It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats Tell Trump - Let Child Traffickers Into USA and We Might Fund Your Wall.

page: 10
58
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


It is 100% legal for someone being persecuted to step foot anywhere in the usa and then report to authorities and claim asylum.

Read and learn:

8 USC §1325:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who
    (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
    (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
    (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact,
shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Note to other readers: next he will try to tell me 8 USC is not "law"...

TheRedneck




posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Next i will tell you to concentrate on your post very carefully and do your best to comprehend the words therein and compare to my statement you high lighted.

Here i will help you...




avoidance of examination or inspection





100% legal for someone being persecuted to step foot anywhere in the usa and then report to authorities and claim asylum.


If you have special learning problems then i am sorry that you are having a hard time with this but if as i suspect you are just full of it and attempting to cover the truth with confusion then you should reevaluate your choices here.


I have told you several times if someone crosses the border and does not report and claim asylum then they have broken the law and what you post as evidence is exactly the law that covers unlawful entry to some extent.

Unlawful entry is not at all what i am on about. I am speaking of asylum and you have tried to falsely claim that someone is breaking the law by crossing the border and claiming asylum and by you claiming that you are not denying ignorance.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I doubt he will ever be that direct; as we can see all we get is more sophistry .
edit on 13-2-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: Typo



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I'm going to ignore the insults... which means there is little to actually respond to in your post. There is this, however:


Unlawful entry is not at all what i am on about. I am speaking of asylum and you have tried to falsely claim that someone is breaking the law by crossing the border and claiming asylum and by you claiming that you are not denying ignorance.

No, I am claiming that simply claiming asylum is not sufficient to provide a defense to the illegality of crossing the border. That claim must be proven in a court. The law I posted also includes as an offense crossing the border at any place or time not designated proper by the authorities.

It is not illegal to enter US soil at a Port of Entry and claim asylum. It is illegal to enter at another location, or to attempt to avoid detection (one could argue that the very act of entering in a remote location is an attempt to avoid detection). Asylum laws state that asylum requests must be considered; however, asylum is a legally specified condition that does not include poverty or needing a job. Those excuses, which make up the vast bulk of asylum requests, are not even a reason to grant a hearing. They do not qualify as asylum.

US policy is that an illegal immigrant in violation of 8 USC §1325 can make an asylum request as a potential defense against prosecution, but that defense is only applicable if and when asylum is granted. The claim means nothing. A crime has been committed whether or not a request is even granted, but a successful application will mean prosecution is waived.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I know; I'm just curious how deep the misconceptions go. Humans are more interesting to study than lab rats.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Maybe you just skimmed Redneck's post? Because it looks like you missed this part:




(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers


So it appears that, far from being



100% legal for someone being persecuted to step foot anywhere in the usa and then report to authorities and claim asylum.


they must actually do so during a time and at a place




designated by immigration officers


Hmmn. So if "anytime" and "anywhere" fit that bill, you're right. Otherwise it looks like...ports of entry?



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Wow, Uncle Tom towing the company line

I hope I never meet someone that stupid

I’m from Canada, not that I would walk across the border, however if I did I would expect to be arrested and detained and eventually deported

So why does a Mexican get more privilege? Can I come and get 30k in benefits?



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Maybe you just skimmed Redneck's post? Because it looks like you missed this part:




(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers


So it appears that, far from being



100% legal for someone being persecuted to step foot anywhere in the usa and then report to authorities and claim asylum.


they must actually do so during a time and at a place




designated by immigration officers


Hmmn. So if "anytime" and "anywhere" fit that bill, you're right. Otherwise it looks like...ports of entry?

Except the immigration officers have to follow the treaties we have with nato and such that allow for people being persecuted to come in how ever they can and claim asylum. That is why they often do catch and release and why admin has tried to make the days after unpleasant for asylum claimants cause they can not stop them but they can adjust somewhat the actual asylum process and even put active military troops to try to scare claimants. They do all this while ignoring the real problem of the war on drugs legal prostitution and sanctions on other countries.

Now that is the heart of the matter that current admin wants to take away the ability to claim asylum except in ports and the treaties have to be held up and the courts have viewed all this and sided with keeping asylum laws in place.

On top of that the ports are often closed or slowed to a trickle so a person really needing protection can not get it in a timely manner.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   


If anyone can follow the last couple post they highlight the actual situation happening.

Kudos to everyone for digging up the truth.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You get what you give.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

That's human nature mate, your implying only immigrants would do that, when anybody that struggled for money to feed themselves would do it, I once seen something on TV that showed a bus crashing, the view was from a helicopter, and what happened next was amazing, people were getting in the bus from their cars not to help injured no no
They were getting on so they could say they were on the bus when it crashed for insurance.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Except the immigration officers have to follow the treaties we have with nato and such that allow for people being persecuted to come in how ever they can and claim asylum.

That's a new one. So, to clarify, you're saying a treaty with NATO overrides US law in the US?

Never heard that excuse before... congratulations on the original thinking.


On top of that the ports are often closed or slowed to a trickle so a person really needing protection can not get it in a timely manner.

