February 2, 20241 yr On 2/1/2024 at 7:40 AM, Toastrel said: What does horse dewormer taste like? What does being brainwashed feel like? Keep in mind your masters convinced you to take the side of a probable friend of Epstein simply because the other guy was right. That’s sick
February 2, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, SB52 said: What does being brainwashed feel like? Keep in mind your masters convinced you to take the side of a probable friend of Epstein simply because the other guy was right. That’s sick Sorry, you must be thinking of Trump, Epstein's pal that you won't look at. I hope they lock all those pedos up, I have kids. There is no one on the lists, or in photos with Epstein that I will defend in anyway. So tell me, Mr. Brainwashed Culty McCultface, how does it feel? Do you know you are a sicko defending a pedo? Or do you just not care?
February 2, 20241 yr 9 minutes ago, SB52 said: What does being brainwashed feel like? Keep in mind your masters convinced you to take the side of a probable friend of Epstein simply because the other guy was right. That’s sick Toast has never sided with Trump.
February 2, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said: Toast has never sided with Trump. Except the smell. Somebody told me that Trump stinks. I said, "Like ish he does!"
February 3, 20241 yr On 1/14/2024 at 2:04 PM, NOTW said: I'm way behind .. but these aren't "luxury" buildings, nor are they "going up" - the building was preexisting. It's a repurposed former naval air station that gets these asylum seekers (not "illegals") out of hotels which almost certainly cost more. The immigration bill would help fund the required processing of these asylum seekers under international law, and shorten the decision time to either get them deported or work permits. There's a lot of teeth gnashing about funding the processing of asylum seekers, which makes no sense given it's the easiest path to stem the flow. If these migrants showing up at the border know they're likely to be held a few days for a decision and probably sent back, they're going to be disinclined to make the trip. The entire strategy behind this mass migration to the border - and it's an organized, conscious effort - is to overwhelm the asylum system and force the US to house migrants for months or years before a decision is made. Reduce that to days or weeks with decisions to deport them being the most common and it will stop.
February 3, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: The entire strategy behind this mass migration to the border - and it's an organized, conscious effort - is to overwhelm the asylum system and force the US to house migrants for months or years before a decision is made. Reduce that to days or weeks with decisions to deport them being the most common and it will stop. Or just keep them in Mexico and deny their phony request for asylum like Trump wanted to do. Adding more govt bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy is just classic Dem. So how do you propose magically reducing this timeline? Take up more public space? Hire even more administrators, judges, etc. How bout send their arses back to Mexico and save all that cash.
February 3, 20241 yr It's literally US law, stunad. If you claim asylum due to fear of returning to your home country you are given an interview. If that interview deems the fear credible you're granted asylum. If not, the seeker can appeal and it goes before an immigration judge. That's the process under the law, both US law and as dictated by the Geneva convention. It's been so for decades. What's happening is a clear abuse of the asylum system. There are not enough judges or interviewers, among other roles, to process the load. And so you end up with asylum seekers paroled for years. Change the laws in a way that violates the Geneva convention, or rightsize the system to handle the bandwidth and ship non-credible asylum seekers back expeditiously. Republicans right now?
February 4, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: It's literally US law, stunad. If you claim asylum due to fear of returning to your home country you are given an interview. If that interview deems the fear credible you're granted asylum. If not, the seeker can appeal and it goes before an immigration judge. That's the process under the law, both US law and as dictated by the Geneva convention. It's been so for decades. What's happening is a clear abuse of the asylum system. There are not enough judges or interviewers, among other roles, to process the load. And so you end up with asylum seekers paroled for years. Change the laws in a way that violates the Geneva convention, or rightsize the system to handle the bandwidth and ship non-credible asylum seekers back expeditiously. Republicans right now? The law is that the person claim asylum in the 1st country they enter. That’s been the law for decades. You don’t get to go on walkabout and try out countries until they pick one they want to claim asylum in.
February 4, 20241 yr 21 minutes ago, The_Omega said: The law is that the person claim asylum in the 1st country they enter. That’s been the law for decades. You don’t get to go on walkabout and try out countries until they pick one they want to claim asylum in. No, it's not. We do not have a safe third country agreement with Mexico. Both Trump and Biden have attempted to do this, and both were denied by the courts because it runs counter to current immigration law. https://apnews.com/article/asylum-limits-biden-border-c118ee7190c58f85bcf5db1e2a270429
February 4, 20241 yr 12 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: There are not enough judges or interviewers, among other roles, to process the load. And so you end up with asylum seekers paroled for years. More judges, interviewers, and other roles!! More more more! Or just make them wait in Mexico and deny their asylum since they crossed 7 different countries to specifically "asylum" themselves here. And maybe if Dems stopped bending over backwards to accommodate them. All of these are no-cost solutions, infinitely better than literally processing them and letting them in faster. What a horrible idea. "Don't claim asylum here or we'll process your request super fast!"
