ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Sept 14, 2023 23:11:58 GMT -5
LOL...The border is not open. Then explain this. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2023 6:42:08 GMT -5
LOL...The border is not open. Then explain this.
Another 1,700 migrants turned up at ports of entry seeking asylum the same day, overwhelming the available resources and leading Border Patrol agents to have to release immigrants into the streets of Arizona towns, federal law enforcement sources said.do you read what you post? they surrendered to custody, because they are seeking assylum. ergo, they are NOT here illegally. does the Post always lie like this? because it seems pretty brash. like they always do it. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,875
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 15, 2023 12:06:11 GMT -5
LOL...The border is not open. Then explain this.
Another 1,700 migrants turned up at ports of entry seeking asylum the same day, overwhelming the available resources and leading Border Patrol agents to have to release immigrants into the streets of Arizona towns, federal law enforcement sources said.do you read what you post? they surrendered to custody, because they are seeking assylum. ergo, they are NOT here illegally. does the Post always lie like this? because it seems pretty brash. like they always do it. He never reads the full story before he posts and he should be embarrassed. But Rip's okay with being 'comfortably uninformed' and it shows. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,747
|
Post by scgal on Sept 16, 2023 13:03:26 GMT -5
LOL...The border is not open. Then explain this.
Another 1,700 migrants turned up at ports of entry seeking asylum the same day, overwhelming the available resources and leading Border Patrol agents to have to release immigrants into the streets of Arizona towns, federal law enforcement sources said.do you read what you post? they surrendered to custody, because they are seeking assylum. ergo, they are NOT here illegally. does the Post always lie like this? because it seems pretty brash. like they always do it. Rip is right. 7400 did come illegally then surrendered. The 1700 were asylum seekers. If they don't come to the right area they are illegal period. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,670
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 16, 2023 14:03:47 GMT -5
In a 24-hour period, 7,400 immigrants who crossed from Mexico into southern Arizona illegally surrendered to Border Patrol agents and were taken into custody.
Another 1,700 migrants turned up at ports of entry seeking asylum the same day, overwhelming the available resources and leading Border Patrol agents to have to release immigrants into the streets of Arizona towns, federal law enforcement sources said.do you read what you post? they surrendered to custody, because they are seeking assylum. ergo, they are NOT here illegally. does the Post always lie like this? because it seems pretty brash. like they always do it. Rip is right. 7400 did come illegally then surrendered. The 1700 were asylum seekers. If they don't come to the right area they are illegal period. You can't really make that assumption, or determination, given the limited information available. If they crossed with the specific intent to find a border agent, or to make their way to a border station, for the purposes of surrender and had no intent to evade the law or the immigration system, I would be hard-pressed to lump them in with those who are actually trying to enter illegally for the purpose of living here outside of our laws. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,429
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 16, 2023 14:10:17 GMT -5
Rip is right. 7400 did come illegally then surrendered. The 1700 were asylum seekers. If they don't come to the right area they are illegal period. You can't really make that assumption, or determination, given the limited information available. If they crossed with the specific intent to find a border agent, or to make their way to a border station, for the purposes of surrender and had no intent to evade the law or the immigration system, I would be hard-pressed to lump them in with those who are actually trying to enter illegally for the purpose of living here outside of our laws. They gamed the system showing they will fit in perfectly in our society. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,670
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 16, 2023 14:14:13 GMT -5
You can't really make that assumption, or determination, given the limited information available. If they crossed with the specific intent to find a border agent, or to make their way to a border station, for the purposes of surrender and had no intent to evade the law or the immigration system, I would be hard-pressed to lump them in with those who are actually trying to enter illegally for the purpose of living here outside of our laws. They gamed the system showing they will fit in perfectly in our society. How? By getting a ride for the last 50 miles to the border station rather than walking it on their own?  |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,747
|
Post by scgal on Sept 16, 2023 15:43:36 GMT -5
Rip is right. 7400 did come illegally then surrendered. The 1700 were asylum seekers. If they don't come to the right area they are illegal period. You can't really make that assumption, or determination, given the limited information available. If they crossed with the specific intent to find a border agent, or to make their way to a border station, for the purposes of surrender and had no intent to evade the law or the immigration system, I would be hard-pressed to lump them in with those who are actually trying to enter illegally for the purpose of living here outside of our laws. Sure I can the article said 7400 entered and surrendered. 1700 actually went to the port of entry to seek asylum with that if the 7400 did not go to the correct area as the article states then they are illegal. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,670
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 16, 2023 16:02:12 GMT -5
You can't really make that assumption, or determination, given the limited information available. If they crossed with the specific intent to find a border agent, or to make their way to a border station, for the purposes of surrender and had no intent to evade the law or the immigration system, I would be hard-pressed to lump them in with those who are actually trying to enter illegally for the purpose of living here outside of our laws. Sure I can the article said 7400 entered and surrendered. 1700 actually went to the port of entry to seek asylum with that if the 7400 did not go to the correct area as the article states then they are illegal. Only if they were attempting to evade border patrol agents or to otherwise act against the law. If their entry was specifically to find someone to surrender to, then that is a different matter. Nothing in the limited information breaks that down. Until they make some effort to do something other than present themselves for asylum, I cannot call them "illegal." And you should note that I am on record many times here saying that every single person in the country illegally should be deported. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,875
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 16, 2023 16:23:38 GMT -5
In a 24-hour period, 7,400 immigrants who crossed from Mexico into southern Arizona illegally surrendered to Border Patrol agents and were taken into custody.
