The border is not open

[Spellbound454]

 if you insist on dragging me back into this discussion, i am going to have to block you. i have asked you to understand what i am saying, and you are now escalating this into some sort of personal attack which i have clearly told you i am NOT doing.

I'm not attacking you, I very rarely attack.....we are just having a discussion.

 mmigrants ARE "normal working people".

if you think otherwise, please explain what you meant by that.

Yes I think immigrants are normal working people,

I'm on about the "adjectives " as you call the them, They are being used with such careless abandon.

People are feeling demonized

So they stop listening... and go to someone who does say the things they want to hear.

 Spell, this is a good way to say you do not listen to center or center left media. I admit I avoid most right wing media because I dn't wamt to tolerate or listen to the lies of the day

I don't listen to right wing media. Its just a general observation.
It was from South Park where the branding people were marking "victim" on all the list of celebrity attributes.
bit of social commentary from clever writers.

[Spellbound454]

If you can't get on, from the support board.

log in here and click on your user name.

proboards.com





that link may or may not work (it does for me) but the thread about it on the support board, is here

[Spellbound454]

If not just go to proboards support there is a thread about it,

[Opti]

Dec 21, 2023 4:09:36 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

 if you insist on dragging me back into this discussion, i am going to have to block you. i have asked you to understand what i am saying, and you are now escalating this into some sort of personal attack which i have clearly told you i am NOT doing.

I'm not attacking you, I very rarely attack.....we are just having a discussion.

 mmigrants ARE "normal working people".

if you think otherwise, please explain what you meant by that.

Yes I think immigrants are normal working people,

I'm on about the "adjectives " as you call the them, They are being used with such careless abandon.

People are feeling demonized

So they stop listening... and go to someone who does say the things they want to hear.

 Spell, this is a good way to say you do not listen to center or center left media. I admit I avoid most right wing media because I dn't wamt to tolerate or listen to the lies of the day

I don't listen to right wing media. Its just a general observation.
It was from South Park where the branding people were marking "victim" on all the list of celebrity attributes.
bit of social commentary from clever writers.

South Park does a very good job of pulling from both sides of the aisle for political commentary. It would be a mistake to view anything they put out as "liberal" IMO. I used to watch it years ago.

[tbop77]

Such a bill was also supposed to change the laws that are causing a massive humanitarian crisis at our own southern border.

“No question this package is extremely important,” McConnell said just before leaving town, along with the rest of the Senate, for a nearly three-week holiday break.



Rather than work on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday before Christmas, and rather than getting to work on this absolutely essential business between Christmas and the New Year, both parties agreed to recess until January.

I’m not suggesting the senators will be doing nothing during the next three weeks. Many will take overseas junkets. Others will be busy raising funds for reelection or campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire for their preferred presidential candidates. Others will do strings of cable news shows.



No, they won’t be doing nothing, but they also won’t be legislating.


www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/the-world-is-peril-senate-leaders-say-before-leaving-on-three-week-vacation/ar-AA1lOpTp?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=c70a48fe1ef3450aa79aa96c861bc1e5&ei=31

This doesn't give the appearance of concern about the border.  McConnell could have demanded the work continue.  Are conservatives outraged?  

[djAdvocate]

Dec 21, 2023 3:50:13 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

 you are using the LANGUAGE of racists and xenophobes when you call asylum seekers "illegal". they are not illegal until their status is determined. WHEN that happens, they are either accepted for reasons of asylum or they are DEPORTED. and yes, this is precisely what the US system does.

Seems Countries are different, They are called illegal immigrants over hear if they enter the country illegally... ie by boat.

yes.  they are called illegal WRONGLY.

this is international law, Spellbound454.  it is part of the GC.

i am not sure why you are not understanding me.  but you aren't.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 21, 2023 4:09:36 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

 if you insist on dragging me back into this discussion, i am going to have to block you. i have asked you to understand what i am saying, and you are now escalating this into some sort of personal attack which i have clearly told you i am NOT doing.

I'm not attacking you, I very rarely attack.....we are just having a discussion..

you got it backwards.  i was saying that i was not attacking you.

so, carry on, i guess?

