- 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 10:09 am to the808bass
Posted on 11/28/25 at 10:09 am to the808bass
quote:
Ivory still hasn’t learned how to use Google. Let alone AI.
What's this Google thing of which you speak?
0
Posted on 11/28/25 at 10:19 am to G2160
The 90% asylum rejection rate was for data reaching back to July 2021. I do not see anything about asylum being mandatory for OAW participants.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 10:20 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
. Although it may be premature, I am seeing a number of reports that the Trump administration granted him asylum this year.
Spreading fake news, I see.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 10:22 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Thanks. It shows. I'm with you on source documents rather than reliance on X grifters or the MSM.
You heretic!
Posted on 11/28/25 at 10:48 am to Bama Mountain
The 90% rejection rate has nothing to do with the program (operation allies welcome) which the shooter was allowed into the US under.
OAW allowed afghans into the country immediately and put them on an asylum process timeline.
In 2023 the DHS was sued by an immigration advocacy group and agreed to expedite asylum approvals.
The DHS is still under court-order to abide by this agreement. The shooter was processed post-expediting-agreement.
OAW had a 97-99% approval rate depending on at what point in the program (both before and after the agreement) you want to consider.
OAW allowed afghans into the country immediately and put them on an asylum process timeline.
In 2023 the DHS was sued by an immigration advocacy group and agreed to expedite asylum approvals.
The DHS is still under court-order to abide by this agreement. The shooter was processed post-expediting-agreement.
OAW had a 97-99% approval rate depending on at what point in the program (both before and after the agreement) you want to consider.
This post was edited on 11/28/25 at 10:49 am
Posted on 11/28/25 at 11:00 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You heretic!
Back at ya!
Posted on 11/28/25 at 11:05 am to loogaroo
That's perfect.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 11:18 am to hogcard1964
In case this hasn't been posted:
The law that would make it nearly impossible to deny asylum to Afghan refugees is the non-refoulement principle, codified in U.S. law under Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)). This provision prohibits the removal (deportation) of any individual to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Why This Makes Denial Nearly Impossible for Afghans
-Current Conditions in Afghanistan: Since the Taliban's 2021 takeover, the U.S. State Department and human rights organizations (e.g., UNHCR, Amnesty International) have documented widespread persecution, including targeted killings, torture, forced disappearances, and gender-based violence against women, ethnic minorities (e.g., Hazaras), former government officials, journalists, and those who collaborated with U.S./NATO forces. These conditions create a "well-founded fear of persecution" for the vast majority of Afghan asylum seekers, meeting the INA's refugee definition under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
-Legal Protections: Under § 241(b)(3), if an Afghan applicant demonstrates a credible fear of such threats (a low evidentiary threshold, often established via affidavit or basic testimony), deportation is barred unless the government proves changed country conditions or exceptions like serious criminal convictions apply. Courts have consistently upheld this as reflecting U.S. obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, which the U.S. ratified. Denials are rare—USCIS data shows Afghan asylum approval rates exceeding 90% since 2021.
-Practical Impact: This applies to all Afghans physically present in the U.S. (including at ports of entry), regardless of entry method. Expedited processing under Operation Allies Welcome (launched 2021) further streamlines claims for evacuees, with no filing fees and priority interviews.
I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS THE LAW TRUMP WAS REFERRING TO.
The law that would make it nearly impossible to deny asylum to Afghan refugees is the non-refoulement principle, codified in U.S. law under Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)). This provision prohibits the removal (deportation) of any individual to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Why This Makes Denial Nearly Impossible for Afghans
-Current Conditions in Afghanistan: Since the Taliban's 2021 takeover, the U.S. State Department and human rights organizations (e.g., UNHCR, Amnesty International) have documented widespread persecution, including targeted killings, torture, forced disappearances, and gender-based violence against women, ethnic minorities (e.g., Hazaras), former government officials, journalists, and those who collaborated with U.S./NATO forces. These conditions create a "well-founded fear of persecution" for the vast majority of Afghan asylum seekers, meeting the INA's refugee definition under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
-Legal Protections: Under § 241(b)(3), if an Afghan applicant demonstrates a credible fear of such threats (a low evidentiary threshold, often established via affidavit or basic testimony), deportation is barred unless the government proves changed country conditions or exceptions like serious criminal convictions apply. Courts have consistently upheld this as reflecting U.S. obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, which the U.S. ratified. Denials are rare—USCIS data shows Afghan asylum approval rates exceeding 90% since 2021.
-Practical Impact: This applies to all Afghans physically present in the U.S. (including at ports of entry), regardless of entry method. Expedited processing under Operation Allies Welcome (launched 2021) further streamlines claims for evacuees, with no filing fees and priority interviews.
