billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,410 
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 28, 2024 22:46:14 GMT -5
I have questions on vetting of all these so called "asylum" seekers. When they present themselves to the ICE/CPB people to vet them and they do the paperwork, do they take their mug shots and fingerprints? Just what is the vetting procedure?
Do they run them thru a fingerprint check program to see if they have record in the US? Do they run them thru a world wide fingerprint check like Interpol or other organizations that have criminal records database?
to your answers. |
|
dondubble
Established Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 404
|
Post by dondubble on Feb 28, 2024 22:46:16 GMT -5
I have questions on vetting of all these so called "asylum" seekers. When they present themselves to the ICE/CPB people to vet them and they do the paperwork, do they take their mug shots and fingerprints? Just what is the vetting procedure?
Do they run them thru a fingerprint check program to see if they have record in the US? Do they run them thru a world wide fingerprint check like Interpol or other organizations that have criminal records database?
Have you contacted your congressperson to complain about repo-cons screwing the pooch on the border bill? |
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 924
|
Post by mollyc on Feb 28, 2024 22:52:36 GMT -5
I have questions on vetting of all these so called "asylum" seekers. When they present themselves to the ICE/CPB people to vet them and they do the paperwork, do they take their mug shots and fingerprints? Just what is the vetting procedure?
Do they run them thru a fingerprint check program to see if they have record in the US? Do they run them thru a world wide fingerprint check like Interpol or other organizations that have criminal records database?
If you open your web browser and type in Vetting process for asylum seekers It will give a link to the US government website that tells you what the process is. Slight spoiler for you - fingerprints are taken. You can find the rest yourself. You really need to start learning to search for info online. You seem to have the time and you might enjoy learning more then the sound bits you seem to absorb. |
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 924
|
Post by mollyc on Feb 28, 2024 22:53:07 GMT -5
I have questions on vetting of all these so called "asylum" seekers. When they present themselves to the ICE/CPB people to vet them and they do the paperwork, do they take their mug shots and fingerprints? Just what is the vetting procedure?
Do they run them thru a fingerprint check program to see if they have record in the US? Do they run them thru a world wide fingerprint check like Interpol or other organizations that have criminal records database?
to your answers. You are too kind |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2024 23:50:44 GMT -5
I have questions on vetting of all these so called "asylum" seekers. When they present themselves to the ICE/CPB people to vet them and they do the paperwork, do they take their mug shots and fingerprints? Just what is the vetting procedure?
Do they run them thru a fingerprint check program to see if they have record in the US? Do they run them thru a world wide fingerprint check like Interpol or other organizations that have criminal records database?
If you open your web browser and type in Vetting process for asylum seekers It will give a link to the US government website that tells you what the process is. Slight spoiler for you - fingerprints are taken. You can find the rest yourself. You really need to start learning to search for info online. You seem to have the time and you might enjoy learning more then the sound bits you seem to absorb. we know how much time everyone spends here every day. if they spent half that time looking stuff up, the quality of the discussions would improve immensely. part of the amnesty procedure is filling out forms. over 40% of those seeking amnesty fail to do so and are deported. betting that they don't know how to write, and nobody helps them. and yeah, that probably suits most Americans just fine. sadly. coyotes and their advise only get you so far. most migrants have no idea how much disrespect (at best) and hostility (at worst) awaits them. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2024 23:52:57 GMT -5
spoiler alert: the answer to most of these questions is OF COURSE. they make it as difficult as possible. which is why 85% don't make it through the court. |
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,294
|
Post by Ava on Feb 29, 2024 9:09:06 GMT -5
I have a question. I see how people come to the southern border but I don't understand how the illegals get to Canada and then cross into our Northern border. They don't walk there from the Mexican border. I saw a news story on the increase if crossings.
Do they fly to Canada from South America? Don't they have to show a visa to get into Canada on a plane from any country?