[ripvanwinkle]

Dec 20, 2023 18:37:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 20, 2023 1:43:12 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Another milestone for the administration. Estimated 14,000 undocumented ''asylum'' seekers ( read illegals) flood Eagle Pass TX. The largest in history. www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/completely-overrun-us-migrant-crisis-passes-horror-milestone-as-southern-border-sees-highest-single-day-total-ever/ar-AA1lLdQW?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=5f15f576add14f3f963afeb9f5beb623&ei=11

i appreciate your evolution on the non parenthetical portion of the post.

you can lose the quotations.  they are perfectly legal immigrants until their standing has been determined.  just as your ancestors (probably) were.

Don't get too comfy and smug. I'm not softening my stance. They're still illegal. You enter the US without valid visa or or any other Govt issued documents you're illegal. And I saw on TV one lady got a court date of 2031. 8 yrs to wander around the US.  How many will show up in 8yrs for their asylum hearing. I'll say 10% or less.

This is just another de facto form of granting US citizenship.

And the cost to the taxpayers. I found this from FAIR - www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers-2023.

You can't be against them.

[Tennesseer]

Dec 21, 2023 22:58:48 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Dec 20, 2023 18:37:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i appreciate your evolution on the non parenthetical portion of the post.

you can lose the quotations.  they are perfectly legal immigrants until their standing has been determined.  just as your ancestors (probably) were.

Don't get too comfy and smug. I'm not softening my stance. They're still illegal. You enter the US without valid visa or or any other Govt issued documents you're illegal. And I saw on TV one lady got a court date of 2031. 8 yrs to wander around the US.  How many will show up in 8yrs for their asylum hearing. I'll say 10% or less.

This is just another de facto form of granting US citizenship.

And the cost to the taxpayers. I found this from FAIR - www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers-2023.

You can't be against them.

Only the finest sources of information from Rip:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a non profit, anti-immigration organization in the United States.[6] The group publishes position papers, organizes events, and runs campaigns in order to advocate for changes in U.S. immigration policy. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies FAIR as a hate group with ties to white supremacist groups.

Federation for American Immigration Reform

[djAdvocate]

Dec 21, 2023 22:58:48 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Dec 20, 2023 18:37:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i appreciate your evolution on the non parenthetical portion of the post.

you can lose the quotations.  they are perfectly legal immigrants until their standing has been determined.  just as your ancestors (probably) were.

Don't get too comfy and smug. 

don't personally insult me.

if you want to argue and debate things, that's fine, rip.  but if you want to go after me PERSONALLY, you can find someone else to talk to.

are we clear?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 21, 2023 22:58:48 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Dec 20, 2023 18:37:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i appreciate your evolution on the non parenthetical portion of the post.

you can lose the quotations.  they are perfectly legal immigrants until their standing has been determined.  just as your ancestors (probably) were.

They're still illegal. You enter the US without valid visa or or any other Govt issued documents you're illegal. 

not true.

if i lose my passport, you have no right whatsoever to deport me or throw me in jail without due process.  NONE.  if you try, you are going to lose.  i am not only not getting deported, i am going to get compensated for YOUR illegal behavior.  there are 100 reasons i might be in your country.  until i have had the opportunity to lay claim to every one of them, i am NOT here "illegally"- i am simply undocumented.

almost everyone who debates this issue gets it wrong.  and candidly, i am sick and tired of debating people who can't even ENTERTAIN my position.  i have been extremely patient.  i have never resorted to insulting any of you.  if you see fit to insult me, this discussion is over.

side note: you lost.

[djAdvocate]

i want to illustrate the point, and then i am just going to start blocking people who keep getting it wrong. this discussion is frustrating and boring me. people who are wrong keep insisting that they are right and that i am some sort of smug individual who is in favor of illegal migration. you are wrong about that, too. and if you don't know that, then you don't know me. which is unsurprising, given your propensity for criminalizing legal conduct.  for me this is just a matter of basic English. until someones immigration status is DETERMINED, they are neither here legally OR illegally.

i was traveling with a friend whose Visa had expired. when we got to Turkiye, i figured we were going to be in huge trouble because people are so STUPID about "illegal immigration" crap in the US. we were directed to a Turkish office where a nice gentleman had us pay $30 to get a Turkish Visa. done.  a person coming to the US should have that same right.  i would be shocked if they didn't.

