- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can someone please explain to me this border thing.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why I said there are 3 ways to fix this problem legally:
1. Inject a LOT of money into our immigration court system to handle the millions of cases in queue to deport them back.
2. Get Remain in Mexico working again.
3. Withdraw from the Geneva Convention.
1. Hard No. we don’t need anymore activist lawyers that are easily persuaded and lose all sense of morality because of “the law says”. The SFPs of the world.
2. Yes
3. Yes
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:38 am to mauser
quote:
Where is the money in mass immigration?
1) Non Profits/NGOs are organizing and sending them, someone is paying them. Probably our own govt.
2) Welfare. Flood the system with poor, uneducated people when we are moving toward automation.
Whats going to happen is all these people we brought in will have little work in a few years and you can bet its going to be a problem. I believe this is their plan.
You cant have loose immigration and generous welfare.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 8:39 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:40 am to GBPackTigers
quote:
Hard No. we don’t need anymore activist lawyers that are easily persuaded and lose all sense of morality because of “the law says”. The SFPs of the world.
They don't get lawyers in immigration courts

Also they deport these people at an insanely high rate. The problem is they can only handle so many, hence court dates years off. The only way you can fix that is more judges, courts, staff, etc. to process everyone more quickly. Isn't that what you want to happen? I'm trying to solve stuff you bitch about.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
When did Congress vote for this?
It's a treaty, which the US ratified on November 1, 1968, per Google. It's part 28 of the Geneva Convention.
Per Bard:
quote:
Harry Truman did not sign the 1951 Convention because he felt it infringed on U.S. sovereignty. Lyndon Johnson reversed course and signed the Protocol in 1968, and the Senate ratified it
I may be wrong, but I thought we only accept asylum seekers from certain named countries?
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:48 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
All you hear is there's so many and resources are strained and we need federal help. Here's an idea, don't let them in the country. Enforce the laws already on the books. It's a pretty simple fix.
we have a military, why don't we use it?
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:49 am to GBPackTigers
quote:
because of “the law says”.
The law said you could have slaves in 1950, its still morally reprehensible.
Again, the biggest issue discussing things with SFP or Hank is they struggle to find personal meaning, and see everything in legalistic terminology.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:51 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Again, the biggest issue discussing things with SFP or Hank is they struggle to find personal meaning, and see everything in legalistic terminology.
Well when describing what is or isn't legal on December 30, 2023, you're going to use "legalistic terminology"
How else would you answer a legal question requiring a legal response?
Even then, I really haven't used many lawyer words and communicated the legal issues on about an 8th grade level, so the average poli poster could understand.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
All you hear is there's so many and resources are strained and we need federal help. Here's an idea, don't let them in the country. Enforce the laws already on the books. It's a pretty simple fix.
Here is the OP, again.
Seems like a straight forward proposition to me.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:57 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Seems like a straight forward proposition to me.
quote:
Enforce the laws already on the books.
The "laws on the books" require "letting them in this country" and processing people who claim asylum.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The "laws on the books" require "letting them in this country"
Many are jumping the border, half are overstaying their visa. I am not sure how the hell asylum claims matter here.
If your opinion is every person crossing is an asylum seeker, you make sense. But this is not the case.
Your government has no clue who these people are, as individuals...
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 9:03 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:03 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
All you hear is there's so many and resources are strained and we need federal help. Here's an idea, don't let them in the country. Enforce the laws already on the books. It's a pretty simple fix.
Explain the border thing?
All I can say with 100% certainty is the Installed president stood on a debate stage in the fall of 2019 and told illegal immigrants to surge the US southern border. After the rigged election of 2020 and the installation of the illegitimate regime was completed the flood of illegals crossing the US southern border morphed into a tsunami.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The "laws on the books" require "letting them in this country" and processing people who claim asylum.
What illegal immigrant is going to say, “ I’m here to steal your tax dollars”? Of course they are all told to say, “I’m seeking asylum”. The moron lawyers who wrote this “law” should be disbarred. Very low IQ to not see this coming.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 9:07 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:04 am to RoosterCogburn585
What border?
We still have one?
We still have one?
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:06 am to Bass Tiger
LINK
Most of it is fixable.
I totally get why these people deserve asylum and support it.
But this administration will bow to activists before dealing with common sense.
Most of it is fixable.
quote:
At the same time, the administration is expanding work permit access and deportation protections for Venezuelans.
I totally get why these people deserve asylum and support it.
But this administration will bow to activists before dealing with common sense.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 9:08 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:08 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
Can someone please explain to me this border thing.
All you hear is there's so many and resources are strained and we need federal help. Here's an idea, don't let them in the country. Enforce the laws already on the books. It's a pretty simple fix.
And while we are explaining this...pray tell why most these invaders are young men and furthermore why they say they seek asylum's yet they are not from Mexico? If they are coming in through Mexico from another country, why did they not seek asylum in Mexico? What, Mexico couldn't keep them from harm were they fleeing Haiti or Venezuela? Oh that's right, only the US can be a safe haven from their fleeing their homeland.
None of this makes sense...because none of the canards we hear about are the reason and they can't even come up with an excuse that makes sense to mask it in the slightest.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 9:37 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:11 am to Crimson1st
quote:
And while we are explaining this...pray tell why most these invaders are young men
It appears that these people are being organized across the globe, sent to Mexico to cross the border.

Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:12 am to Crimson1st
quote:
and they can't even come up with an excuse that makes sense to mask it in the slightest.
To break the economic system.
Thats always been the desire from the far left.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:13 am to cadillacattack
“It’s a lucrative business”
How?
How?
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:14 am to RogerTheShrubber
This numbers represent army divisions
If I were governor of my state, I would have the legislature declare the US government is in material breach of its Constitutional GUARANTEE against invasion and withdraw from the USA.
If I were governor of my state, I would have the legislature declare the US government is in material breach of its Constitutional GUARANTEE against invasion and withdraw from the USA.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:and have no ill will to the US
I imagine this is true for 99.9%+ of them
Coming in illegally and signing up for benefits is, by definition, damaging to the US, and therefore IS I’ll will
Popular
Back to top