Another 1,700 migrants turned up at ports of entry seeking asylum the same day, overwhelming the available resources and leading Border Patrol agents to have to release immigrants into the streets of Arizona towns, federal law enforcement sources said.do you read what you post? they surrendered to custody, because they are seeking assylum. ergo, they are NOT here illegally. does the Post always lie like this? because it seems pretty brash. like they always do it. Rip is right. 7400 did come illegally then surrendered. The 1700 were asylum seekers. If they don't come to the right area they are illegal period. Other than the thread title, Rip offered no personal opinion about anything. Just posted a link and said nothing about its content. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2023 3:23:45 GMT -5
In a 24-hour period, 7,400 immigrants who crossed from Mexico into southern Arizona illegally surrendered to Border Patrol agents and were taken into custody.
Another 1,700 migrants turned up at ports of entry seeking asylum the same day, overwhelming the available resources and leading Border Patrol agents to have to release immigrants into the streets of Arizona towns, federal law enforcement sources said.do you read what you post? they surrendered to custody, because they are seeking assylum. ergo, they are NOT here illegally. does the Post always lie like this? because it seems pretty brash. like they always do it. Rip is right. 7400 did come illegally then surrendered. The 1700 were asylum seekers. If they don't come to the right area they are illegal period. that is subject to determination of Border Control, not the NY Post. the Post has no idea what the status of the 7400 is. neither does rip. but it serves their interests to disguise that fact. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2023 3:27:58 GMT -5
Sure I can the article said 7400 entered and surrendered. 1700 actually went to the port of entry to seek asylum with that if the 7400 did not go to the correct area as the article states then they are illegal. . If their entry was specifically to find someone to surrender to, then that is a different matter. Nothing in the limited information breaks that down. Until they make some effort to do something other than present themselves for asylum, I cannot call them "illegal." And you should note that I am on record many times here saying that every single person in the country illegally should be deported. that is precisely right. we should probably start a thread on seeking asylum. i will back up TG on his final point. he is very firm about immigrants here illegally. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,747
|
Post by scgal on Sept 17, 2023 4:26:32 GMT -5
Rip is right. 7400 did come illegally then surrendered. The 1700 were asylum seekers. If they don't come to the right area they are illegal period. that is subject to determination of Border Control, not the NY Post. the Post has no idea what the status of the 7400 is. neither does rip. but it serves their interests to disguise that fact. Yet neither do you. The fact is once they come thru an unauthorized area they are illegal period. I don't care if they come in immediately get down on their knees with their hands behind their head they are illegal. Should they go to jail no. Sent back yes just like they were If you get in a car and leave your wallet home with your licence in it you are breaking the law and could get a ticket innocent mistake but still an illegal act. On a more serious note you go to a police station with a gun to turn in and that meeting is not set up in advance that is an illegal act. Bottom line is the whole story doesn't matter much they did an illegal act and they were handled appropriately. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2023 7:39:53 GMT -5
that is subject to determination of Border Control, not the NY Post. the Post has no idea what the status of the 7400 is. neither does rip. but it serves their interests to disguise that fact. Yet neither do you. no, but i never claimed to know. what i claimed is that the status has to be determined by the US Border Patrol and Customs and Immigration. there is no indication from the article that rip posted that they have done so. this is the problem with raw immigration data. it doesn't actually tell you much. i would also point out that i am also anti "illegal immigration". i just happen to think that the solution lies in fining the crap out of businesses that use them than by continuously deporting them. in fact, i think that "illegal immigration" could be PROFITABLE for the US government if we simply enforced existing fines on ALL people illegally employed, here. of course, that would mean the deportation of 15M people in a country where there are basically zero Americans willing to fill those jobs- so what we ACTUALLY have here is a problem with no solution, other than a bunch of hollering and no action. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2023 7:44:52 GMT -5