ONE LAST TIME

calling someone illegal is an inversion of due process. you are criminalizing something ex post facto that is not a crime. you are ASSUMING things that may or may not be true. it is deeply unfair, and probably "something"-ist. but i am not your shrink- and i am not accusing you of anything, other than being WRONG.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 21, 2023 22:58:48 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Dec 20, 2023 18:37:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

I saw on TV one lady got a court date of 2031. 8 yrs to wander around the US.  How many will show up in 8yrs for their asylum hearing. I'll say 10% or less.

This is just another de facto form of granting US citizenship.

And the cost to the taxpayers. I found this from FAIR - www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers-2023.

You can't be against them.

i have two things to say to this:

1) we need to increase our ability to hear asylum requests by a factor of 10x.
2) they would not have granted a hearing if the lady in question didn't have a valid claim for one.  they would have deported her.

the last i heard, something like 85-90% of all undocumented people end up being deported.  candidly, i think that number is far too high.  but rather than putting that position up front and center, i would simply say that the 15% are probably about as well vetted as a person can get without documents.

[scgal]

Dec 22, 2023 2:14:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i want to illustrate the point, and then i am just going to start blocking people who keep getting it wrong. this discussion is frustrating and boring me. people who are wrong keep insisting that they are right and that i am some sort of smug individual who is in favor of illegal migration. you are wrong about that, too. and if you don't know that, then you don't know me. which is unsurprising, given your propensity for criminalizing legal conduct.  for me this is just a matter of basic English. until someones immigration status is DETERMINED, they are neither here legally OR illegally.

i was traveling with a friend whose Visa had expired. when we got to Turkiye, i figured we were going to be in huge trouble because people are so STUPID about "illegal immigration" crap in the US. we were directed to a Turkish office where a nice gentleman had us pay $30 to get a Turkish Visa. done.  a person coming to the US should have that same right.  i would be shocked if they didn't.

ONE LAST TIME

calling someone illegal is an inversion of due process. you are criminalizing something ex post facto that is not a crime. you are ASSUMING things that may or may not be true. it is deeply unfair, and probably "something"-ist. but i am not your shrink- and i am not accusing you of anything, other than being WRONG.

DJ, I respectfully disagree with you on this. You are not allowed to be here unless you are a citizen or have legal doumentation. If you do not have documentation you are breaking the law period. Now if you have documentation and cannot supply it at that moment you are are still illegal until you can prove otherwise. Kinda like our court system you can get arrested on suspicion of something. If we are to get a good control on this problem we need to get stricter. 

[Opti]

Dec 23, 2023 10:27:51 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 22, 2023 2:14:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i want to illustrate the point, and then i am just going to start blocking people who keep getting it wrong. this discussion is frustrating and boring me. people who are wrong keep insisting that they are right and that i am some sort of smug individual who is in favor of illegal migration. you are wrong about that, too. and if you don't know that, then you don't know me. which is unsurprising, given your propensity for criminalizing legal conduct.  for me this is just a matter of basic English. until someones immigration status is DETERMINED, they are neither here legally OR illegally.

i was traveling with a friend whose Visa had expired. when we got to Turkiye, i figured we were going to be in huge trouble because people are so STUPID about "illegal immigration" crap in the US. we were directed to a Turkish office where a nice gentleman had us pay $30 to get a Turkish Visa. done.  a person coming to the US should have that same right.  i would be shocked if they didn't.

ONE LAST TIME

calling someone illegal is an inversion of due process. you are criminalizing something ex post facto that is not a crime. you are ASSUMING things that may or may not be true. it is deeply unfair, and probably "something"-ist. but i am not your shrink- and i am not accusing you of anything, other than being WRONG.

DJ, I respectfully disagree with you on this. You are not allowed to be here unless you are a citizen or have legal doumentation. If you do not have documentation you are breaking the law period. Now if you have documentation and cannot supply it at that moment you are are still illegal until you can prove otherwise. Kinda like our court system you can get arrested on suspicion of something. If we are to get a good control on this problem we need to get stricter. 

I'm going to disagree with you scgal as it appears you have not read any of our immigration laws. Asylum seekers are allowed to come without documentation or missing some of it, and they are processed. Some might be allowed to stay, many are deported.

Reality question of the day 
If most are deported why is how many show up at the border such a big deal? presenting at the border and being admitted to the country are two different things. (No extra credit for those who want to just think about those who sneak into the US and might not become documented or citizens for years.)

