of poverty.

Ahh, the old zero-so mindset...  using that mindset, the smaller the population the more money to go around. Incorrect! The US is at full employment, more people = more gdp 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

And that's fine. The problem is the 76,000 who broke in.

What have I been dishonest about?

That

Easily checked on

 

17 minutes ago, Dog said:

Does it really matter? Those who want to apply for asylum should do so at a point of entry or at an embassy in their own country.

100% of the 76,000 who were apprehended breaking into the country violated our law. (Not to mention the unknown number who were not apprehended)

What have I made up in the course of this discussion?

You could read a transcript of Director Nielsen's testimony instead of just making shit up out your prejudice

This "76,000" number is a fairy tale, cobbled together to support the "emergency." You didn't invent the lie yourself, of course, you're just eagerly repeating it over and over and over instead of looking for facts

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That

Easily checked on

 

You could read a transcript of Director Nielsen's testimony instead of just making shit up out your prejudice

This "76,000" number is a fairy tale, cobbled together to support the "emergency"

-DSK

Oh...The 76,000 in February alone is a fiction....Do tell

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dog said:

Only a small percentage of those entering the country illegally have a legitimate asylum claim. The others are banking on being released into the country pending a hearing. If we had effective control of illegal crossings there would be far fewer asylum cases and fewer people needed to process them. Controlling the border is a prerequisite to any immigration solution.

Hey dog, I hate to point this out yet again, because we all know you'll ignore it.  The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country came here legally and stayed.  Why don't we work on improving that system rather than throwing billions of dollars at a problem that is only a tiny fraction of the whole?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Oh...The 76,000 in February alone is a fiction....Do tell

Yep..... that number is being thrown around as "illegal border crossings" but it includes asylum seekers many of whom did nothing illegal, many of whom were taken into detention from camps on the Mexico side.

But the sky is falling! It's an EMERGENCY!!! Help, Help, it's more brown people!!!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Oh...The 76,000 in February alone is a fiction....Do tell

It may or may not be a fiction.  However, there are some interesting things to note.....

The first warning light should be that this number is suddenly the highest it's been in over a DECADE, and it was timed exactly as Trump tried to declare his emergency.  

In February of 2000, over 211,000 people crossed.  Second warning light - why didn't THAT cause the US to collapse and trigger a state of emergency, when it's nearly 300% the current number?

Third thing to note.  Averages are averages.  Getting a high number for a month doesn't suddenly create an emergency - unless our border forces have been significantly reduced since the 00's and can no longer function well enough to handle 1/3 the level of crossings we saw then.

So to recap:

1.  One month ain't a trend.

2.  We've had numbers much, much higher before.

3. Those higher numbers didn't create an emergency or destroy the country

4. Trumps state of emergency was declared BEFORE this one big number.

Pretty clear what's going on.  And it isn't a state of emergency, that should trigger building a partial wall, to keep out a fraction of the REAL problem, which is people who overstay their time here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Hey dog, I hate to point this out yet again, because we all know you'll ignore it.  The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country came here legally and stayed.  Why don't we work on improving that system rather than throwing billions of dollars at a problem that is only a tiny fraction of the whole?

"Rather than"  We need to do both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yep..... that number is being thrown around as "illegal border crossings" but it includes asylum seekers many of whom did nothing illegal, many of whom were taken into detention from camps on the Mexico side.

But the sky is falling! It's an EMERGENCY!!! Help, Help, it's more brown people!!!

-DSK

It is illegal border crossings and all who broke into the country did do something illegal. Any sane American will consider 76,000 illegal border crossings in a month to be problematic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

No that's not it...The term I used was "managing immigration" which of course means processing asylum applications.

What makes you think this would follow? Trump has given zero indication of following through on anything other than the wall.

Thats why it’s an emergency, so Trump doesn’t have to worry about negotiating policy which covers other aspects of immigration policy.

Its an emergency because it’s Trumps Campaign promise, and he can’t be bothered to follow our laws & traditions. He was faced with “let’s talk” and he said “let’s not.” He walked out and asked his lawyers how does he get around Congress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

What makes you think this would follow? Trump has given zero indication of following through on anything other than the wall.

Thats why it’s an emergency, so Trump doesn’t have to worry about negotiating policy which covers other aspects of immigration policy.

Its an emergency because it’s Trumps Campaign promise, and he can’t be bothered to follow our laws & traditions. He was faced with “let’s talk” and he said “let’s not.” He walked out and asked his lawyers how does he get around Congress.

Meanwhile your elk goes "what problem?". Some even want to disband ICE and knock down the barriers we already have deeming them racist, immoral and in your case monuments to white supremacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Supply and demand lost on you?

Aside from that, what I am referring to in my above post is the amount of monies the US can allocate to assist the poor in making a better life for themselves.