that is subject to determination of Border Control, not the NY Post. the Post has no idea what the status of the 7400 is. neither does rip. but it serves their interests to disguise that fact. Bottom line is the whole story doesn't matter much they did an illegal act and they were handled appropriately. once handled, they were no longer here illegally. i have traveled on an expired Visa before. that is also "illegal migration". however, i turned myself over to the authorities immediately, and we took care of it. that is, imo, pretty much identical to the situation with refugees. they flood across the border out of desperation, into the arms of officials, where they are processed. the fact that they are here "illegally" doesn't really matter much, because they are surrendering themselves to the authorities immediately. this might also be a good time to point out that net migration has been declining for over two decades. which means that the "problem" is getting smaller over time, not larger. that is why neutral to skeptical observers of this pearl clutching exhibition think that it is more for show than anything else. which is fine. as long as you know that. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2023 7:59:26 GMT -5
i think i owe an explanation for the expired Visa comment.
when i submitted myself to custody, rather than being immediately treated as a criminal, i was given the option of clearing up my visa situation. i was in a country without Visa privileges from the US. what is typically done is that you file for an E-Visa, but i forgot. so, when i got to the airport, i was escorted to the immigration office. for $30 (US, curiously enough. all countries with no visa entry were required to submit in their own currency), they gave me a 180 day stamp in my passport. done. if i was NOT able to come up with the money, i would have been held in custody until either i came up with the money, or deportation could be arranged.
this is the SAME in the US. you can get an ESTA Visa if you apply on line, or you can apply in person and be given a 180 day Visa.
i believe that these standards are set internationally, but you can check it out. i accept that someone here "without papers" can readily obtain them, just as i did. but there is an assumption of guilt present in these discussions which makes that acceptance impossible for some.
and i get that those here can jump ship and face deportation. i do. but tourist Visas are not the only way to gain entry into a country. there are at least two others i can think of. and THAT is what border officials have to sort out, REGARDLESS OF HOW SOMEONE ENTERS.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,030
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 17, 2023 9:31:21 GMT -5
Let’s use scgal’s logic in other cases:
It is illegal to possess classified documents.
Trump possessed classified documents.
Therefore, Trump did something illegal.
We don’t need a hearing or explanations, since what he did is illegal.
Now let’s use the Hunter Biden standard for sentencing:
Find a case with a punishment we agree with, and give it to him. Doesn’t matter if the facts of the case are wildly different
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Sept 19, 2023 0:22:04 GMT -5
It appears SCGAL and I are the only persons on this board who comprehend the meaning of "Illegal" in regards to aliens or as others on this board who want to be political correct "undocumented aliens". You can't ignore the many videos of the mass crossings.
"Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted".
They are illegal the moment they put 1 toe over the border. No papers, no visas etc. Regardless if they (don't they all) say they all want asylum? That's what the smugglers tell them to say. What about the got-a-ways" who don''t present themselves to authorities? How many are gang members, criminals or undesirables? We don''t know because we couldn't/didn't do a background check. And that's what scares me the most.
And I just found this -https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mayorkas-says-biden-border-policies-are-working-fine-but-just-need-tweaks/ar-AA1gU5Cw?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=e83b9ab49384467f9c00a27ac526a95b&ei=44
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2023 2:33:53 GMT -5
It appears SCGAL and I are the only persons on this board who comprehend the meaning of "Illegal" in regards to aliens or as others on this board who want to be political correct "undocumented aliens". You can't ignore the many videos of the mass crossings.
"Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted".
They are illegal the moment they put 1 toe over the border. No papers, no visas etc. Regardless if they (don't they all) say they all want asylum? That's what the smugglers tell them to say. What about the got-a-ways" who don''t present themselves to authorities? How many are gang members, criminals or undesirables? We don''t know because we couldn't/didn't do a background check. And that's what scares me the most.