You really need to look into how exactly you cross international borders, because apparently you have never been outside of the US. Each country has their own rules in getting in, Canada included. You CAN be stopped if a visa is required and you do not have one. They can also make life quite difficult for you (just ask my Turkish friends who tried to go into Canada on a US visa) in both directions. If you are holding a passport from a South American country, if you need a visa to get into Canada you get it. If you do need one, then go to a US border crossing and try to cross without a visa and a visa is required by the US, you get turned back. It doesn't matter what country you are going through, what matters is which country's passport you are using. ETA: Not only that, when you are entering a country, you may be required to show a return flight, where you are staying, how much money you have access to and proof of health insurance. We have been required to provide all of this information (and more) to receive entry into other countries in our travels. The US is no different Ava has described the hoops her mom has to jump through to visit her in the US from Uruguay - and from what I can tell, the US is worse than many (except, quite possibly Saudi Arabia where they wanted everything). Oh, I did the paperwork for her visa. It was brutal. There's a cottage industry in Uruguay of little online companies that do all the paperwork for a US tourist visa for a fee. Unless you have a good command of the English language, and have enough time to dedicate to it, it's impossible to apply on your own. I speak English and I was on vacation, so I could do it. Otherwise she would have to pay one of those companies. That's what almost everyone does. |
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 29, 2024 14:15:21 GMT -5
You really need to look into how exactly you cross international borders, because apparently you have never been outside of the US. Each country has their own rules in getting in, Canada included. You CAN be stopped if a visa is required and you do not have one. They can also make life quite difficult for you (just ask my Turkish friends who tried to go into Canada on a US visa) in both directions. If you are holding a passport from a South American country, if you need a visa to get into Canada you get it. If you do need one, then go to a US border crossing and try to cross without a visa and a visa is required by the US, you get turned back. It doesn't matter what country you are going through, what matters is which country's passport you are using. ETA: Not only that, when you are entering a country, you may be required to show a return flight, where you are staying, how much money you have access to and proof of health insurance. We have been required to provide all of this information (and more) to receive entry into other countries in our travels. The US is no different Ava has described the hoops her mom has to jump through to visit her in the US from Uruguay - and from what I can tell, the US is worse than many (except, quite possibly Saudi Arabia where they wanted everything). Oh, I did the paperwork for her visa. It was brutal. There's a cottage industry in Uruguay of little online companies that do all the paperwork for a US tourist visa for a fee.Unless you have a good command of the English language, and have enough time to dedicate to it, it's impossible to apply on your own. I speak English and I was on vacation, so I could do it. Otherwise she would have to pay one of those companies. That's what almost everyone does. There is similar in the US to get visas for other countries too. I just used them to get our Vietnam visas we need next month. For Cambodia, so many people are having issues that the cruise is having someone come to the boat to officiate them. We need one for Indonesia too, but can get one when our flight lands. Some countries are not bad. I have applied for an e visa for Turkey several times (I guess no longer required). Australia and New Zealand are fairly straightforward. Brazil is so brutal that Brazil punted back their roll out date by a few months. EITAS was supposed to happen for US visitors to Europe and it was supposed to be rolled out now. The Paris Olympics this summer caused this to get punted to 2025. Long story short, no one just walks into any country without proper documentation. Some are easier, some harder. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 29, 2024 14:40:56 GMT -5