Maybe we could speed up the process there by, oh, I don't know, just throwing out ideas here, not letting those in who have no serious claims?

That is the tragic part of all this... we have so many people taking advantage of the asylum process, with tacit approval by those playing identity politics, that there's no space left for those who need it. It's like letting anyone with an older car park in handicap spaces... the actual handicapped people would be forced out.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




That's a new one. So, to clarify, you're saying a treaty with NATO overrides US law in the US?


It is not that i am saying it but that it is what the deal is on the border. Again why do you think all those people cross the border then turn themselves in when they could just continue on without getting caught?

Why do you think they use the emergency beacons we put at the border instead of just continuing on?

Why do they do catch and release after giving the person an asylum court date in many cases.

The news media would have people believe that the border guards could not stop people from stepping foot on usa soil but that is not the case the people have the right to step foot here and then claim asylum and break no law doing so.

If it were not for asylum laws then agents could push people back over fences they could repel them in other ways but it is currently illegal to stop people from coming in.

This is not my opinion this is real life and even though you claim to not know this it has been in our face for years.
edit on 14-2-2019 by UncleTomahawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




not letting those in who have no serious claims


Border agents already have the ability to do an onsite judgement and determine temporary status.

The laws get mercy for the agents cause now they have to take the legal definition of persecution and apply it to whatever they are being told to them by a claimant.

Now here is what happens after the agent gets a sad and in many cases not true story the agent has to give the claimant temporary status until a hearing and in a large percent of cases the people never show up to the trial or hearing and they become ILLEGAL immigrants at that point.

Then we begin to get into the issues og ice and the inability of locals to deport ILLEGALS without permission from the federal gov. and even worse than that we have sanctuary cities that protect the illegals from being deported cause in many cases their only crime is an illegal border crossing.

Now their crossing did not become illegal until the failed to follow up with court.

So no wall will stop this not more guards nor the military lest we break treaties with the world powers that have allowed this same process to happen in many other countries around the world as we have seen in the media.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


It is not that i am saying it but that it is what the deal is on the border. Again why do you think all those people cross the border then turn themselves in when they could just continue on without getting caught?

Yes, it is what you are saying. It's your posts.

You may be saying it under a belief based on the border situation as you have been told it is, but I'm telling you that belief is based on false information. The vast majority of illegal crossers do not turn themselves in until they are about to be caught. They prefer to just come and go as they wish; turning themselves in is only a way to ensure the CBP does not deport them. If someone wished to turn themselves in as asylum seekers before they got to the border, why would they choose an area which is poorly patrolled?


Why do you think they use the emergency beacons we put at the border instead of just continuing on?

Some do; others do not.


Why do they do catch and release after giving the person an asylum court date in many cases.

That program was implemented under Obama. Trump is attempting to stop it.

It was implemented because there are simply not enough housing facilities to house illegal immigrants for what can easily be over a year's wait time due to the extreme number of claims that are made (the vast majority of which are not approved, even when the claimant shows up in court). I like Trump's process better: come across in an orderly fashion, get your hearing date, and then go back until time for the hearing. Until an immigrant is granted the right to enter the US, regardless of whether that grant is by asylum, VISA, approved residency, work VISA, or any other legal means, that person is not allowed to legally be in the United States as per 8 USC §1325.


The news media would have people believe that the border guards could not stop people from stepping foot on usa soil but that is not the case the people have the right to step foot here and then claim asylum and break no law doing so.

That is self-contradicting: Border patrol has the right to stop people from entering, but they actually do not?

Please clarify.


If it were not for asylum laws then agents could push people back over fences they could repel them in other ways but it is currently illegal to stop people from coming in.

Push people back across fences? What fences? The areas I am talking about have no fences! That is the problem!

it is not illegal to physically prevent people form coming across the border, except by a federal judge's decree which flies in the face of 8 USC §1325. If a group of cattle rustlers decide to ride across the border and rustle themselves up some cattle, Border Patrol certainly does have the right to prevent it! If someone tries to cross the border with a sack of white powder, Border Patrol certainly does have the right to prevent it! To argue otherwise is simply silly.

We have a policy of not using physical force unless necessary. We have a law that says one cannot cross the border. So we arrest rather than use physical force. It's that simple.


This is not my opinion this is real life and even though you claim to not know this it has been in our face for years.

I certainly do know it has been going on for years, in some form or other since before the 1980s. That is the problem. It's a broken immigration system that desperately needs to be fixed, but we have a Congress that not only refuses to fix it themselves, but who actively tries to stop anyone else from fixing it.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You are quite right. There are wide open sections where people just walk into the United States illegally. Many of them are escaping prosecution, and/or will commit crimes here in the land of the free.

President Trump started plugging the gaps in 2017. He will now finish the job. Only the Supreme Court can (legally) stop him.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Border agents already have the ability to do an onsite judgement and determine temporary status.


Now here is what happens after the agent gets a sad and in many cases not true story the agent has to give the claimant temporary status until a hearing and in a large percent of cases the people never show up to the trial or hearing and they become ILLEGAL immigrants at that point.