And I just found this -https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mayorkas-says-biden-border-policies-are-working-fine-but-just-need-tweaks/ar-AA1gU5Cw?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=e83, ab9ab49384467f9c00a27ac526a95b&ei=44
first of all, i don't need a primer. i am a grown man, and i can (and have) read. there are several problems with your reply, and those of scgal . the first is that there are not just two immigration statuses. there are three: "legal", "illegal", and "undetermined". if i arrive at a destination without a passport or visa, i am not there "illegally", except in the trivial sense that you presented, here. my status is undetermined. i might have a visa. i might have a passport that was lost or stolen. i might be a refugee. i might be seeking amnesty, or defecting, or seeking asylum. it is up to border control and immigration to determine that. not up to you. not up to the NY Post. the second is that the article YOU POSTED correctly points out that the correct term is UNDOCUMENTED: Undocumented immigrants, also (wrongly) called illegal aliensand yes, i added the parenthetical remark- because it belongs there. until someone's immigration status is determined, they are not "illegal". they are "undetermined". How many are gang members, criminals or undesirables? We don''t know because we couldn't/didn't do a background check. every one of the persons in the article you posted submitted themselves to Border Control. if Border Control can't determine who they are, they are SENT BACK, rip. and Customs doesn't do a "background check" on you. they check to see if you are RED FLAGGED. that is it. if you are not red flagged, you can enter. i will assume you are genuinely worried, but you shouldn't be. the criminals you should worry about are American citizens, like Trump, imo. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,670
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 19, 2023 2:44:38 GMT -5
It appears SCGAL and I are the only persons on this board who comprehend the meaning of "Illegal" in regards to aliens or as others on this board who want to be political correct "undocumented aliens". You can't ignore the many videos of the mass crossings. Actually, it appears that you two are among the least able to differentiate between gradations. Where some of us notice and distinguish between navy blue, royal blue, midnight blue, cobalt blue, sky blue, powder blue, baby blue, aqua blue, azure blue, turquoise, cerulean, teal, and many others, some seem to argue, "No, it's blue. Those are all blue." Being partly right at best (and if that), is not the same as being right. |
|
Knee Deep in Water Chloe
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 21:04:44 GMT -5
Posts: 14,324
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1980e6
|
Post by Knee Deep in Water Chloe on Sept 19, 2023 3:06:47 GMT -5
The Big Bang Theory: Gradations of Wrong - YouTube
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2023 4:53:11 GMT -5
It appears SCGAL and I are the only persons on this board who comprehend the meaning of "Illegal" in regards to aliens or as others on this board who want to be political correct "undocumented aliens". You can't ignore the many videos of the mass crossings. Actually, it appears that you two are among the least able to differentiate between gradations. Where some of us notice and distinguish between navy blue, royal blue, midnight blue, cobalt blue, sky blue, powder blue, baby blue, aqua blue, azure blue, turquoise, cerulean, teal, and many others, some seem to argue, "No, it's blue. Those are all blue." Being partly right at best (and if that), is not the same as being right. actually, some will argue they are all shades of grey, because they are colorblind. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,670
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 19, 2023 11:35:33 GMT -5
Actually, it appears that you two are among the least able to differentiate between gradations. Where some of us notice and distinguish between navy blue, royal blue, midnight blue, cobalt blue, sky blue, powder blue, baby blue, aqua blue, azure blue, turquoise, cerulean, teal, and many others, some seem to argue, "No, it's blue. Those are all blue." Being partly right at best (and if that), is not the same as being right. actually, some will argue they are all shades of grey, because they are colorblind. And some of us see them all as different shades, but don't think any of them are inherently better than any other one. All work together to make the world a prettier and more interesting place.  |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,747
|
Post by scgal on Sept 20, 2023 7:56:06 GMT -5
It appears SCGAL and I are the only persons on this board who comprehend the meaning of "Illegal" in regards to aliens or as others on this board who want to be political correct "undocumented aliens". You can't ignore the many videos of the mass crossings.
"Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted".
They are illegal the moment they put 1 toe over the border. No papers, no visas etc. Regardless if they (don't they all) say they all want asylum? That's what the smugglers tell them to say. What about the got-a-ways" who don''t present themselves to authorities? How many are gang members, criminals or undesirables? We don''t know because we couldn't/didn't do a background check. And that's what scares me the most.