February 4, 20241 yr 7 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: No, it's not. We do not have a safe third country agreement with Mexico. Both Trump and Biden have attempted to do this, and both were denied by the courts because it runs counter to current immigration law. https://apnews.com/article/asylum-limits-biden-border-c118ee7190c58f85bcf5db1e2a270429 Trump successfully implemented the Stay In Mexico policy and Biden fought it. Why did he do that? Stop pretending like Biden and the Dems gave two ishs about this until election season
February 4, 20241 yr 13 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: That's the process under the law, both US law and as dictated by the Geneva convention. It's been so for decades. Not sure what the Geveva convention says but that is exactly the position taken by Sweden (maybe others) to stop the migrants waves back in 2015 and it has been the policy ever since. Asylum cannot be processed in Sweden if the person has entered the EU in another EU country first. The individual must seek asylum in the country they first entered in the EU.
February 4, 20241 yr 39 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Not sure what the Geveva convention says but that is exactly the position taken by Sweden (maybe others) to stop the migrants waves back in 2015 and it has been the policy ever since. Asylum cannot be processed in Sweden if the person has entered the EU in another EU country first. The individual must seek asylum in the country they first entered in the EU. The Geneva convention doesn't make any specific requirements there iirc, but I believe the EU has a safe third country agreement among itself so individual nations can decide on their own to invoke such laws. We would need an agreement with Mexico and a change to the laws to make the change. We do have such an agreement with Canada.
February 4, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: The Geneva convention doesn't make any specific requirements there iirc, but I believe the EU has a safe third country agreement among itself so individual nations can decide on their own to invoke such laws. We would need an agreement with Mexico and a change to the laws to make the change. We do have such an agreement with Canada. It wasn't entirely clear over here by a long shot. Setting up internal borders with passport controls is not inline with general EU rules/laws. The right to put exceptions in place is unclear and in Sweden the govt definitely violated their own policies which was accepted since the opposition was pushing for it. In any case, I'd think it would be pretty reasonable to seek an agreement with Mexico to be used at minimum in specific urgent scenarios such as the one we have in place right now. I think the inability to put together a solution is very likely a result of the near entire collapse of a functional federal political system given the level of polarity and partisan behavior in place today.
February 4, 20241 yr It's not really in Mexico's interest to make a deal where these migrants would seek asylum there first. Of all presidents Trump should have been the most motivated to make that happen, and it didn't.
February 4, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: It's not really in Mexico's interest to make a deal where these migrants would seek asylum there first. Of all presidents Trump should have been the most motivated to make that happen, and it didn't. I'm quite sure we can end up with a deal with Mexico if we prioritize getting one. Might be tough at home politically and will no doubt come at a significant cost (of some kind) but it can certainly be done if we get even a touch of alignment between our warring parties. It all depends on how much we think we need to solve the problem.
February 4, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, DrPhilly said: I'm quite sure we can end up with a deal with Mexico if we prioritize getting one. Might be tough at home politically and will no doubt come at a significant cost (of some kind) but it can certainly be done if we get even a touch of alignment between our warring parties. It all depends on how much we think we need to solve the problem. It would probably have to come at the cost of changes to our trade deals. The self proclaimed Deal maker probably didn't want to appear "weak" by giving up something there. Of course there's always the more likely reason: as with abortion for 40+ years, Republicans don't actually want to fix immigration because the want to continue to fundraise off the issue while motivating voters to the polls. Savvy Republicans knew Roe getting overturned would cost them politically, though that cost may have turned out higher than expected. I don't expect a situation where immigration is "fixed" to Republicans liking to be anywhere near the motivator for Democrats as Roe was, but if it were no longer an issue you'd see a measurably lighter turnout from Republicans. And it only takes a percent or so to flip the script.
February 4, 20241 yr 15 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: It would probably have to come at the cost of changes to our trade deals. The self proclaimed Deal maker probably didn't want to appear "weak" by giving up something there. Of course there's always the more likely reason: as with abortion for 40+ years, Republicans don't actually want to fix immigration because the want to continue to fundraise off the issue while motivating voters to the polls. Savvy Republicans knew Roe getting overturned would cost them politically, though that cost may have turned out higher than expected. I don't expect a situation where immigration is "fixed" to Republicans liking to be anywhere near the motivator for Democrats as Roe was, but if it were no longer an issue you'd see a measurably lighter turnout from Republicans. And it only takes a percent or so to flip the script. Yeah, I don't think Trump wanted to give up his immigration problem to beetch about.
February 4, 20241 yr Here I'll post it again since you're just blatantly pretending like Trump didnt address this issue. It doesn't require a "deal" with Mexico. Why we'd make a deal with a country overrun by drug cartels is beyond me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remain_in_Mexico And lol at blaming the GOP for not resolving this problem solely for future political gain. Democrats have been pro-illegal immigration for years now. It's orwellian logic to point the finger at anyone else besides the party openly inviting this problem to get worse.
Create an account or sign in to comment