Oh, I did the paperwork for her visa. It was brutal. There's a cottage industry in Uruguay of little online companies that do all the paperwork for a US tourist visa for a fee.Unless you have a good command of the English language, and have enough time to dedicate to it, it's impossible to apply on your own. I speak English and I was on vacation, so I could do it. Otherwise she would have to pay one of those companies. That's what almost everyone does. There is similar in the US to get visas for other countries too. I just used them to get our Vietnam visas we need next month. For Cambodia, so many people are having issues that the cruise is having someone come to the boat to officiate them. We need one for Indonesia too, but can get one when our flight lands. Some countries are not bad. I have applied for an e visa for Turkey several times (I guess no longer required). Australia and New Zealand are fairly straightforward. Brazil is so brutal that Brazil punted back their roll out date by a few months. EITAS was supposed to happen for US visitors to Europe and it was supposed to be rolled out now. The Paris Olympics this summer caused this to get punted to 2025. Long story short, no one just walks into any country without proper documentation. Some are easier, some harder. a Visa is required, but no, you don't have to do it on line. you can do it at the airport. they have a cute little booth set up. it is something like $25 (yes, US currency) to get it. friendly, local, helpful. i disagree with your last statement though. asylum seekers often come without paperwork. particularly if they are "fleeing". and it is easy to make mistakes or get ripped off when traveling. it is not a crime to do so. although, candidly, the remedy is sometimes having to get back on a plane and come home. it depends on who you are and where you are going. |
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 29, 2024 15:13:52 GMT -5
There is similar in the US to get visas for other countries too. I just used them to get our Vietnam visas we need next month. For Cambodia, so many people are having issues that the cruise is having someone come to the boat to officiate them. We need one for Indonesia too, but can get one when our flight lands. Some countries are not bad. I have applied for an e visa for Turkey several times (I guess no longer required). Australia and New Zealand are fairly straightforward. Brazil is so brutal that Brazil punted back their roll out date by a few months. EITAS was supposed to happen for US visitors to Europe and it was supposed to be rolled out now. The Paris Olympics this summer caused this to get punted to 2025. Long story short, no one just walks into any country without proper documentation. Some are easier, some harder. a Visa is required, but no, you don't have to do it on line. you can do it at the airport. they have a cute little booth set up. it is something like $25 (yes, US currency) to get it. friendly, local, helpful. i disagree with your last statement though. asylum seekers often come without paperwork. particularly if they are "fleeing". and it is easy to make mistakes or get ripped off when traveling. it is not a crime to do so. although, candidly, the remedy is sometimes having to get back on a plane and come home. it depends on who you are and where you are going. No longer required in Turkey on stays less than 90 days. This is fairly recent. We were not required to get a visa last May when we were there. U.S. citizens do not need a visa to enter Turkiye for less than 90 days for tourism.
U.S. Citizen Services FAQs
U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Turkey (.gov)
tr.usembassy.gov › U.S. Citizen ServicesSince this discussion was taking a flight over the US into Canada, and getting into the US via the border this way, it would be interesting to see someone try to get onto a flight without proper documentation. If you don't have a passport, you're not getting on the flight. I'm not sure what happens if you show up at an airport with a passport and without a visa. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 29, 2024 15:30:06 GMT -5
NO SHIT!!!!
oh, that is fabulous!
thanks so much for letting me know!
i am not sure asylum seekers would use airplanes.
or even how they would do that.
maybe hiding in the cargo bay?