Again, I'm confused about the contradiction. Either Border Patrol agents have the ability to make a status decision, or they don't. Please clarify.

They are still illegal, but protected, until their hearing, just like someone claiming self defense will not be treated as harshly for killing someone until their claim is heard before a judge. In reality Border Patrol, like any law enforcement official, has some leeway in pressing charges. The policy is to allow for asylum hearings in almost any case, which leads to situations like you state: the aliens disappear into the interior and never show up... until they commit a serious crime outside of a sanctuary city.


Then we begin to get into the issues og ice and the inability of locals to deport ILLEGALS without permission from the federal gov. and even worse than that we have sanctuary cities that protect the illegals from being deported cause in many cases their only crime is an illegal border crossing.

On this we can agree. I'll add in that some sanctuary cities are even protecting illegals who commit more serious crimes from being caught by ICE.

And to be honest, if it were only border crossings that were the issue, I would have a lot more sympathy... but it's not just that they broke the border crossing law. It's that as long as the border is wide open, it is an easy route for drugs, human smuggling, and gang members to come and go. By not requiring some form of compliance with laws, we now have many illegal aliens in the US who have no concept of becoming a US citizen; they still consider themselves as citizens of their own country, but want to take advantage of the higher standard of living. And we subsidize this!


So no wall will stop this not more guards nor the military lest we break treaties with the world powers that have allowed this same process to happen in many other countries around the world as we have seen in the media.

You would be correct except for one thing: while people (i.e. Border Patrol or the military) can be ordered to allow entry, a wall does not take orders. It stands there in the way. Properly designed, it can be quite difficult to cross. As long as the immigrants are not on our side of the wall, they are not in the US and are therefore unable to claim asylum. All asylum seekers would be required to go to a Port of Entry (which is where we want them to go).

Personally, I see no reason why US embassies cannot serve as a Port of Entry for asylum seekers... well, other than the law. Congress needs to get working on that.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Agents make an onsite determination as if asylum claims have merit or if the person has illegally crossed the border. If they feel the claims have merit they are givin a court date and if they are determined to be full of it then they are processed for deportation.

However as we speak about this the admin trying to change the process and make people waiting for asylum to wait in mexico. This could work for people not from mexico that have crossed but courts will not allow agents to send back someone from mexico claiming asylum. That could cost lives and much money and lawsuits if someone actually in danger is sent back into danger.

I understand you want to believe that it is illegal to cross the border fence in all cases but that is just not true.

It would be kinda like charging everyone with murder who killed a person. Sometimes it is justified and just like cops onsite are givin the right to let people go for self defense it is similar to the power a border agent has when dealing with asylum claims.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Good god man people can claim asylum by crossing the border anywhere and if it was not for that we could easily keep people away from or crossing our border. It is not a hard concept that if we had a zero tolerance policy then people would not be attempting to cross in the numbers we see.

We have already agreed that the problem is people try to hiode behind asylum cases but you keep trying to revert back to thoughts that are not in reality. Stay with me here.

This is not an i am wrong or you are wrong gotcha thing. I am just letting you know the actual policies the agents are having to deal with.

There is not a single event that can take the place of changing asylum laws. Sure we can herd em and harass em but then that is kinda lame.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


It would be kinda like charging everyone with murder who killed a person. Sometimes it is justified and just like cops onsite are givin the right to let people go for self defense it is similar to the power a border agent has when dealing with asylum claims.

I am starting to think we are misreading each others' posts. That is exactly my point. If self-defense is not obvious, though, there is still a trial for the murder and the person who committed the killing is still accused of a crime. The crime exists, but self-defense is a legal defense against it. Similarly, crossing the border illegally is still illegal, but asylum is a legal defense against it.

As an example, if there were reports that Muslims in Honduras were being beheaded for being Muslim, I would be calling for anyone Muslim from Honduras to be let in and their claims expedited so they could stay. Asylum would be obvious.

It's a fine line, but it does carry weight when the case gets to the court.

We have a completely unworkable situation at the border. We have all kinds of people flooding across, and the way our laws are structured, CBP can't do much without running into some legal issues. You're right further down: asylum laws need to be fixed. I remember when I was researching the details, and I was shocked to learn that one could not apply for asylum at a US embassy! Why not? If the purpose is to protect people being prosecuted, that is the way to do it. They can be vetted easier in their own country, and a military transport can take them to the US if they truly need protection.

Not a single law would be broken, as they would come in through a Port of Entry. That's all I am asking: DON'T BREAK THE LAWS I HAVE TO FOLLOW!

But without some sort of physical barrier, even that won't fix anything... people are not coming in, for the most part, to claim asylum. That's just an excuse to get past CBP. They're coming in for economic reasons. They want our standard of living. That in itself is not a crime, any more than me wanting a shiny new Dodge Challenger is a crime. But if they break the laws getting it, by illegally crossing the border, it becomes a crime just as much as me stealing a Challenger is a crime. There is a legal way to get what you want, and an illegal way to get what you want.

I think we're closer to agreement on this than we realized.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join