January 4, 20241 yr Nothing short of an invasion that Democrats not only encourage, but financially support. For all their queefing about treason, every single person who supports this should be put on trial and then up against a wall.
January 4, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, TEW said: Nothing short of an invasion that Democrats not only encourage, but financially support. For all their queefing about treason, every single person who supports this should be put on trial and then up against a wall. They will tell you that kind of thinking is racist. That is until they are sent to NY and Chicago when it all of a sudden becomes a crisis.
January 4, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, TEW said: The Federal Government is going to win this case based on the Supremacy Clause. I'm also interested how Texas deals with asylum seekers. The statute says: Quote But, if asylum has been sought but not granted, there's no way a state can prosecute that person. And they will all just seek asylum. The part we don't talk about is the need to drastically reform asylum laws and processes.
January 4, 20241 yr FWIW, this is the way we define Refugee in the US Code: Quote The term "refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term "refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. And this is the part of of 8 US Code 1158 that deals with asylum and references the definition: Quote (A)Eligibility The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To me, the key here is "who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." There is nothing here that gives credence to an asylum application based on fleeing economic hardship, or fear or living in a narco-terrorist state. The simple fix would be to amend the code to make clear that economic hardship is not grounds for asylum.
January 4, 20241 yr 10 minutes ago, vikas83 said: The Federal Government is going to win this case based on the Supremacy Clause. I'm also interested how Texas deals with asylum seekers. The statute says: But, if asylum has been sought but not granted, there's no way a state can prosecute that person. And they will all just seek asylum. The part we don't talk about is the need to drastically reform asylum laws and processes. Yeah, the Federal government will probably win. That’s kind of the point. There is no "both sides” in this. The federal government under Democratic control actively funds, facilitates and protects illegal immigration. And as much as I agree that the law needs to be changed, even doing that probably won’t matter much, because democrats will simply ignore the law and subvert it. And they will do this because they WANT as much illegal immigration as possible.
January 4, 20241 yr 19 minutes ago, TEW said: Yeah, the Federal government will probably win. That’s kind of the point. There is no "both sides” in this. The federal government under Democratic control actively funds, facilitates and protects illegal immigration. And as much as I agree that the law needs to be changed, even doing that probably won’t matter much, because democrats will simply ignore the law and subvert it. And they will do this because they WANT as much illegal immigration as possible. If the US Code on asylum is changed to have an automatic denial for those claiming economic hardship as a reason, and a Democratic administration refuses to enforce it, them Texas and other states could/should sue the US Government for failing to enforce the law. While enforcement discretion is well established, it can't be used to circumvent clear action by the Legislature. Have Congress change the US Code, then sue the Executive Branch. That has a chance, especially with this SCOTUS.
January 4, 20241 yr 21 minutes ago, vikas83 said: If the US Code on asylum is changed to have an automatic denial for those claiming economic hardship as a reason, and a Democratic administration refuses to enforce it, them Texas and other states could/should sue the US Government for failing to enforce the law. While enforcement discretion is well established, it can't be used to circumvent clear action by the Legislature. Have Congress change the US Code, then sue the Executive Branch. That has a chance, especially with this SCOTUS. Call me cynical, but I don’t think it has a chance to actually work. At least, not in spirit. You might have SCOTUS side with the states. But even then, a Democratic administration will simply self sabotage. They will stop enforcing the border. They will release everyone apprehended with a clear understanding that the illegals will not come back for a court date. State and local law enforcement will also be weaponized against ICE, as they already are. Laws don’t work when half the country refuses to follow them.
January 4, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, TEW said: BOTH SIDES ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE! Wow. That's pretty shocking coming from you. When I say that, you call me a moron and tell how it's all the Dems fault. Just shows how pathetic you are.
January 4, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, jsdarkstar said: "Billions of dollars to address” is not the same as "billions of dollars to prevent and reverse.” Sure, the Biden administration wants to "address” is… by facilitating it, funding it, and helping it. Essentially he wants billions of dollars to increase illegal immigration.
