Yea ok, lets keep letting illegals in so they kill our children

I said "maybe" as in "possibly" as in "we don't know if the statistics are flawed".

From a report I saw yesterday, the workers at the Mexican border are doing an excellent job of sorting out the people asking for amnesty. This is EXACTLY what I want. I realize that the U.S. can't accept all people who want to emigrate to this country. But the overwhelming majority of those seeking to enter this country over the Mexican border in this case are doing so legally and are not members of a gang. Any of the potential immigrants who are suspected in any way of being dangerous are being turned away.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/whos-rea...-theyre-coming

But despite the administration’s claims to the contrary, the numbers of Central Americans arriving at the border are not near the all-time highs, and there is no infestation or invasion of MS-13. What the data shows instead is something far less dramatic: men, women, families, and children who are arriving to seek safety and the basic American dream of a better life.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

they don't have to be members of MS-13 or the {forbidden topic} cartels to ILLEGALLY enter the country. 90% are falsely claiming asylum for political purposes Sorry Speedy but living in a SHITHOLE nation is not legitimate grounds for asylum.

That's exactly right. The ones we are trying to stop are those who enter illegally in between our official border crossing points such as San Diego or El Paso or Laredo. Perhaps they try to sneak in because they know their asylum claims are weak or frivolous - roughly half of all asylum claims are rejected. Originally Posted by lustylad

I heard it was closer to 80%..

They are endangering their kids. Did you read the link speedy provided in post #81? Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes i did. WHich is WHY i wonder. IF WE KNOW the kids are being raped, robbed etc, because mom/dad is trying to bring them in illegally, then why are we NOT charging the parents with endangering them???

they don't have to be members of MS-13 or the {forbidden topic} cartels to ILLEGALLY enter the country. 90% are falsely claiming asylum for political purposes Sorry Speedy but living in a SHITHOLE nation is not legitimate grounds for asylum. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No, just because someone lives in a "shithole" nation does not mean they have grounds for asylum. But when the people asking for asylum have risked their lives getting to the U.S. border and are there only in the hopes of getting their families out of the dangers that exist in their home countries. their request for asylum should be looked at carefully.

And where do you get the information to back up "90% are falsely claiming asylum for political purposes"? Again, the people I am talking about are the ones who walked up the border agents asking for asylum. Totally legal.

I heard it was closer to 80%..

Yes i did. WHich is WHY i wonder. IF WE KNOW the kids are being raped, robbed etc, because mom/dad is trying to bring them in illegally, then why are we NOT charging the parents with endangering them??? Originally Posted by garhkal

Once again, the people I am talking about, and the ones referenced in the article, are people attempting to enter the U.S. LEGALLY. I give a ton of admiration to the families who have risked their lives to try to better those lives.

"Previous administrations have correctly not prosecuted asylum seekers for illegal entry. Doing so is a violation of domestic asylum law as well as international human rights law because asylum seekers have the legal right to seek asylum.

Domestic law is grounded in widely-accepted international standards, starting with Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 27 of the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and continuing with the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

As stated by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees ‘‘refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay… the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.’’"

Just because someone lives in a "shithole" nation does not mean they have grounds for asylum.
Asylum was a cold war product , for people to flee communism. Not just because you destroyed you own county,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,

Just because someone lives in a "shithole" nation does not mean they have grounds for asylum.
Asylum was a cold war product , for people to flee communism. Not just because you destroyed you own county,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , Originally Posted by rexdutchman

The people fleeing their countries did absolutely NOTHING to destroy their homelands. They live under authoritarian rulers who rule the countries in THEIR best interests, not the interests of the people they rule. People asking for asylum from countries like Iraq and Syria are doing so because their homelands have been destroyed. People from Central America are doing so because the leaders of their country have destroyed their rights as human beings.

When "asylum" started is irrelevant. It exists and it is people in one country showing compassion for those less fortunate than themselves. That is what the U.S. has always stood for.

Oh contraire , Speed Racer , The bigger picture 1) Liberals in this county always try to apply rules that may not apply ( Asylum) may apply to some , but prob not to a lot.
2) Central American counties have been very socialist based , and have pushed that agenda for 100 years . Putting people in power that promised free stuff In the 70s it was about 50/50 workers to people living off gov ,
now that socialism has failed ? ( sound like Billary - free school, ACA on and on ) people had choices
Maybe not the 10 year old kid, but do we let this county fail to save some / but not the millions here.