[tallguy]

I am wondering if there are two different subjects being argued here, and people are focusing on their own instead of what the other side is saying?  In my view, there are two basic (or broad) categories of people arriving at the border.  One is those who present themselves to border officials hoping to either make an asylum claim or gain legal entry as an immigrant.  For those people, it is correct that their status is undetermined.  They are not "legal" because no determination has been made, but they are not "illegal" for the same reason.  The other category is those who make no attempt to follow legal requirements, do not present themselves to border officials, and instead try to avoid detection by law or border enforcement officers.  They are correctly described as illegal because everything they do is in contravention of the law.  I cannot see any other way to legitimately look at this.  People are not "illegal" at the point of showing up at a border crossing, merely by virtue of showing up at a border crossing.  It matters what they do when they get here.  If they are making their best attempt to follow both law and procedure, what more can they do, or what more can we expect?  To demonize them for trying to follow the law is insane.

[pulmonarymd]

To expound on that, everyone agrees that the people who come across and try to evade border control should be deported. Part of fixing the border requires us to spend more money to deal with the claims for asylum more quickly, thereby solving the problem of what to do with them easier. But, Fox News and the like refuses to point out what tall guy is saying, nor do they honestly point out that the majority of these people are in the group that is following protocol. But that requires realizing this is a complicated issue, and requires more than a simple solution. Something that apparently is too difficult for the simple minded conservatives

[chiver78]

Dec 21, 2023 3:50:13 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

 you are using the LANGUAGE of racists and xenophobes when you call asylum seekers "illegal". they are not illegal until their status is determined. WHEN that happens, they are either accepted for reasons of asylum or they are DEPORTED. and yes, this is precisely what the US system does.

Seems Countries are different, They are called illegal immigrants over hear if they enter the country illegally... ie by boat.

Asylum seekers, may or may not have entered the Country illegally but they are seeking asylum.

and immigrants are people have come from a different country but have granted nationality.

that there are tons of terrorists wandering around

I don't know if the US is the same but they have said this week that there are people here who have been sent to destabilise the country.

That's not me being xenophobic, that's our Government speaking with the backing of intelligence services.

"In his speech in Rome, he warned that “enemy” states were deliberately “driving people to our shores to try and destabilise our societies”
.www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rishi-sunak-says-migrants-threaten-to-overwhelm-uk/ar-AA1lB3UX

I apologize if this has already been addressed, I'm catching up on this thread. 

re: the bolded - do you not have people overstaying visas? they've entered the country legally, but haven't followed through 
on heading out on time. just curious 

[chiver78]

Dec 21, 2023 4:11:56 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

If you can't get on, from the support board.

log in here and click on your user name.

proboards.com

that link may or may not work (it does for me) but the thread about it on the support board, is here

asking as a moderator - was someone asking about login problems? I didn't see anything, so I'm also curious if someone has me blocked. 

*not that I care as a poster, but I can't help someone that's got me blocked, if they are having legit site issues. I can't see anything if they blocked me. 

-chiver mod

[Opti]

Dec 23, 2023 15:07:43 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am wondering if there are two different subjects being argued here, and people are focusing on their own instead of what the other side is saying?  In my view, there are two basic (or broad) categories of people arriving at the border.  One is those who present themselves to border officials hoping to either make an asylum claim or gain legal entry as an immigrant.  For those people, it is correct that their status is undetermined.  They are not "legal" because no determination has been made, but they are not "illegal" for the same reason.  The other category is those who make no attempt to follow legal requirements, do not present themselves to border officials, and instead try to avoid detection by law or border enforcement officers.  They are correctly described as illegal because everything they do is in contravention of the law.  I cannot see any other way to legitimately look at this.  People are not "illegal" at the point of showing up at a border crossing, merely by virtue of showing up at a border crossing.  It matters what they do when they get here.  If they are making their best attempt to follow both law and procedure, what more can they do, or what more can we expect?  To demonize them for trying to follow the law is insane.

You make a good point. I know there are people who force their way through illegally. I think if you are in a border town it might be hard to tell the difference between those and the larger amount of folks waiting for processing.

Fear can make people think crazy things. 

