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.

 

Pros and Cons on open borders.....

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Yes i am a speed reader and i did not read your off topic links that are not relevant to the core issue.

So the law itself is off topic? What, pray tell, is on topic in your opinion? Don Lemon's rants? Anderson Cooper's musings?

Those links and excerpts are from law.cornell.edu... one of the most respected law Universities in the nation.

So, you just verified who is living outside of reality. It ain't me.

TheRedneck

It is time for you to come to the truth and help with solutions that are constitutional and will work.

Separating families is not cool.




posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Yes, you did mention 8 USC § 1158. I assume you are referring to Chapter (a), subchapter (1):

(a) Authority to apply for asylum
    (1) In general

    Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

What you seem to have missed are the restrictions on this legal remedy, as well as these two little nuggets:

(2) Exceptions
    (A) Safe third country

    Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

    ...

    (3) Limitation on judicial review

    No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

In other words, any determination by a judge that contradicts a determination by the US Attorney General is illegal. The only thing the judges can do to override that is to declare 8 USC 1158(a)(3) unconstitutional.

Do you have a source for that court decision?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

When did I mention separating families?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

When did I mention separating families?

TheRedneck


Is this a trick question?

I do not feel like going through your post history to see if or when you mentioned such but if you thought i was claiming that you mentioned separating families you my friend are wrong again.

I simply said separating families is lame and such. Meaning the idea of creating a safe space for them in mexico could eliminate the need to separate families or even detain them.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Yes, you did mention 8 USC § 1158. I assume you are referring to Chapter (a), subchapter (1):

(a) Authority to apply for asylum
    (1) In general

    Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

What you seem to have missed are the restrictions on this legal remedy, as well as these two little nuggets:

(2) Exceptions
    (A) Safe third country

    Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

    ...

    (3) Limitation on judicial review

    No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

In other words, any determination by a judge that contradicts a determination by the US Attorney General is illegal. The only thing the judges can do to override that is to declare 8 USC 1158(a)(3) unconstitutional.

Do you have a source for that court decision?

TheRedneck


I did not miss anything and yet again you attempt to escape reality.

We have now proven that it is legal to cross the border and claim asylum.

Now after claiming asylum the border agents give an onsite judgement of the claim and either allow them to proceed with the claim or the agent can reject the claim onsite. Either way the person has not broken the law as long as they tried to claim asylum. If rejected they are deported.




posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Is this a trick question?

No, it was in response to YOUR post addressed to ME that said "Separating families is not cool." What am I supposed to think when you post that?

I don't think separating families is cool either. I'm not sure that a commission of a crime should result in the spouse and children being locked up as well, but that's just my opinion.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Is this a trick question?

No, it was in response to YOUR post addressed to ME that said "Separating families is not cool." What am I supposed to think when you post that?

I don't think separating families is cool either. I'm not sure that a commission of a crime should result in the spouse and children being locked up as well, but that's just my opinion.

TheRedneck


Like i said there was more to the post than just the one line you fixated on and it all went together.

What do you think about renting land from mexico for them to stay and await their judgment from the usa? If the place was maintained and protected by the usa but was in mexico it could get around many of these obstacles we debate.

There would not be a need to separate families and they would not running round the country scaring the mad hatters and the operational cost would be far cheaper than having them in the usa.

If there were an alternative then people could be directed to stop there instead of coming here first cause one of the big reasons we have this problem is because the ports are slowed or closed.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


We have now proven that it is legal to cross the border and claim asylum.

No, we have proven that an alien in the United States can claim asylum. 8 USC § 1325 is still in the legal code.

It's called "legal remedy." If someone breaks a law that has a legal remedy, they can escape the law they violated by exercising their legal remedy, as in an alien illegally entering under 8 USC § 1325 can escape that law by obtaining asylum under 8 USC 1158. 8 USC 1158(a)(1) allows them the right to request asylum as a legal remedy. They are still in violation of 8 USC § 1325 until such time as they have been granted asylum.


Now after claiming asylum the border agents give an onsite judgement of the claim and either allow them to proceed with the claim or the agent can reject the claim onsite. Either way the person has not broken the law as long as they tried to claim asylum. If rejected they are deported.

Exactly, except they have broken the law and are subject to penalties of such until such time as they receive asylum. Any penalties are postponed until a determination is made on the asylum claim. Typically, if a claim is not found to be valid, the court will dismiss them for deportation and waive any penalties since the violators have no means to pay the penalties.

If simply claiming a legal remedy without proof were a legal remedy in itself, then anyone could commit murder and simply tell the police it was self-defense, without any regard to circumstances or proof. Self-defense is a legal remedy for murder.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Try harder to understand what the words mean. The fact that they are not being arrested is your biggest clue!

Again you will have to refer to all the laws surrounding this issue and the recent court rulings that back up what i am telling you.


edit on 2-3-2019 by UncleTomahawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


What do you think about renting land from mexico for them to stay and await their judgment from the usa? If the place was maintained and protected by the usa but was in mexico it could get around many of these obstacles we debate.

There would not be a need to separate families and they would not running round the country scaring the mad hatters and the operational cost would be far cheaper than having them in the usa.

If there were an alternative then people could be directed to stop there instead of coming here first cause one of the big reasons we have this problem is because the ports are slowed or closed.

In a way, the Trump administration is already doing that. Aliens are being stopped in Tijuana, allowed to cross to claim asylum, given a case number, then sent back to Tijuana to wait for their cases to be heard. It has helped a lot apparently, and I support it as a stop-gap measure at least.

I'm not sure we should pay rent to Mexico... but that's another issue.