edit: regarding my post, i was thinking of losing your passport in transit, or, in my case, having a plane ticket that does not match my passport. i ended up having to buy a new ticket. pain in the ass. but cheaper than flying home.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 29, 2024 15:58:29 GMT -5
NO SHIT!!!! oh, that is fabulous! thanks so much for letting me know! i am not sure asylum seekers would use airplanes. or even how they would do that. maybe hiding in the cargo bay? edit: regarding my post, i was thinking of losing your passport in transit, or, in my case, having a plane ticket that does not match my passport. i ended up having to buy a new ticket. pain in the ass. but cheaper than flying home. Oh, believe me. It gets interesting. When I was living in KY, TD and I went to Mexico. At the time, he was carrying his Canadian passport. As a dual citizen, you enter the country that you hold a passport in on that passport. When we go into Canada, he enters on his Canadian passport. When we go back to the US, he uses his US passport. At that time, he was still a green card holder, but we entered Atlanta he needed to show both his green card and his Canadian passport. He forgot his green card. I asked him if he could have gotten into the 'other than US passport lane' and gone through, but apparently that is a big NO. We were traveling together and he got shunted over to immigration in ATL. That was fun, a room full of folding chairs holding people who had screwed up their paperwork somehow. Luckily, we had a 4 hour layover. 3.5 hours later, he finally gets called up to talk to the official. The guy took pity on him, as trying to enter the US without his green card was a $550 fine but he waived it and told him it wasn't going to get waived again. We sat back down. The guy asked him from across the room 'in your own words, what happened'. His response 'I was an idiot and forgot my green card'. The room laughed, including immigration. He waved him through (I think he could see his status in the system). We had *just* enough time to get our luggage and recheck it and get to our flight. That immigration room experience was.....not pleasant. Levity helped some. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 29, 2024 20:10:15 GMT -5
NO SHIT!!!! oh, that is fabulous! thanks so much for letting me know! i am not sure asylum seekers would use airplanes. or even how they would do that. maybe hiding in the cargo bay? edit: regarding my post, i was thinking of losing your passport in transit, or, in my case, having a plane ticket that does not match my passport. i ended up having to buy a new ticket. pain in the ass. but cheaper than flying home. Oh, believe me. It gets interesting. When I was living in KY, TD and I went to Mexico. At the time, he was carrying his Canadian passport. As a dual citizen, you enter the country that you hold a passport in on that passport. When we go into Canada, he enters on his Canadian passport. When we go back to the US, he uses his US passport. At that time, he was still a green card holder, but we entered Atlanta he needed to show both his green card and his Canadian passport. He forgot his green card. I asked him if he could have gotten into the 'other than US passport lane' and gone through, but apparently that is a big NO. We were traveling together and he got shunted over to immigration in ATL. That was fun, a room full of folding chairs holding people who had screwed up their paperwork somehow. Luckily, we had a 4 hour layover. 3.5 hours later, he finally gets called up to talk to the official. The guy took pity on him, as trying to enter the US without his green card was a $550 fine but he waived it and told him it wasn't going to get waived again. We sat back down. The guy asked him from across the room 'in your own words, what happened'. His response 'I was an idiot and forgot my green card'. The room laughed, including immigration. He waved him through (I think he could see his status in the system). We had *just* enough time to get our luggage and recheck it and get to our flight. That immigration room experience was.....not pleasant. Levity helped some. yeah. this strikes me as a situation where confrontation would have landed you an overnight stay in Atlanta. these people have s*&t lives, most of them. a little kindness goes a long way. |
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 1, 2024 1:16:37 GMT -5
I found some answers I was not aware of. If you are a refugee you get checked/vetted in another country by a refugee organization. Pictures, fingerprints etc and given papers. Now you can travel on a plane with your papers. Just the way it should be. Now you are legal to enter the US.
However, if you are not classified as a refugee and enter without papers you are a illegal. Period. Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. Still not clear how people without papers get on a plane nowadays.
And the administration has a fancy new word for the illegals. Now get this. You are a "Newcomer". Another PC word for illegal. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,998
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Mar 1, 2024 6:57:57 GMT -5
I found some answers I was not aware of. If you are a refugee you get checked/vetted in another country by a refugee organization. Pictures, fingerprints etc and given papers. Now you can travel on a plane with your papers. Just the way it should be. Now you are legal to enter the US.
However, if you are not classified as a refugee and enter without papers you are a illegal. Period. Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. Still not clear how people without papers get on a plane nowadays.
And the administration has a fancy new word for the illegals. Now get this. You are a "Newcomer". Another PC word for illegal. Do you know that the most common way to become an “illegal” is to overstay your visa. Yes, that’s right. Fly into this country legally on a visa, and just not go home. How does that change your opinion. You really are poorly informed if you just found this out |
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,679
Member is Online
|
Post by tbop77 on Mar 1, 2024 7:58:03 GMT -5
I found some answers I was not aware of. If you are a refugee you get checked/vetted in another country by a refugee organization. Pictures, fingerprints etc and given papers. Now you can travel on a plane with your papers. Just the way it should be. Now you are legal to enter the US.