[chiver78]

Dec 22, 2023 2:14:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i want to illustrate the point, and then i am just going to start blocking people who keep getting it wrong. this discussion is frustrating and boring me. people who are wrong keep insisting that they are right and that i am some sort of smug individual who is in favor of illegal migration. you are wrong about that, too. and if you don't know that, then you don't know me. which is unsurprising, given your propensity for criminalizing legal conduct.  for me this is just a matter of basic English. until someones immigration status is DETERMINED, they are neither here legally OR illegally.

i was traveling with a friend whose Visa had expired. when we got to Turkiye, i figured we were going to be in huge trouble because people are so STUPID about "illegal immigration" crap in the US. we were directed to a Turkish office where a nice gentleman had us pay $30 to get a Turkish Visa. done.  a person coming to the US should have that same right.  i would be shocked if they didn't.

ONE LAST TIME

calling someone illegal is an inversion of due process. you are criminalizing something ex post facto that is not a crime. you are ASSUMING things that may or may not be true. it is deeply unfair, and probably "something"-ist. but i am not your shrink- and i am not accusing you of anything, other than being WRONG.

I really wish you won't do this. you have explained this issue so well, so many times. way better than the amateurs among us. if the trolls and willfully ignorant refuse to read what you put out there, that's on them. but the information you continue to impart is important for everyone to understand. 

[djAdvocate]

Dec 23, 2023 15:07:43 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am wondering if there are two different subjects being argued here, and people are focusing on their own instead of what the other side is saying?  In my view, there are two basic (or broad) categories of people arriving at the border.  One is those who present themselves to border officials hoping to either make an asylum claim or gain legal entry as an immigrant.  For those people, it is correct that their status is undetermined.  They are not "legal" because no determination has been made, but they are not "illegal" for the same reason.  The other category is those who make no attempt to follow legal requirements, do not present themselves to border officials, and instead try to avoid detection by law or border enforcement officers.  They are correctly described as illegal because everything they do is in contravention of the law.  I cannot see any other way to legitimately look at this.  People are not "illegal" at the point of showing up at a border crossing, merely by virtue of showing up at a border crossing.  It matters what they do when they get here.  If they are making their best attempt to follow both law and procedure, what more can they do, or what more can we expect?  To demonize them for trying to follow the law is insane.

i think you are being too kind in this dissection.

the "illegal" community does not make any distinction between legal asylum seekers and people who sneak over the border to avoid detection.  they don't recognize the proportions between the two groups- in fact they basically assume that ALL of them are in the category you have described as "illegal".  that is complete nonsense, as you know.  the ENTIRE reason we know that there are 14k "illegals" a day is that they are SUBMITTING THEMSELVES TO AUTHORITIES.  they KNOW they are going to be detected.  the "illegal" community offers no evidence that this is NOT the best means of entry for these people, because they have none.  they offer no evidence that they are terrorists, because they have none.  they offer no evidence that they are criminals, because they have none.  so, instead, they just pretend that they are ALL, 100% "illegal" to frustrate anyone that wants to rationally debate the subject, as you have just done.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 23, 2023 10:27:51 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 22, 2023 2:14:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i want to illustrate the point, and then i am just going to start blocking people who keep getting it wrong. this discussion is frustrating and boring me. people who are wrong keep insisting that they are right and that i am some sort of smug individual who is in favor of illegal migration. you are wrong about that, too. and if you don't know that, then you don't know me. which is unsurprising, given your propensity for criminalizing legal conduct.  for me this is just a matter of basic English. until someones immigration status is DETERMINED, they are neither here legally OR illegally.

i was traveling with a friend whose Visa had expired. when we got to Turkiye, i figured we were going to be in huge trouble because people are so STUPID about "illegal immigration" crap in the US. we were directed to a Turkish office where a nice gentleman had us pay $30 to get a Turkish Visa. done.  a person coming to the US should have that same right.  i would be shocked if they didn't.

ONE LAST TIME

calling someone illegal is an inversion of due process. you are criminalizing something ex post facto that is not a crime. you are ASSUMING things that may or may not be true. it is deeply unfair, and probably "something"-ist. but i am not your shrink- and i am not accusing you of anything, other than being WRONG.