And I just found this -https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mayorkas-says-biden-border-policies-are-working-fine-but-just-need-tweaks/ar-AA1gU5Cw?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=e83, ab9ab49384467f9c00a27ac526a95b&ei=44
first of all, i don't need a primer. i am a grown man, and i can (and have) read. there are several problems with your reply, and those of scgal . the first is that there are not just two immigration statuses. there are three: "legal", "illegal", and "undetermined". if i arrive at a destination without a passport or visa, i am not there "illegally", except in the trivial sense that you presented, here. my status is undetermined. i might have a visa. i might have a passport that was lost or stolen. i might be a refugee. i might be seeking amnesty, or defecting, or seeking asylum. it is up to border control and immigration to determine that. not up to you. not up to the NY Post. the second is that the article YOU POSTED correctly points out that the correct term is UNDOCUMENTED: Undocumented immigrants, also (wrongly) called illegal aliensand yes, i added the parenthetical remark- because it belongs there. until someone's immigration status is determined, they are not "illegal". they are "undetermined". How many are gang members, criminals or undesirables? We don''t know because we couldn't/didn't do a background check. every one of the persons in the article you posted submitted themselves to Border Control. if Border Control can't determine who they are, they are SENT BACK, rip. and Customs doesn't do a "background check" on you. they check to see if you are RED FLAGGED. that is it. if you are not red flagged, you can enter. i will assume you are genuinely worried, but you shouldn't be. the criminals you should worry about are American citizens, like Trump, imo. Undocumented immigrants are not wrongly called illegal aliens. Being undocumented is an illegal states hence they are illegals. Undertermined is an is illegal until documentation is proven. Everyone and I mean everyone without a documented status is illegal. The only reason why this is such a hard concept is that it is not politically correct to say. It would help if people grew a damn backbone. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 20, 2023 9:43:23 GMT -5
first of all, i don't need a primer. i am a grown man, and i can (and have) read. there are several problems with your reply, and those of scgal . the first is that there are not just two immigration statuses. there are three: "legal", "illegal", and "undetermined". if i arrive at a destination without a passport or visa, i am not there "illegally", except in the trivial sense that you presented, here. my status is undetermined. i might have a visa. i might have a passport that was lost or stolen. i might be a refugee. i might be seeking amnesty, or defecting, or seeking asylum. it is up to border control and immigration to determine that. not up to you. not up to the NY Post. the second is that the article YOU POSTED correctly points out that the correct term is UNDOCUMENTED: Undocumented immigrants, also (wrongly) called illegal aliensand yes, i added the parenthetical remark- because it belongs there. until someone's immigration status is determined, they are not "illegal". they are "undetermined". How many are gang members, criminals or undesirables? We don''t know because we couldn't/didn't do a background check. every one of the persons in the article you posted submitted themselves to Border Control. if Border Control can't determine who they are, they are SENT BACK, rip. and Customs doesn't do a "background check" on you. they check to see if you are RED FLAGGED. that is it. if you are not red flagged, you can enter. i will assume you are genuinely worried, but you shouldn't be. the criminals you should worry about are American citizens, like Trump, imo. Undocumented immigrants are not wrongly called illegal aliens. some of them are. but let's change subjects. why are you concerned about this issue, scgal? |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,875
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 20, 2023 9:44:58 GMT -5
Undocumented immigrants are not wrongly called illegal aliens. some of them are. but let's change subjects. why are you concerned about this issue, scgal? White privilege. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 20, 2023 9:46:52 GMT -5
Undocumented immigrants are not wrongly called illegal aliens. Being undocumented is an illegal states hence they are illegals. Undertermined is an is illegal until documentation is proven. Everyone and I mean everyone without a documented status is illegal. The only reason why this is such a hard concept is that it is not politically correct to say. It would help if people grew a damn backbone. it is not a hard concept, it is simply wrong. but again, i am done arguing with you about this. i get your point. i just fervently disagree, scgal. let's try to discuss something that is less impenetrable. WHY do you care about this issue? |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,030
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 20, 2023 10:16:59 GMT -5
Because Fox News tells her she should be outraged
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Sept 20, 2023 20:06:51 GMT -5
Hmmm...The border is not open. Looks like it to me. OR this And this - A illegal got deported earlier and came back, given a court date of 2025 and then killed someone.
Yes Biden and Mayorkas the border is closed.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,670
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 20, 2023 21:43:20 GMT -5
I'll bet you are yearning for the tremendously anti-immigrant days of Donald Trump...when deportations were FAR lower than they were under Barack Obama. Aren't you?  |
|