However, if you are not classified as a refugee and enter without papers you are a illegal. Period. Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. Still not clear how people without papers get on a plane nowadays.
And the administration has a fancy new word for the illegals. Now get this. You are a "Newcomer". Another PC word for illegal. You know what? If using the term illegal makes you feel better, go ahead. That seems to be all you post about is the term illegal. Like most Republicans, nothing about policy or how to solve the issue. You are what the Republican party has turned into: follow your leader with the name calling. I'm sure Trump would be proud of you. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 1, 2024 11:03:52 GMT -5
I found some answers I was not aware of. If you are a refugee you get checked/vetted in another country by a refugee organization. Pictures, fingerprints etc and given papers. Now you can travel on a plane with your papers. Just the way it should be. Now you are legal to enter the US.
However, if you are not classified as a refugee and enter without papers you are a illegal. Period. Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. Still not clear how people without papers get on a plane nowadays.
And the administration has a fancy new word for the illegals. Now get this. You are a "Newcomer". Another PC word for illegal. You know what? If using the term illegal makes you feel better, go ahead. That seems to be all you post about is the term illegal. Like most Republicans, nothing about policy or how to solve the issue. You are what the Republican party has turned into: follow your leader with the name calling. I'm sure Trump would be proud of you. Only if Rip sends trump all his life savings. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 1, 2024 11:10:38 GMT -5
I found some answers I was not aware of. If you are a refugee you get checked/vetted in another country by a refugee organization. Pictures, fingerprints etc and given papers. Now you can travel on a plane with your papers. Just the way it should be. Now you are legal to enter the US.
However, if you are not classified as a refugee and enter without papers you are a illegal. Period. Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. Still not clear how people without papers get on a plane nowadays.
And the administration has a fancy new word for the illegals. Now get this. You are a "Newcomer". Another PC word for illegal. yes, it is a term. just like racist is a term. that does not mean it is a CORRECT term. and what refugees FLY to sanctuary? none. pretty much. you live in a different world from me, rip. a world where refugees fly on planes and have all of their papers in order from a COUNTRY THEY ARE FLEEING. have you been watching what is happening in Gaza? that is way more typical. people flee with the shirts on their backs. if they are lucky. they have no papers, no money, no home, and no safety. your idea of refugees is almost entirely fictional. i don't expect you to adjust your idea. but you will continue to get ridiculed for it if you don't. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 1, 2024 11:20:24 GMT -5
this is from the article. rip- you repeated it nearly verbatim: 'Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. i don't suppose you have bothered to look up the term in the dictionary, have you? if you did, you would find this: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.a person who is seeking asylum is not "living" in the US, any more than a tourist is. this is where you, scgal, and many others make your error. if i travel to Spain and overstay my visa, i am an "illegal alien", unless i am seeking asylum, or applying for PR status. the latter portion of that remark is extremely important. you can't call me illegal if i am doing my best to maintain my legal status. you can ONLY do that if i am not. you are basically declaring migrants scoffaws without knowing whether they are earnestly seeking legal status or not. that is the problem with your "illegal" description. so, the Daily Mail basically lied about the definition, and you repeated that lie. and that's ok. we are used to it. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 1, 2024 11:30:03 GMT -5
this is from the article. rip- you repeated it nearly verbatim: 'Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. i don't suppose you have bothered to look up the term in the dictionary, have you? if you did, you would find this: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.a person who is seeking asylum is not "living" in the US, any more than a tourist is. this is where you, scgal, and many others make your error. if i travel to Spain and overstay my visa, i am an "illegal alien", unless i am seeking asylum, or applying for PR status. the latter portion of that remark is extremely important. you can't call me illegal if i am doing my best to maintain my legal status. you can ONLY do that if i am not. you are basically declaring migrants scoffaws without knowing whether they are earnestly seeking legal status or not. that is the problem with your "illegal" description. so, the Daily Mail basically lied about the definition, and you repeated that lie. and that's ok. we are used to it. Rip I believe was the poster who used the website site Media Bias/Fact Check to prove some point of his. So I have been using Media Bias/Fact Check to look at some of Rip's sourced sites. This is what Media Bias/Fact Check has on The Daily Mail: Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: LOW Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY Media Bias/Fact Check: The Daily Mail |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 1, 2024 11:31:25 GMT -5
in other words, illegal is a term that we use to describe someone who has taken up residency (job, house car, wife) in the US knowingly and intentionally without having papers. you are conflating that with the vast majority that know they are not citizens or residents and want to become citizens or residents.
