Illegals in caravan SUE US government??!

You are hysterically advocating a pre-emptive military strike on political refugees on foot nearly a thousand miles from our border.

Your poisonous rhetoric reminds us what we see on the internet before someone goes bonkers and starts shooting up churches, nightclubs and synagogues. Or, the kind of language that he FBI discovers on the internet after the fact.

Likening this to 9/11 is Trumpian hyperbole.
. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Did LL liken this to 9/11?

Jesus.

People seeking political asylum are now subject to being murdered by our military while they trek towards the boarder in full sight!

Sure reads like it.

This is utterly and unabashed hate speech, right out of the Richard Spencer / Alex Jones / Steve Bannon / Donald Trump school.

You are hysterically advocating a pre-emptive military strike on political refugees on foot nearly a thousand miles from our border.

Your poisonous rhetoric reminds us what we see on the internet before someone goes bonkers and starts shooting up churches, nightclubs and synagogues. Or, the kind of language that he FBI discovers on the internet after the fact.

Likening this to 9/11 is Trumpian hyperbole and more dog whistles before Election Day. (I don’t think there are any undecid3d voters here, so what’s your point?)

Please stop it. Your hate language could be putting our community at risk. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

"Hysterically, rhetoric, goes bonkers, shooting up churches, Trumpian hyperbole, dog whistles, Election Day, voters, hate language, "our community"......yep, got most of the key left wing, deep state adjectives in there. Sounds like someone has led a very protected life. Harsh reality always cures that.

Calling it like I see it, my friend.

“Our community” is ECCIE. And we lost ECCIE once already this year. That’s my point. Hopefully you recognize that.

When all this shit is over on Tuesday (aka, that deep state adjective “Election Day”) what next?

Sounds like someone has led a protected life indeed!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Did LL liken this to 9/11?
Originally Posted by WTF

No he didn't! When does your distortion deserve the RTM.

Or does it make any difference in your case?

There are many SCOTUS opinions on the issues surrounding the "standing" of foreign nationals to bring claims based upon rights and/or privileges of the U.S. Constitution and the Amendments thereto. It is my general understanding without additional research that a foreign national who is not on U.S. soil (and never has been) lacks "standing" to bring an action in U.S. Federal courts against the government in which violations of the U.S. Constitution and/or the Amendments thereto are asserted as a basis of the claim or claims so long as those alleged violations occurred on U.S. soil (including territories and/or consulate/embassies property).

Your theory has a "catch 22" ... IF the immigration laws/regs require the foreign national to seek asylum outside of the U.S. territory FIRST via a legitimate State Department facility then they have not been deprived of "due process" unless by U.S. action they were prevented from accessing such facility and/or denied an opportunity to access such facility to make the claim.

If the U.S. sets up tents on U.S. soil to "house" the illegal invaders and dependents then they are on U.S. soil, in U.S. custody/detention, and they are in the jurisdiction of the U.S. (and the local school district btw) and therefore they have rights within the U.S. Constitution and the Amendments thereto. cf "POW" litigation out of GTMO and the Japanese internment camps.

I'm not saying the following cite is dispositive, but there is some guidance on some of the principles involved .... since it is executive action, Trump EO's, foreigners not on this soil, and "rights" to come into this country, asylum/persecution, and other similar fact questions ... although not directly addressed as to the law ... it should give one some hint at the direction the Court will take when it gets there ....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-965_h315.pdf

.... then dealing with immigration and the integrity of this country's security system then the POTUS sort of "trumps" others! (no pun intended!). Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Germans weren't U.S. citizens and were not in the U.S.

It's always a legal debate and NOT HYPOTHETICAL when a people (like on 911) and/or another country threatens the integrity our borders. We have a right to pre-emptive strike. We do not have to wait until another country or people actually strike the U.S. Originally Posted by LexusLover

This is utterly and unabashed hate speech, right out of the Richard Spencer / Alex Jones / Steve Bannon / Donald Trump school.

You are hysterically advocating a pre-emptive military strike on political refugees on foot nearly a thousand miles from our border.

Your poisonous rhetoric reminds us what we see on the internet before someone goes bonkers and starts shooting up churches, nightclubs and synagogues. Or, the kind of language that he FBI discovers on the internet after the fact.

Likening this to 9/11 is Trumpian hyperbole and more dog whistles before Election Day. (I don’t think there are any undecid3d voters here, so what’s your point?)