Did you hear that, assup? Empty cranium is equivocating "immigrants" with "animals". Say something!


Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease, which means it can be spread from animals to people.

https://www.avma.org/public/PetCare/...ospirosis.aspx Originally Posted by lustylad

LOL you just showed your ignorance, again.

It is estimated that seven to ten million people are infected by leptospirosis per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptospirosis

I suggest you do a little research before you run your piehole.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...off_by_an.html

Once again, the people I am talking about, and the ones referenced in the article, are people attempting to enter the U.S. LEGALLY. I give a ton of admiration to the families who have risked their lives to try to better those lives. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Id give them admiration if they came in legally, by going through the embassy..

"Previous administrations have correctly not prosecuted asylum seekers for illegal entry. Doing so is a violation of domestic asylum law as well as international human rights law because asylum seekers have the legal right to seek asylum.

Domestic law is grounded in widely-accepted international standards, starting with Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 27 of the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and continuing with the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Just because it may be 'grounded in accepted standards' doesn't make it right. WHY SHOULDN'T we prosecute asylum fraudsters? Just like we prosecute welfare fraudsters, or medicare fraudsters (NOT enough on those latter 2 imo)..

As stated by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees ‘‘refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay… the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.’’" Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Ohh, the UN said it. Sorry, but the UN can go to hell imo.

The people fleeing their countries did absolutely NOTHING to destroy their homelands. They live under authoritarian rulers who rule the countries in THEIR best interests, not the interests of the people they rule. People asking for asylum from countries like Iraq and Syria are doing so because their homelands have been destroyed. People from Central America are doing so because the leaders of their country have destroyed their rights as human beings. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

They may not have contributed to it's demise, but they also have not done anything to try and clean UP their home country.

When "asylum" started is irrelevant. It exists and it is people in one country showing compassion for those less fortunate than themselves. That is what the U.S. has always stood for. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

WE have a hell of a lot of our OWN PEOPLE who are "less fortunate' and suffering. So why should be be welcoming in everyone ELSES's poor?

Oh contraire , Speed Racer , The bigger picture 1) Liberals in this county always try to apply rules that may not apply ( Asylum) may apply to some , but prob not to a lot.
2) Central American counties have been very socialist based , and have pushed that agenda for 100 years . Putting people in power that promised free stuff In the 70s it was about 50/50 workers to people living off gov ,
now that socialism has failed ? ( sound like Billary - free school, ACA on and on ) people had choices
Maybe not the 10 year old kid, but do we let this county fail to save some / but not the millions here. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Again, please don't make statements like "Liberals in this country . . ." which implies that ALL people left of center think the same way on all issues. Simply not true of either liberals or conservatives.

I for one have said to look at each case separately regarding asylum. Some will qualify and some will not. That is fair.

Central American countries are not all socialistic. The two most economically successful countries there, Costa Rica and Panama, are considered capitalistic. Belize is also considered to be capitalistic. And you don't see people fleeing those countries. The other Central American countries -- San Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua -- would certainly be considered socialistic.

[QUOTE=garhkal;1060763637]Id give them admiration if they came in legally, by going through the embassy..

Good for you. I'm sure they really care.



Just because it may be 'grounded in accepted standards' doesn't make it right. WHY SHOULDN'T we prosecute asylum fraudsters? Just like we prosecute welfare fraudsters, or medicare fraudsters (NOT enough on those latter 2 imo)..

So the law isn't "right" in your estimation? It has been around since 1948. If you think it is important, work with your elected officials to get it changed. "Prosecute asylum fraudsters"? We do. We send them away when they don't meet the standards of those that we do accept into this country.


Ohh, the UN said it. Sorry, but the UN can go to hell imo.

That is fine. Wonderful opinion.


They may not have contributed to it's demise, but they also have not done anything to try and clean UP their home country.

I would love to see people like you live in a country like Honduras for any length of time, living as the average citizen does. Then come back and tell us the conditions you lived under and how easy it is to speak out against anything without putting your life at risk. Look what's happening in Nicaragua right now. Police are accused of killing more than 100 protesters since April.