you and others are conflating "illegal alien" with "legal non-resident". one is a pejorative, the other is not. it is rather revealing when a person consistently chooses to use a less accurate pejorative over a more accurate neutral term. and not in a good way.
it is the equivalent of speaking about/treating someone with a fake ID the same way that you speak of/treat someone with a real one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 1, 2024 11:36:34 GMT -5
this is from the article. rip- you repeated it nearly verbatim: 'Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. i don't suppose you have bothered to look up the term in the dictionary, have you? if you did, you would find this: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.a person who is seeking asylum is not "living" in the US, any more than a tourist is. this is where you, scgal , and many others make your error. if i travel to Spain and overstay my visa, i am an "illegal alien", unless i am seeking asylum, or applying for PR status. the latter portion of that remark is extremely important. you can't call me illegal if i am doing my best to maintain my legal status. you can ONLY do that if i am not. you are basically declaring migrants scoffaws without knowing whether they are earnestly seeking legal status or not. that is the problem with your "illegal" description. so, the Daily Mail basically lied about the definition, and you repeated that lie. and that's ok. we are used to it. Rip I believe was the poster who used the website site Media Bias/Fact Check to prove some point of his. So I have been using Media Bias/Fact Check to look at some of Rip's sourced sites. This is what Media Bias/Fact Check has on The Daily Mail: Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: LOW Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY Media Bias/Fact Check: The Daily Mail i would describe DM as a "tabloid". it and it's lurid front pages is in the checkout lines in the same way that The National Enquirer is in the US. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 1, 2024 12:13:24 GMT -5
Rip I believe was the poster who used the website site Media Bias/Fact Check to prove some point of his. So I have been using Media Bias/Fact Check to look at some of Rip's sourced sites. This is what Media Bias/Fact Check has on The Daily Mail: Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: LOW Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY Media Bias/Fact Check: The Daily Mail i would describe DM as a "tabloid". it and it's lurid front pages is in the checkout lines in the same way that The National Enquirer is in the US. Lurid yes. Like this Daily Mail article from 2012: Woman, 63, 'becomes PREGNANT in the mouth' with baby squid after eating calamari |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 1, 2024 12:37:29 GMT -5
sometimes The National Enquirer gets it right. just not very often.  |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 1, 2024 12:56:52 GMT -5
Trump Called Out By Veterans For "110% Improper" Photo OpFormer President and GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border yesterday in his signature blue suit and spoke to a small crowd while flanked by law enforcement and military personnel. A widely circulated video of the press event threw up red flags for veterans, as Trump — using rhetoric from a recent appearance at CPAC — said “we have languages coming in to our country, no one even speaks those languages…they’re truly foreign languages, nobody speaks them.” U.S. Air Force pilot Jahara Matisek, a military professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, responded to the video with a question: “Why is there an Air Force 2-star general (probably ANG) in the frame at what appears to be a political event?” [Note: ANG is Air National Guard.] Air National Guard Lt. Colonel and former U.S. Representative Adam Kinzinger (D-IL) replied to Matisek’s observation: “Good question. Trump isn’t president so this is by definition a campaign event, and nobody in uniform can participate.” Matisek, who says it “looks like Major General Thomas Suelzer,” added that his presence in uniform is “110% improper. If President Biden was there instead, it would then be legal. But I'm pretty sure my two decades of annual training about allowed political activities says that you cannot be present in uniform for a campaign speech by a non-elected official.” Note: According to the National Guard, Suelzer is the senior uniformed Texas National Guard officer and head of the Texas Military Department. Appointed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in 2022, Suelzer “functions as the Governor's principal adviser on military matters and is responsible for the strategic leadership, training, readiness, operational employment and performance of the Army and Air Force components of the Texas National Guard.” Rest of article here: Trump Called Out By Veterans For "110% Improper" Photo Op