That's your mistake. You think these illegals are "poor" and a burden on the system. Yet most are working and surviving in the black market economy actually adding to the GDP

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wall has lost John Kelly.  The John Kelly who headed DHS and then Chief of Staff.  That guy. 

Last quote in article is priceless

“They’re overwhelmingly not criminals,” Kelly said Wednesday. “They’re people coming up here for economic purposes. I don’t blame them for that.”

(this is not the last quote, you will have to actually read the linked article)

He also reiterated his position that a border wall spanning the entire U.S.-Mexico border would be a “waste of money,” despite overseeing the beginning of what would become the longest government shutdown in U.S. history over Trump’s demand that Congress fund such a project.

Though there are areas where a border wall would be effective, Kelly said, “We don’t need a wall from sea to shining sea.”

 

Anyway, the Wall proponents don't support Trump so what difference does a former 4 star general and head of DHS make?  I mean he states he would have worked for Hillary fur chrissake.  I got nuthin beyond at some point that poor wall is going to be left without a leg to stand on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trump Administration has proclaimed that every one of those 76,000 folks illegally broke into the country, and Dog is good with that.

Mind you, this information comes from the most dishonest crowd to inhabit the swamp matters not one whit.

They lie all the time, and the Faithful repeat it ad nauseam.  Dog included.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

The Trump Administration has proclaimed that every one of those 76,000 folks illegally broke into the country, and Dog is good with that.

Mind you, this information comes from the most dishonest crowd to inhabit the swamp matters not one whit.

They lie all the time, and the Faithful repeat it ad nauseam.  Dog included.

 

SF also disputed the numbers (which BTW are only for apprehensions) but so far has not provided any corroboration. Perhaps you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on BD - it's the perfect catch22 - they are all criminals since everyone crossing the border commits a criminal act! Pure Genius!

You're a criminal and you're a criminal and you're a criminal - so easy even a Trump supporter can do it

Career Opportunity Now Hiring! Can you spot criminals? Do you have good vision? Can you stay awake?  Can you count? Can your read this? Congratulations if you can answer yes to any of the questions you too can be a Trump Criminal Identifier Associate! Don't Wait or Hesitate! Apply Now! We Are Counting On You!

Include $45 with you application made out to Trumps Big Beautiful Wall attn: Ima Moran

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

“They’re overwhelmingly not criminals,” Kelly said Wednesday. “They’re people coming up here for economic purposes. I don’t blame them for that.”

"A lot of people don't understand this. You need people to help you with the farms. I'm not going to rule that out," Trump said, drawing cheers from the crowd."  January 18, 2019, Washington Post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hasher said:

"A lot of people don't understand this. You need people to help you with the farms. I'm not going to rule that out," Trump said, drawing cheers from the crowd."  January 18, 2019, Washington Post.

So am I wrong to think 76,000 apprehensions (plus an unknown number not apprehended) is problematic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dog said:

SF also disputed the numbers (which BTW are only for apprehensions) but so far has not provided any corroboration. Perhaps you can.

Hmm, so now it's "apprehension," is it? Still a bit misleading if a large number of them turned themselves in to apply for asylum.

A bit misleading, ha ha, I was trying to polite. You're a fucking liar. A few hours ago you were all like:

 

2 hours ago, Dog said:

...   ... The problem is the 76,000 who broke in.  ...   ...

but perhaps you're beginning to realize being perpetually mocked as dim partisan Trump mouthpiece is not an attractive future.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Hmm, so now it's "apprehension," is it? Still a bit misleading if a large number of them turned themselves in to apply for asylum.

A bit misleading, ha ha, I was trying to polite. You're a fucking liar. A few hours ago you were all like:

 

but perhaps you're beginning to realize being perpetually mocked as dim partisan Trump mouthpiece is not an attractive future.

-DSK

It was always apprehensions and yes a large number do apply for asylum which is why so many now are families, they know they will be released into the country.

You keep calling me a liar but when I ask you don't provide the lie. As for the mocking, it means nothing to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

It was always apprehensions and yes a large number do apply for asylum which is why so many now are families, they know they will be released into the country.

You keep calling me a liar but when I ask you don't provide the lie. As for the mocking, it means nothing to me.

 

Of course, Team Trump! (formerly Team R!) gets to re-define every word they want. They don't even have to use it consistently, they can re-define it again in the next sentence. So much easier then paying attention, and much more entertaining than boring old facts & reality.

It's an "apprehension" when a person comes to the US and applies for asylum, and calling it that NOW negates the fact that you claimed they had done something illegal just a few short hours ago.

Not surprised that being mocked "means nothing" to you. Reality means nothing to you.

You gotta stand for something, or you're gonna fall for anything.

And you did

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Of course, Team Trump! (formerly Team R!) gets to re-define every word they want. They don't even have to use it consistently, they can re-define it again in the next sentence. So much easier then paying attention, and much more entertaining than boring old facts & reality.