WE have a hell of a lot of our OWN PEOPLE who are "less fortunate' and suffering. So why should be be welcoming in everyone ELSES's poor?

Compared to countries in other parts of the world, people in this country have it made. Even the poorest. For those in desperate need, we offer Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, free shelter for the homeless, free food, etc. In many countries in Africa, people live day-to-day, some spending their waking hours searching for potable water. Poverty beyond belief that few people in the U.S. have suffered. Aid from the U.S. is helping these people. Most people in this country do not fear for their lives minute-to-minute. I feel safe every minute of my life. People in countries like Honduras and El Salvador, ranked #2 and #1 in the world for homicides per 100,000 people do not.

So yes, I think we in this country should bend over backwards to open our doors to people who can prove that their lives will be in danger if they are returned to their home countries. It's called compassion. And hopefully it is not a trait only found in liberals.

First, the people at the border seeking asylum have NOT entered the country illegally. They were not caught attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. They have walked up to the border and are asking border agents for asylum. Everything being done legally.

You pose a reasonably good question as to why a family would risk their lives traveling by foot 200 miles instead of walking into the U.S. embassy in their country and applying for legal entry into the U.S. We are talking about people coming from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and probably Nicaragua very soon. These are countries with ridiculously high homicide rates and overall violent crime rates. It could take years for an application for entry into the U.S. to get through all the red tape. So since the danger to their lives is TODAY, they decide to try to get out of town immediately.

And FYI, an increasing number of people are seeking asylum in Costa Rica.

http://www.ticotimes.net/2016/06/21/...lum-costa-rica Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Speedracer: I would be willing to bet Chicago is more dangerous than most places in the countries they are fleeing from in order to come here.

They are likely economic refugees.I don't blame them for wanting to get on the gravy train here, but they tend to vote for the party that wants to create an even bigger social welfare system and generally opposes what I want for our once great country, so if they have to come here, can we at least deny them voting rights?

Id give them admiration if they came in legally, by going through the embassy..





Just because it may be 'grounded in accepted standards' doesn't make it right. WHY SHOULDN'T we prosecute asylum fraudsters? Just like we prosecute welfare fraudsters, or medicare fraudsters (NOT enough on those latter 2 imo)..





Ohh, the UN said it. Sorry, but the UN can go to hell imo.





They may not have contributed to it's demise, but they also have not done anything to try and clean UP their home country.





WE have a hell of a lot of our OWN PEOPLE who are "less fortunate' and suffering. So why should be be welcoming in everyone ELSES's poor? Originally Posted by garhkal

I agree - we have so many poor people here already it is crazy to import more of them, then let them eventually vote for the party that wants to bring in more poor people!

Speedracer: I would be willing to bet Chicago is more dangerous than most places in the countries they are fleeing from in order to come here.

They are likely economic refugees.I don't blame them for wanting to get on the gravy train here, but they tend to vote for the party that wants to create an even bigger social welfare system and generally opposes what I want for our once great country, so if they have to come here, can we at least deny them voting rights? Originally Posted by friendly fred

You would be wrong about Chicago. Most of Chicago is totally safe. There are some areas that are totally unsafe and where almost all of the crime takes place. Costa Rica is considered to be the safest country in Central America. I have been in the capital city of San Jose many times and you don't walk around that city at night. You take a cab even if you're going a few hundred yards. And the countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are much worse than Costa Rica. Here is a profile of the Chicago homicides. Mostly young black men in specific areas of the city.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...htmlstory.html

In order to vote in the U.S. you must meet one of the following criteria:

The following are the qualifications in order to register to vote:

A United States citizen. (You must be a U.S. citizen at the time you register).

At least 18 years of age on or before the date of the next election.

A current resident of California.

Not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction.


To become a U.S. citizen you must be a permanent resident for 5 years or 3 years if you're filing as a spouse of a legal resident.

So it takes a rather long time for those entering the U.S. legally to gain citizenship and be able to vote. And I don't think we can deny the right to vote to certain citizens.

San Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua are the problem ( socialist) ,Panama Costa no big issues .
Also at what point do we put US citizens first ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, That's all I am asking .

P.S - Liberal leaning people tend to attempt to apply issues that don't apply.