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 1, 2024 14:34:37 GMT -5
fascists love cuddling with military folks.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,725
|
Post by scgal on Mar 1, 2024 14:51:22 GMT -5
this is from the article. rip- you repeated it nearly verbatim: 'Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. i don't suppose you have bothered to look up the term in the dictionary, have you? if you did, you would find this: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.a person who is seeking asylum is not "living" in the US, any more than a tourist is. this is where you, scgal , and many others make your error.if i travel to Spain and overstay my visa, i am an "illegal alien", unless i am seeking asylum, or applying for PR status. the latter portion of that remark is extremely important. you can't call me illegal if i am doing my best to maintain my legal status. you can ONLY do that if i am not. you are basically declaring migrants scoffaws without knowing whether they are earnestly seeking legal status or not. that is the problem with your "illegal" description. so, the Daily Mail basically lied about the definition, and you repeated that lie. and that's ok. we are used to it. If they are trying to seek asylum and is staying here they are living here. Until legally they are unlawful. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 1, 2024 15:08:05 GMT -5
no more than a tourist is. again, the average time for a person that is NOT on the asylum track is less than three weeks. i went to Oslo for three weeks last year. i did not say i was living in Oslo. i said i was visiting there. if i was trying to get into the asylum program, i would have said that i was awaiting an asylum hearing. refugees have no home. that is why we call them refugees. www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/#:~:text=A%20refugee%20is%20someone%20who,of%20persecution%2C%20war%20or%20violence. i really don't get why we have to portray people who are desperate to come here as criminals. is there some reason why that is needed? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 1, 2024 15:11:43 GMT -5
this is from the article. rip- you repeated it nearly verbatim: 'Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. i don't suppose you have bothered to look up the term in the dictionary, have you? if you did, you would find this: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.a person who is seeking asylum is not "living" in the US, any more than a tourist is. this is where you, scgal , and many others make your error.if i travel to Spain and overstay my visa, i am an "illegal alien", unless i am seeking asylum, or applying for PR status. the latter portion of that remark is extremely important. you can't call me illegal if i am doing my best to maintain my legal status. you can ONLY do that if i am not. you are basically declaring migrants scoffaws without knowing whether they are earnestly seeking legal status or not. that is the problem with your "illegal" description. so, the Daily Mail basically lied about the definition, and you repeated that lie. and that's ok. we are used to it. If they are trying to seek asylum and is staying here they are living here. Until legally they are unlawful. once they are on an asylum track, they are here by permission of the US government awaiting a hearing. that is actually a legal track. but again, the definition of "illegal alien" is a person who is living here as if he or she is a citizen without any intention of becoming a citizen. is that how you would describe asylum seekers? |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,725
|
Post by scgal on Mar 2, 2024 7:42:59 GMT -5
If they are trying to seek asylum and is staying here they are living here. Until legally they are unlawful. once they are on an asylum track, they are here by permission of the US government awaiting a hearing. that is actually a legal track. but again, the definition of "illegal alien" is a person who is living here as if he or she is a citizen without any intention of becoming a citizen. is that how you would describe asylum seekers? You give 2 different definitions. The one you gave to rip was without mentioning the intention of becoming a citizen. Which is it? |
|