January 4, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, TEW said: Call me cynical, but I don’t think it has a chance to actually work. At least, not in spirit. You might have SCOTUS side with the states. But even then, a Democratic administration will simply self sabotage. They will stop enforcing the border. They will release everyone apprehended with a clear understanding that the illegals will not come back for a court date. State and local law enforcement will also be weaponized against ICE, as they already are. Laws don’t work when half the country refuses to follow them. Well, then, there's no reason to do anything because we're screwed. Which I don't disagree with. I enjoy trying to find the correct solution despite knowing it will never happen because our elected officials are imbeciles.
January 4, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Well, then, there's no reason to do anything because we're screwed. Which I don't disagree with. I enjoy trying to find the correct solution despite knowing it will never happen because our elected officials are imbeciles. Biden should order troops to the S. Border and leave them there until the Election.
January 4, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: Well, then, there's no reason to do anything because we're screwed. Which I don't disagree with. I enjoy trying to find the correct solution despite knowing it will never happen because our elected officials are imbeciles. You have to criminally prosecute, and imprison, the people subverting the law. THAT will work. Mandatory minimums in the double digits.
January 4, 20241 yr Just now, jsdarkstar said: Biden should order troops to the S. Border and leave them there until the Election. That's stupid politics, which will accomplish nothing. I've made long posts in the past of what we need to do, from changing asylum laws, re-prioritizing merit based immigration, increasing consequences for those that hire illegals and ending all benefits for illegals. But none of that will happen because politicians are morons who want the issue to remain for election purposes. If you solve an issue, you can't raise money off it.
January 4, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: That's stupid politics, which will accomplish nothing. I've made long posts in the past of what we need to do, from changing asylum laws, re-prioritizing merit based immigration, increasing consequences for those that hire illegals and ending all benefits for illegals. But none of that will happen because politicians are morons who want the issue to remain for election purposes. If you solve an issue, you can't raise money off it. Republicans have come out today to state they will not negotiate on immigration so in congress nothing will be done to address it. But Biden can send the Troops. Poltically he can say I am doing something about it even though Congress is doing nothing.
January 4, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, TEW said: You have to criminally prosecute, and imprison, the people subverting the law. THAT will work. Mandatory minimums in the double digits. I agree with that, but doing that requires reforming asylum laws. Technically people coming here claiming asylum aren't breaking the law. Make the qualifications for asylum clearer and more narrowly defined first. On top of that: (i) End all benefits for illegal aliens -- no Medicaid, no welfare, no food stamps, no attending public school, no drivers licenses, etc. Make living here illegally as difficult as possible (ii) End the drug war -- legalize drugs so the countries there people are leaving stop being hell holes run by drug cartels (iii) Massively increase penalties for employers -- make it a felony with real teeth to hire illegal aliens (iv) Hire a bunch more immigration judges (v) Reform legal immigration -- we need to massively INCREASE legal immigration on a merit basis, seeking out skills needed
January 4, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Republicans have come out today to state they will not negotiate on immigration so in congress nothing will be done to address it. But Biden can send the Troops. Poltically he can say I am doing something about it even though Congress is doing nothing. That's playing politics as opposed to dealing with the problem, unless you think troops will actively stop people from entering with force. Which will never happen.
January 4, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: That's playing politics as opposed to dealing with the problem, unless you think troops will actively stop people from entering with force. Which will never happen. True. Republicans are playing politics with this issue and plan to use it to diminish Biden's poplularity and use it on the campaign to tell us all white people are being replaced. So Biden should return the favor as I see it. I'm sure that will never happen too.
January 5, 20241 yr 🤣🤣🤣 DHS Chief Alejandro Mayorkas on Thursday said millions of military-age men have invaded the southern border on Joe Biden’s watch because of climate change. The Chinese go where they're told. Who else would the Chinese government want working on properties they're buying in the US?
January 6, 20241 yr 5 hours ago, Kz! said: "New Americans” Lets just be honest and say they’re trying to change the demographics of congressional districts that Democrats can’t win.
Create an account or sign in to comment