- 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
0
Posted on 12/10/23 at 5:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think many countries rely on thatquote:including US courts.
interpretation
And therein lies the problem.....interpretation, what is to interpret about a law.
Staying in Mexico proved 95% of those coming were for economic reasons which is not grounds for asylum. They backed up like a bowel movement and went home when they couldnt live in the US for 10 years waiting on a court date they would never show up for.
Have them stay in Mexico, then cut off all visas passports for any mexican govt employee, any UN worker, any NGO, and watch them stop the flow of illegals.
A few countries under Trump bitched when we were shipping their criminals back home and he did this. Boy they shut up in real time when momma couldnt shop in Miami, junior could not go to University, they could not spend our US Aid dollars wining and dining on 5th avenue under the pretenses of actually doing something at the UN, and they could not hide their money in US banks.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think we'll keep protecting the rule of law.
The settlement did nothing to change the law. If it was legal before the settlement then it is still legal.
quote:
This is not true. It's going to lead to a court order.
Of course the ACLU will run back to the same judge when the policy is reinstated by a new administration. If the judge issues an order trying to enforce an agreement by a Biden lawyer, it would be immediately challenged as not being based on law.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:26 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
There’s no way every country who signed it is enforcing it the same way
I believe all developed nations are and those are pretty much the only countries these people are going to
This post was edited on 12/10/23 at 11:27 am
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:28 am to M. A. Ryland
quote:
If the judge issues an order trying to enforce an agreement by a Biden lawyer, it would be immediately challenged as not being based on law.
Fantasy land without the rule of law. I'm sure you would love this system when it's used against one of your favorite policies bt ignoring the law
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The problem is asylum, which is mandated by our international agreements. We'd basically have to withdraw from the Geneva Convention to effectively do anything about asylum abuse.
Nah.
Just quit saying everyone who is poor is eligible for asylum. I live in a corrupt shite hole is not a reason to grant asylum.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:29 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
what is to interpret about a law.
Quite a bit. This has been the way things have been since we formed society and created laws. It's not new
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:35 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Just quit saying everyone who is poor is eligible for asylum
That's not what they're saying at the border, though.
That's the issue. We have to litigate to show their claims aren't truthful
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's not what they're saying at the border, though.
That's the issue. We have to litigate to show their claims aren't truthful
So what is the threshold? What constitutes the need for asylum?
Our state department knows what’s happening around the globe, so they should be able to determine what countries are eligible for asylum. That doesn’t seem like something that is specific to individuals, but based on the political climate at the original country.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:52 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Our state department knows what’s happening around the globe, so they should be able to determine what countries are eligible for asylum.
Well, when you're dealing with countries with non-state sectarian issues, it gets real grey.
The Central Americans are using the violence and threats of violence of the criminal organizations as their asylum claim.
The standard is
quote:
Able to demonstrate that you were persecuted or have a fear of persecution in your home country due to your: Race. Religion. Nationality. Social group. Political opinion.
Social group/political opinion are squishy.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Every human on earth could make that claim. That’s not the point of asylum claims.
(Not arguing with you, btw, this type of shite frustrates me)
(Not arguing with you, btw, this type of shite frustrates me)
Posted on 12/10/23 at 12:04 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Every human on earth could make that claim. T
That's why we have a system to litigate the claims and we don't just accept them all as being truthful.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 12:08 pm to udtiger
quote:
That or state suicide?
Seems like an easy decision
Self defense grants license to do just about anything you want.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 12:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
Only Mexican residents are eligible for asylum.
The others are not.
The others are not.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 1:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's why we have a system to litigate the claims and we don't just accept them all as being truthful.
The system is broken and overloaded, probably intentionally.
They can be released OTOR with a nebulous court date 5 years into the future.
I’m personally for legal immigration, and quite a lot of it, assuming there are some standards and vetting.
But this is psychotic.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 2:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We have to litigate to show their claims aren't truthful
Which obviously isn't happening. So the law is fine, the judges and lawyers are the problem.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 2:15 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
The system is broken and overloaded, probably intentionally.
The courts could handle these cases if they were funded better.
Liberals are fine with this reality and conservatives don't want to spend money (in this area).
A combination of remain in Mexico and using the billions requested for the border wall to interject into immigration courts would have been the best offense against false asylum claims.
Posted on 12/10/23 at 2:18 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Which obviously isn't happening.
It is happening. The courts can only handle so many cases at any given time. There is a backlog b/c of lack of funding.
quote:
the judges and lawyers are the problem.
I don't think asylum seekers even get lawyers, and judges are deporting these people
Posted on 12/10/23 at 2:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's why we have a system to litigate the claims and we don't just accept them all as being truthful
Fine.
You get to have your hearing at the consulate IN MEXICO when we fricking get around to it.
Let the UN and their army make us have a different policy
Posted on 12/10/23 at 2:44 pm to udtiger
quote:
You get to have your hearing at the consulate IN MEXICO when we fricking get around to it.
Again, I said Remain In Mexico was an important policy.
It's no longer the policy of the US, though.
quote:
Let the UN and their army make us have a different policy
We just have to withdraw from the Geneva convention.
No need to attack the rule of law.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News