- 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: Trump tears into fake news reporter — ‘are you stupid.’
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:44 am to loogaroo
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:44 am to loogaroo
quote:
This might be what Trump is referring to:
That could be it but that seems to be more focused on the number allowed in than the forced approval of asylum seekers. There was also an update signed by Trump in 2018.
I assume he is referring to something that was signed in 2021/22 as there were several things passed right after the withdraw. I can't think of anything that made granting asylum virtually mandatory though.
1
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:45 am to the808bass
quote:
The vetting process was shite.
The Trump DOJ says you are wrong.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:46 am to BarnHater
quote:
The only people concerned with the facts are MAGA Republicans.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:48 am to Bama Mountain
quote:
seems to be more focused on the number allowed in than the forced approval of asylum seekers.
You stop after the first paragraph?
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:48 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I am pretty sure that the AAPA would have applied only to his initial visa for admission to the country, back in 2021, and not to the change in his status (asylum) under the Trump administration. But let’s assume otherwise, for the sake of discussion, and posit that his subsequent request for asylum was also governed by the AAPA.
One of the requirements under the AAPA is that the individual “has cleared a background check and appropriate screening as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”
Given that his asylum request was granted under the Trump administration, that administration seems to have acknowledged that he “cleared a background check and appropriate screening as determined by (Trump’s) Secretary of Homeland Security.”
This was my take as well.
This year asylum denial rates in US immigration courts are about 80% so it is hardly mandatory.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:49 am to Bama Mountain
quote:
The Trump DOJ says you are wrong.
Good. They’re wrong.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:50 am to BarnHater
Are you this sexist in your daily life, or just when you can be anonymous online?
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:50 am to RelentlessAnalysis
Describe the process by which he would’ve been denied asylum.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:51 am to retired_tiger
quote:
Are you this sexist in your daily life, or just when you can be anonymous online?
What shitty urban area do you rent in?
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:52 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Thanks, Loogaroo.
They have been amending it since then. Who knows what it actually does now.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 8:55 am to loogaroo
Yeah. There’s a bit towards the end where it seems to acknowledge changes in 2022.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:00 am to the808bass
quote:absolutely correct.
There were always going to be bad apples in those imported. There can’t not be. That’s just the nature of what we did. This was always going to be a result of it.
So the question is whether we (1) reject 99 good allies who worked with us for years, to avoid that one bad apple OR (2) accept that we will get that one bad apple, in order to protect those 99 good allies.
We faced the same dilemma vis-a-vis the South Vietnamese during our withdrawal in the mid-1970s. I’m sure we got a few bad apples, but we got some really good citizens in the process.
This post was edited on 11/28/25 at 9:04 am
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:01 am to retired_tiger
Found another stupid one.
If you would listen, Trump just told you. Once they are here, it is almost impossible to get them out.
Are you too stupid to see the actions of the democommies to keep the scum here?
If you would listen, Trump just told you. Once they are here, it is almost impossible to get them out.
Are you too stupid to see the actions of the democommies to keep the scum here?
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:01 am to loogaroo
Love that gut
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:02 am to the808bass
quote:Based upon my reading of the summary, the Trump administration could easily have denied the application for asylum if the applicant had failed the background check and vetting which was to have been conducted by Trump‘s own Secretary of Homeland Security.
Describe the process by which he would’ve been denied asylum.
This post was edited on 11/28/25 at 10:41 am
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:03 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
So the question is whether we (1) reject 99 good allies who worked with us for years, to avoid that one bad apple OR (2) except that we will get that one bad apple, in order to protect those 99 good allies.
This will sound overly harsh. But geopolitics is.
(1) should’ve been the only response.
The reason it wasn’t, is that it was a cover your arse move. We bungled the withdrawal and “protecting” our local “allies” was a face-saving measure. If you don’t bungle the withdrawal as badly as Biden, you don’t have to cya.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:04 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Thank you for all the information. If you don't mind, how are you so familiar with all this?
I used to work in Republican politics and have a better than average understanding of the legislative process. I generally do not trust the main stream media so when there is a topic in the news I seek out the actual documents and legislation. I am far from an expert, I just read a lot of source documentation. My primary expertise is energy and internet infrastructure, and the regulations associated with it.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:04 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Based upon my reading of the summary, he could easily have been denied if he had failed the background check and vetting which was to have been conducted by Trump‘s own Secretary of Homeland Security.
I don’t think you’re correct. I think his documentation of being an “employee” of some sort of the IS Government becomes a rubber stamp.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:07 am to geoag58
quote:For some people, “Trump said so” is all the proof they need.
If you would listen, Trump just told you. Once they are here, it is almost impossible to get them out.
Others would like to see the statute that he references, and verify his assertion. Why? Because Trump has a 50 year history of being somewhat … flexible… about the truth and the facts.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 9:10 am to the808bass
quote:Legally? That is not what the statute seems to say.
I don’t think you’re correct. I think his documentation of being an “employee” of some sort of the IS Government becomes a rubber stamp.
De facto? You may well be right.
But Trump‘s claim is not procedural. He specifically says that the law required him to grant asylum status. He COULD have said “lazy bureaucrats in my DHS mistakenly rubber-stamped his application. I will see that heads roll for it,“ but he didn’t.
This post was edited on 11/28/25 at 9:26 am
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News