DJ, I respectfully disagree with you on this. You are not allowed to be here unless you are a citizen or have legal doumentation. 

yes you are.  it is called a "visa on arrival".

you are also allowed to declare amnesty.  prior to 1998, you could simply pay $185, and get permanent residency in (18) months:

immsolutionsllc.com/immigration/amnesty

since then, it has become more complicated, but is still possible through asylum:

immsolutionsllc.com/immigration/asylum-humanitarian-relief

in short, documents are NOT required for legal entry to the US, or pretty much ANY other nation on Earth.

it is strange that many Americans don't know that "undocumented" and "illegal" are NOT the same thing.  i suppose the continuous stream of lies has something to do with that.  either that, or they don't CARE enough to find out.  i think that latter fact bothers me maybe more than the former.  these are human beings, after all.  just like you.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 23, 2023 10:27:51 GMT -5 scgal said:

If you do not have documentation you are breaking the law period. Now if you have documentation and cannot supply it at that moment you are are still illegal until you can prove otherwise. Kinda like our court system you can get arrested on suspicion of something. If we are to get a good control on this problem we need to get stricter. 

i reserve my most strenuous objection to the bolded portion.

our system of justice assumes you are innocent until proved guilty.  and that does NOT just apply to citizens, btw.  anyone who is "subject to" the laws of the US has the same rights (with the exception of terrorists, who SHOULD have the same rights, but do not.  i can explain that in a separate post, if you like).  so, our undocumented arrivals are assumed INNOCENT, not assumed GUILTY until proved otherwise.

and who would want it any other way?  even FLIRTING with the opposite is a horrendous position to take.  to deprive the least of us of justice is to deprive all of us of justice.

Trump is innocent until convicted in a federal court.  i would fight to the death for that right for ANYONE, including him.  wouldn't you?

[tallguy]

Dec 23, 2023 18:00:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 23, 2023 15:07:43 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am wondering if there are two different subjects being argued here, and people are focusing on their own instead of what the other side is saying?  In my view, there are two basic (or broad) categories of people arriving at the border.  One is those who present themselves to border officials hoping to either make an asylum claim or gain legal entry as an immigrant.  For those people, it is correct that their status is undetermined.  They are not "legal" because no determination has been made, but they are not "illegal" for the same reason.  The other category is those who make no attempt to follow legal requirements, do not present themselves to border officials, and instead try to avoid detection by law or border enforcement officers.  They are correctly described as illegal because everything they do is in contravention of the law.  I cannot see any other way to legitimately look at this.  People are not "illegal" at the point of showing up at a border crossing, merely by virtue of showing up at a border crossing.  It matters what they do when they get here.  If they are making their best attempt to follow both law and procedure, what more can they do, or what more can we expect?  To demonize them for trying to follow the law is insane.

i think you are being too kind in this dissection.

the "illegal" community does not make any distinction between legal asylum seekers and people who sneak over the border to avoid detection.  they don't recognize the proportions between the two groups- in fact they basically assume that ALL of them are in the category you have described as "illegal".  that is complete nonsense, as you know.  the ENTIRE reason we know that there are 14k "illegals" a day is that they are SUBMITTING THEMSELVES TO AUTHORITIES.  they KNOW they are going to be detected.  the "illegal" community offers no evidence that this is NOT the best means of entry for these people, because they have none.  they offer no evidence that they are terrorists, because they have none.  they offer no evidence that they are criminals, because they have none.  so, instead, they just pretend that they are ALL, 100% "illegal" to frustrate anyone that wants to rationally debate the subject, as you have just done.

As I said...insane.  

[ripvanwinkle]

Dec 23, 2023 15:07:43 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am wondering if there are two different subjects being argued here, and people are focusing on their own instead of what the other side is saying?  In my view, there are two basic (or broad) categories of people arriving at the border.  One is those who present themselves to border officials hoping to either make an asylum claim or gain legal entry as an immigrant.  For those people, it is correct that their status is undetermined.  They are not "legal" because no determination has been made, but they are not "illegal" for the same reason.  The other category is those who make no attempt to follow legal requirements, do not present themselves to border officials, and instead try to avoid detection by law or border enforcement officers.  They are correctly described as illegal because everything they do is in contravention of the law.  I cannot see any other way to legitimately look at this.  People are not "illegal" at the point of showing up at a border crossing, merely by virtue of showing up at a border crossing.  It matters what they do when they get here.  If they are making their best attempt to follow both law and procedure, what more can they do, or what more can we expect?  To demonize them for trying to follow the law is insane.

Finally, someone has made a a correct assessment of this huge problem and due to your assessment I will change my views only, and only to those who present themselves to CBP for processing. I will, begrudgingly and with great reluctance, call them "asylum seekers" to satisfy others on this board. All the other thousands of gotaways that we do not know about I will continue to call "ILLEGALS". 