Please stop it. Your hate language could be putting our community at risk. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Calling it like I see it, my friend.

“Our community” is ECCIE. And we lost ECCIE once already this year. That’s my point. Hopefully you recognize that.

When all this shit is over on Tuesday (aka, that deep state adjective “Election Day”) what next?

Sounds like someone has led a protected life indeed!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No he didn't! When does your distortion deserve the RTM.

Or does it make any difference in your case? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I suppose that "someone" could interpret what I posted as

hysterically advocating a pre-emptive military strike on political refugees

.. but that is not what it says.

Justice Kavanaugh would read what I wrote and strictly construing it!

That's why I applauded his appointment and confirmation. He interprets what is written and does not assign his agenda-bias to the meaning of what others wrote. I'm glad he's on the bench.

Let's see how good a Judge WakeUp will make!

This is what you said, quoted above, LL.

"We have a right to pre-emptive strike. We do not have to wait until another country or people actually strike the U.S."

Is this what you advocate?

Nobody's distorting your words, LL. You've posted it twice now.

Justice Kavanaugh would read what I wrote and strictly construing it!

That's why I applauded his appointment and confirmation. He interprets what is written and does not assign his agenda-bias to the meaning of what others wrote. I'm glad he's on the bench.

Let's see how good a Judge WakeUp will make! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did you just compare wakeup to a Supreme Court Justice?

Also please tell me how you know how Justice Kavanaugh would rule...especially how you know how he would rule on a Hooker Board.

How do you think the public would view the US military invading Mexico and taking out these folks seeking asylum? You better hope we do not muster gas the children in the caravan. ...lustylad does not like that. Or is it just Syrian babies lusty?

Mr. LL Sir: If they are attempting to legally seek asylum, aren't they required to attempt it in the country next to them, not cross over a country to "forum shop" so to speak? Originally Posted by friendly fred

Plus since the mexican president offered them refugee status and they refused, SHOULDN'T that automatically NEGATE their claim of asylum?


Add to that, if they really were seeking asylum, WHY COULD THEY not have gone south, to costa rica, Brazil or Panama?

Saying we have the right to a preemptive strike (which we do) is NOT the same as advocating such. So stop lying Yssup. Seems you forget your "peaceful" caravan has already killed journalists and at least one officer in Mexico. As for WTF, this mob is NOT seeking asylum, as they REJECTED the offer of asylum from Mexico. As mentioned, this would negate their claim. Under asylum laws, they must seek asylum in the FIRST country they come to. That's NOT the U.S.

As for WTF, this mob is NOT seeking asylum, as they REJECTED the offer of asylum from Mexico. As mentioned, this would negate their claim. Under asylum laws, they must seek asylum in the FIRST country they come to. That's NOT the U.S. Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Please note this bogus asylum law you reference


https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/po...sylum_-_page_4

Saying we have the right to a preemptive strike (which we do) is NOT the same as advocating such. So stop lying Yssup. Seems you forget your "peaceful" caravan has already killed journalists and at least one officer in Mexico. As for WTF, this mob is NOT seeking asylum, as they REJECTED the offer of asylum from Mexico. As mentioned, this would negate their claim. Under asylum laws, they must seek asylum in the FIRST country they come to. That's NOT the U.S. Originally Posted by Lantern2814

"law" ... did you post "law"?

Liberals aren't concerned about "law" ... or enforcing it.

They proved that beginning in 2016 .... and every day since!

Add to that, if they really were seeking asylum, WHY COULD THEY not have gone south, to costa rica, Brazil or Panama? Originally Posted by garhkal

Read lustylad's post as to the why here and to the whom is funding them.

It will tell you all you ask

"law" ... did you post "law"?

Liberals aren't concerned about "law" ... or enforcing it.

They proved that beginning in 2016 .... and every day since! Originally Posted by LexusLover

How about you post the law where it says you have to seek asylum in the first country you come to?

Required by whom, Fred? Which government places such a requirement on asylum seekers? Not ours.

Again, the paranoia spread by this obviously holy (as in full of holes) story is without merit or basis.

All I can say is they’d better hurry! Election Day is day after tomorrow, and the defense forces need to vote!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSH!!! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That would be according to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to seek the "first safe country". I believe Mexico is the first safe country and as such should grant them asylum.

Besides, the US is full of racists and homophobes and is not safe, anyway.

We are a bunch of fucking assholes here in the US. Why would anyone want to come to this shithole?