It's an "apprehension" when a person comes to the US and applies for asylum, and calling it that NOW negates the fact that you claimed they had done something illegal just a few short hours ago.

Not surprised that being mocked "means nothing" to you. Reality means nothing to you.

You gotta stand for something, or you're gonna fall for anything.

And you did

-DSK

Dude.... the scam is to come in illegally as a family then apply for asylum. It matters not that the asylum claim may be baseless, they will be released into the country. If they do it legally they risk being rejected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dog said:

So am I wrong to think 76,000 apprehensions (plus an unknown number not apprehended) is problematic?

I think it is wrong when people come in the country to work and are denied legal status.  I know some employers who need these workers.  Let's be intelligent about how we treat the workers.  Little don was not in his personal business.  This is important to me as a citizen.  Treat the workers right.

Compliance is one of the bills that passed in the house.  Enforce compliance and you resolve the illegal issue.  That is to say, we need the workers, legalize them.  I grew up in farm country.  Very few of us wanted to stay on the farm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hasher said:

I think it is wrong when people come in the country to work and are denied legal status.  I know some employers who need these workers.  Let's be intelligent about how we treat the workers.  Little don was not in his personal business.  This is important to me as a citizen.  Treat the workers right.

Compliance is one of the bills that passed in the house.  Enforce compliance and you resolve the illegal issue.  That is to say, we need the workers, legalize them.  I grew up in farm country.  Very few of us wanted to stay on the farm.

Do you think it's wrong when people come into the country illegally to work and are denied legal status? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Do you think it's wrong when people come into the country illegally to work and are denied legal status? 

I think that is easily solved.  Make sure employers comply with the law.  Rather simple.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

I think that is easily solved.  Make sure employers comply with the law.  Rather simple.  

So you do think that people who come into the country illegally should be denied legal status. Then presumably you also think it problematic that last month alone some 76,000 people crossed the southern border illegally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

okay, I want to make absolutely certain I fully understand you.

1. You think black market transactions add positively to GDP.

2. Illegals are prosperous.

3. Illegals are not drawing on our social systems, health care systems and education systems.

Do I have that correct?

1: they do

2: you imagine 

3: limited impact 

the US has a massive labor shortage. Fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

So you do think that people who come into the country illegally should be denied legal status. Then presumably you also think it problematic that last month alone some 76,000 people crossed the southern border illegally.

You lie 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

SF also disputed the numbers (which BTW are only for apprehensions) but so far has not provided any corroboration. Perhaps you can.

Why do you reflexively believe anything and everything the Trump Administration says?  Why do you defend them so vociferously?

At some point you need to admit they are bullshitting you.  Why would they do that?

They are busy amassing wealth and power.

That's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Uh, guys - all of this has zip to do with Trump's Beautiful Wall (that Mexico will pay for).  Perhaps there could be a thread for immigration reform since the wall is dead.

If, as our Democratic friends would have us believe, 76,000 people crossing the border illegally in one month is not a problem then the wall issue is moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

BD? 

Sorry, missed that.

I see illegal immigration as a problem.  Primarily for the reasons you provide.

I, along with Congress before January 2019, do not see it as the massive crisis President Trump and his team are pitching it as.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Why do you reflexively believe anything and everything the Trump Administration says?  Why do you defend them so vociferously?

At some point you need to admit they are bullshitting you.  Why would they do that?

They are busy amassing wealth and power.

That's all.

No corroboration then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

If, as our Democratic friends would have us believe, 76,000 people crossing the border illegally in one month is not a problem then the wall issue is moot.

Did you write that sentence yourself, as the structure is pretty mangled.

So, did you read the article from Gen. John Kelly? Who thinks it's stupid? I mean, he headed up DHS so what would he possible know about that.  Or, continue to believe Trump who is setting the bar so high for daily lies it may never be broken.  #1baby.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

If, as our Democratic friends would have us believe, 76,000 people crossing the border illegally in one month is not a problem then the wall issue is moot.

76,000 people didn't, so therefor, no it isn't a problem.

Immigration and control of the border are both problems.... two seperate ones........ but it's certainly not a "national emergency"

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Did you write that sentence yourself, as the structure is pretty mangled.

So, did you read the article from Gen. John Kelly? Who thinks it's stupid? I mean, he headed up DHS so what would he possible know about that.  Or, continue to believe Trump who is setting the bar so high for daily lies it may never be broken.  #1baby.

Yeah sorry, Not one of my better efforts. I actually agree with Kelly wrt a wall from sea to sea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

76,000 people didn't, so therefor, no it isn't a problem.

Immigration and control of the border are both problems.... two seperate ones........ but it's certainly not a "national emergency"

-DSK

So you say, without corroboration.

Link to post
Share on other sites