And answer me this? If the illegal gotaways are truly asylum seekers, then why do they evade CPB and police and hide? Are they gang members? Terrorists? Criminals? Drug smugglers? And who know what else! The mere fact they do not want to be caught should raise your hair. Well we don't know because we we didn't catch them and vett them !! I found this article interesting. It's from the House Committee on Homeland Security. Whether it's left or right leaning article, I don't care. It tells a grim fact.

 homeland.house.gov/2023/12/20/border-sector-chiefs-confirm-operational-impacts-of-border-chaos-increased-gotaways-closed-checkpoints-and-empowered-cartels/  

"Under President Biden and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sources have confirmed over 1.7 million known gotaways at the Southwest border. Even worse, in a March 2023 field hearing, then-U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz testified that the number of total gotaways could be as much as 20 percent higher than the publicly reported numbers".

[Tennesseer]

Dec 23, 2023 23:09:24 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Dec 23, 2023 15:07:43 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am wondering if there are two different subjects being argued here, and people are focusing on their own instead of what the other side is saying?  In my view, there are two basic (or broad) categories of people arriving at the border.  One is those who present themselves to border officials hoping to either make an asylum claim or gain legal entry as an immigrant.  For those people, it is correct that their status is undetermined.  They are not "legal" because no determination has been made, but they are not "illegal" for the same reason.  The other category is those who make no attempt to follow legal requirements, do not present themselves to border officials, and instead try to avoid detection by law or border enforcement officers.  They are correctly described as illegal because everything they do is in contravention of the law.  I cannot see any other way to legitimately look at this.  People are not "illegal" at the point of showing up at a border crossing, merely by virtue of showing up at a border crossing.  It matters what they do when they get here.  If they are making their best attempt to follow both law and procedure, what more can they do, or what more can we expect?  To demonize them for trying to follow the law is insane.

Finally, someone has made a a correct assessment of this huge problem and due to your assessment I will change my views only, and only to those who present themselves to CBP for processing. I will, begrudgingly and with great reluctance, call them "asylum seekers" to satisfy others on this board. All the other thousands of gotaways that we do not know about I will continue to call "ILLEGALS". 

And answer me this? If the illegal gotaways are truly asylum seekers, then why do they evade CPB and police and hide? Are they gang members? Terrorists? Criminals? Drug smugglers? And who know what else! The mere fact they do not want to be caught should raise your hair. Well we don't know because we we didn't catch them and vett them !! I found this article interesting. It's from the House Committee on Homeland Security. Whether it's left or right leaning article, I don't care. It tells a grim fact.

 homeland.house.gov/2023/12/20/border-sector-chiefs-confirm-operational-impacts-of-border-chaos-increased-gotaways-closed-checkpoints-and-empowered-cartels/  

"Under President Biden and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sources have confirmed over 1.7 million known gotaways at the Southwest border. Even worse, in a March 2023 field hearing, then-U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz testified that the number of total gotaways could be as much as 20 percent higher than the publicly reported numbers".

Can you tell me why you used a white supremacist website to spout your facts in reply #247?

Media Bias: The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) – Bias and Credibility

[tallguy]

Dec 23, 2023 23:09:24 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Dec 23, 2023 15:07:43 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am wondering if there are two different subjects being argued here, and people are focusing on their own instead of what the other side is saying?  In my view, there are two basic (or broad) categories of people arriving at the border.  One is those who present themselves to border officials hoping to either make an asylum claim or gain legal entry as an immigrant.  For those people, it is correct that their status is undetermined.  They are not "legal" because no determination has been made, but they are not "illegal" for the same reason.  The other category is those who make no attempt to follow legal requirements, do not present themselves to border officials, and instead try to avoid detection by law or border enforcement officers.  They are correctly described as illegal because everything they do is in contravention of the law.  I cannot see any other way to legitimately look at this.  People are not "illegal" at the point of showing up at a border crossing, merely by virtue of showing up at a border crossing.  It matters what they do when they get here.  If they are making their best attempt to follow both law and procedure, what more can they do, or what more can we expect?  To demonize them for trying to follow the law is insane.

Finally, someone has made a a correct assessment of this huge problem and due to your assessment I will change my views only, and only to those who present themselves to CBP for processing. I will, begrudgingly and with great reluctance, call them "asylum seekers" to satisfy others on this board. All the other thousands of gotaways that we do not know about I will continue to call "ILLEGALS". 