I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS THE LAW TRUMP WAS REFERRING TO.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 11:34 am to TheOtherWhiteMeat
quote:Very possibly.
The law that would make it nearly impossible to deny asylum to Afghan refugees is the non-refoulement principle, codified in U.S. law under Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)). This provision prohibits the removal (deportation) of any individual to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. ...
I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS THE LAW TRUMP WAS REFERRING TO.
quote:The exception at 8 USC 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv) would be where the DHS vetting would arguably have allowed deportation, despite the general rule, ASSUMING that there were any red flags that this individual was a security risk.
8 USC 1231(b)(3) Restriction on removal to a country where alien's life or freedom would be threatened
(A) In general
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
(B) Exception
Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an alien deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(D) of this title or if the Attorney General decides that-
(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of an individual because of the individual's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;
(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime is a danger to the community of the United States;
(iii) there are serious reasons to believe that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States before the alien arrived in the United States; or
(iv) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.
We just don't have any facts yet, to assess whether that exception would come into play. Also, there is nothing to say that the US could not have sought another country to which he could be deported. 8 USC 1231(b)(1)(C).
This post was edited on 11/28/25 at 11:40 am
Posted on 11/28/25 at 11:36 am to G2160
quote:
The 90% rejection rate has nothing to do with the program (operation allies welcome) which the shooter was allowed into the US under.
OAW allowed afghans into the country immediately and put them on an asylum process timeline.
In 2023 the DHS was sued by an immigration advocacy group and agreed to expedite asylum approvals.
The DHS is still under court-order to abide by this agreement. The shooter was processed post-expediting-agreement.
OAW had a 97-99% approval rate depending on at what point in the program (both before and after the agreement) you want to consider.
You are right, I mixed up where parole fell into the process. It comes after they are screened, vetted, and admitted into the program. I had thought it came before.
While I do not see anything that mandates asylum approval the success rate is far higher than any other program.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 11:37 am to LSUTANGERINE
You and retard_tiger are as stupid as that reporter
Posted on 11/28/25 at 11:44 am to Bama Mountain
quote:
While I do not see anything that mandates asylum approval
That’s not what he said in the OP’s video. He said “its almost impossible not to certify them”, in reference to the asylum track that the shooter (who was paroled into the country in 2021) was on.
Posted on 11/28/25 at 11:53 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The sort that likes to put my eyes on the source documentation.
So, commie, when Biden and the demcommies were flying people in the dead of night from who knows where, was that documentation?
Posted on 11/28/25 at 12:01 pm to G2160
quote:
That’s not what he said in the OP’s video. He said “its almost impossible not to certify them”, in reference to the asylum track that the shooter (who was paroled into the country in 2021) was on.
This what he said
quote:
there’s a law passed that it’s almost impossible to get them out. You can’t get them out once they come in, and they came in and they were unvetted, they were unchecked, there were many of them, and they came in on big planes and it was disgraceful. And if you look, you’ll see there was a law passed that makes it almost impossible not to let them in, not to certify them, so to speak, once they come in,
Pretty much all of what Trump said is false.
No law was passed that made it "impossible to get them out". The claim that "they were unvetted, they were unchecked" is false. The "big planes" we saw leaving Afghanistan were not flying them to the U.S., they were flying to them to camps in the middle east and Europe for further vetting. There was no "law passed that makes it almost impossible not to let them in".
This post was edited on 11/28/25 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 11/28/25 at 12:03 pm to geoag58
quote:How is that even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread?
when Biden and the demcommies were flying people in the dead of night from who knows where, was that documentation?
Posted on 11/28/25 at 12:03 pm to Bama Mountain
quote:
The "big planes" we saw leaving Afghanistan were not flying them to the U.S., they were flying to them to camps in the middle east for further vetting
Posted on 11/28/25 at 12:09 pm to Bama Mountain
quote:
I have no idea
Could have stopped here. Your posting history makes it clear you know nothing.
This post was edited on 11/28/25 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 11/28/25 at 12:12 pm to loogaroo
I saw the remark on video early this morning. Trump didn't really answer the question and responded like a child, as usual...
Posted on 11/28/25 at 12:14 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
this year.
Could have stopped here. Your posting history makes it clear you know nothing.
What law was Trump referring to? What "law passed that makes it almost impossible not to let them in, not to certify them"
Posted on 11/28/25 at 12:14 pm to Riverside
quote:
Spreading fake news, I see.
Do you have evidence to the contrary. Even the Administration hasn't denied it.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News