And answer me this? If the illegal gotaways are truly asylum seekers, then why do they evade CPB and police and hide? Are they gang members? Terrorists? Criminals? Drug smugglers? And who know what else! The mere fact they do not want to be caught should raise your hair. Well we don't know because we we didn't catch them and vett them !! I found this article interesting. It's from the House Committee on Homeland Security. Whether it's left or right leaning article, I don't care. It tells a grim fact.

 homeland.house.gov/2023/12/20/border-sector-chiefs-confirm-operational-impacts-of-border-chaos-increased-gotaways-closed-checkpoints-and-empowered-cartels/  

"Under President Biden and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sources have confirmed over 1.7 million known gotaways at the Southwest border. Even worse, in a March 2023 field hearing, then-U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz testified that the number of total gotaways could be as much as 20 percent higher than the publicly reported numbers".

While I appreciate the effort, they are not all "asylum-seekers."  Some are simply migrants.  Either way, we are woefully underprepared and underfunded to deal with the numbers.  As with most everything else, you can blame Republicans in Congress for that too.  As far as your link, it is easy to tell whether it is left- or right-leaning.  Even if you can't tell from the tone and wording used, the Republican group logo at the top will give you an indication.  A look at the membership (16 white men, two white women, no minorities, and almost all from red states, including such luminaries as Marjorie Taylor Greene) should cement the idea.  While it is theoretically possible that a Republican group COULD put forth a reasonable position or statement, I would NEVER bet on it actually happening.   

[ripvanwinkle]

Dec 23, 2023 23:53:28 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Dec 23, 2023 23:09:24 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Finally, someone has made a a correct assessment of this huge problem and due to your assessment I will change my views only, and only to those who present themselves to CBP for processing. I will, begrudgingly and with great reluctance, call them "asylum seekers" to satisfy others on this board. All the other thousands of gotaways that we do not know about I will continue to call "ILLEGALS". 

And answer me this? If the illegal gotaways are truly asylum seekers, then why do they evade CPB and police and hide? Are they gang members? Terrorists? Criminals? Drug smugglers? And who know what else! The mere fact they do not want to be caught should raise your hair. Well we don't know because we we didn't catch them and vett them !! I found this article interesting. It's from the House Committee on Homeland Security. Whether it's left or right leaning article, I don't care. It tells a grim fact.

 homeland.house.gov/2023/12/20/border-sector-chiefs-confirm-operational-impacts-of-border-chaos-increased-gotaways-closed-checkpoints-and-empowered-cartels/  

"Under President Biden and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sources have confirmed over 1.7 million known gotaways at the Southwest border. Even worse, in a March 2023 field hearing, then-U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz testified that the number of total gotaways could be as much as 20 percent higher than the publicly reported numbers".

While I appreciate the effort, they are not all "asylum-seekers."  Some are simply migrants.  Either way, we are woefully underprepared and underfunded to deal with the numbers.  As with most everything else, you can blame Republicans in Congress for that too.  As far as your link, it is easy to tell whether it is left- or right-leaning.  Even if you can't tell from the tone and wording used, the Republican group logo at the top will give you an indication.  A look at the membership (16 white men, two white women, no minorities, and almost all from red states, including such luminaries as Marjorie Taylor Greene) should cement the idea.  While it is theoretically possible that a Republican group COULD put forth a reasonable position or statement, I would NEVER bet on it actually happening.   

The membership has 18 Republicans and 15 Democrats.  I think thats a fair representation of voters.

[tallguy]

Dec 24, 2023 2:25:24 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Dec 23, 2023 23:53:28 GMT -5 tallguy said:

While I appreciate the effort, they are not all "asylum-seekers."  Some are simply migrants.  Either way, we are woefully underprepared and underfunded to deal with the numbers.  As with most everything else, you can blame Republicans in Congress for that too.  As far as your link, it is easy to tell whether it is left- or right-leaning.  Even if you can't tell from the tone and wording used, the Republican group logo at the top will give you an indication.  A look at the membership (16 white men, two white women, no minorities, and almost all from red states, including such luminaries as Marjorie Taylor Greene) should cement the idea.  While it is theoretically possible that a Republican group COULD put forth a reasonable position or statement, I would NEVER bet on it actually happening.   

The membership has 18 Republicans and 15 Democrats.  I think thats a fair representation of voters.

And that site is the 18 Republicans, only.