What do you think about allowing people to claim asylum in US embassies? I personally like that idea... no one is having to walk thousands of miles on foot, and those who seem likely to receive asylum could be brought to the US by military transport to ensure their safety.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

That was only after we sent several billion dollars down that way in the last spending bill. On top of that it is being challenged in court.

It only applies to non mexicans lest the first time a mexican is sent back and hurt but were eligible for asylum then tswhtf.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Try harder to understand what the words mean. The fact that they are not being arrested is your biggest clue!

I know what the words mean. They are not written in Chinese.

Crimes are committed all the time without charges being pressed. I mentioned murder and self-defense; often when self-defense seems likely, the offender is free to go and never arrested. Murder is still illegal, but the DA and police do not believe they can make a case that will deny the legal remedy and no action is taken.

An act can be illegal whether an arrest is made or not.


Again you will have to refer to all the laws surrounding this issue and the recent court rulings that back up what i am telling you.

I have. I have quoted excerpts from several applicable sections of the US Code. As for court rulings, nope, not gonna go there. If you have a link to a decision, I will read it, but I am not going to spend the time to look up court decisions. They have lawyers who do that, and they get paid a few hundred bucks an hour. I'm damn sure not going to do it for free.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


That was only after we sent several billion dollars down that way in the last spending bill. On top of that it is being challenged in court.

I wasn't aware that we had sent money specifically to rent areas on the Mexican side of the border, but I cannot say we haven't. Did you read that last Omnibus bill? Neither did I. Thousands of pages of legaleeze!


It only applies to non mexicans lest the first time a mexican is sent back and hurt but were eligible for asylum then tswhtf.

The whole point of asylum is to allow those under threat of persecution (not poverty) to escape such persecution by escaping to another nation. I actually agree with that. The part I do not agree with is not vetting those claims before releasing illegal crossers to roam freely in the US and receive US benefits.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I know what the words mean. They are not written in Chinese.


So you are now trying to claim that even though the people are not being arrested they have broken the law? You are still full of it if you think that.

This is an example of an official directing claimants to come across anywhere. I am sure you can see how the two sections of the law work together to make such crossings legal.
(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.








This is why potus new attempts to send them to mexico will not be backed up by the courts. This is the reason my idea of mexican safe zone would work.
(c) Asylum status
(1) In generalIn the case of an alien granted asylum under subsection (b), the Attorney General—
(A) shall not remove or return the alien to the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence;
(B) shall authorize the alien to engage in employment in the United States and provide the alien with appropriate endorsement of that authorization; and
(C) may allow the alien to travel abroad with the prior consent of the Attorney General.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The money in the spending bill went further south than mexico.

I am reminded of the caravan member at the fence that said pay us all 50000 each and we will go away. Next thing we have a massive expenditure going to those countries of origin.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


So you are now trying to claim that even though the people are not being arrested they have broken the law? You are still full of it if you think that.

It happens every day. Not just on the border. People get off with zero arrest after committing crimes all the time.


This is an example of an official directing claimants to come across anywhere.

OK, at least I can understand your reasoning here. That's progress. It appears you are claiming that 8 USC § 1158 serves as an authorization under 8 USC § 1325.

However, 8 USC § 1158 can not nullify 8 USC § 1325 by making it moot. 8 USC § 1158 even includes the words "irrespective of such alien's status," meaning any illegality does not prohibit an alien from claiming asylum. Certainly illegal border crossing does not prohibit such, since it is itself a misdemeanor and in itself not a violent crime.


(c) Asylum status
(1) In general
In the case of an alien granted asylum under subsection (b), the Attorney General—
(A) shall not remove or return the alien to the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence;
(B) shall authorize the alien to engage in employment in the United States and provide the alien with appropriate endorsement of that authorization;

This applies to cases where the alien is granted asylum status. That is not the same as applying for asylum status. If asylum is granted, the alien has the right to work in the United States and cannot be deported (unless their asylum status is revoked under.

This is further clarified in 8 USC § 1158(c)(3) (the same section):

(d) Asylum procedure
    (1) Applications

    The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for the consideration of asylum applications filed under subsection (a). The Attorney General may require applicants to submit fingerprints and a photograph at such time and in such manner to be determined by regulation by the Attorney General.

    (2) Employment

    An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General. An applicant who is not otherwise eligible for employment authorization shall not be granted such authorization prior to 180 days after the date of filing of the application for asylum.



TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


The money in the spending bill went further south than mexico.

I know. We send a lot of cash to these countries to try and improve the lives of people there. I support stopping that cash flow if these countries do not take steps to stop these caravans.


I am reminded of the caravan member at the fence that said pay us all 50000 each and we will go away. Next thing we have a massive expenditure going to those countries of origin.

As far as I am concerned, that should be an immediate disqualification for asylum and a lifetime denial of entry into the US. It is nothing but extortion. By not acting on such attempts, we encourage them.

If one is qualified for asylum, one is unable or unwilling to return to their country under any circumstances. By definition.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Bloodworth

Who's advocating for open borders?

Practically no one.


That beto guy.

Many might not openly say open borders, but will do much of the same by trying to abolish ice, not fund border security, invite people to show up to the borde.

The most underhanded thing Obama did was his unaccompanied minor program.
Obama wanted to import more foreigners while giving the impression to the American people that he was the deporter in chief.

He found a way to show on paper that made it look like he was deporting when in fact he was importing more then ever.

And he did this by changing the definition of 1 word.

Before Obama anyone caught trying to enter the country was labeled a ,returned.

Obama said to ditch the return term and said to now call all people trying to enter the country, deported.

This helped raise Obama's deportation numbers when In fact he was catching and releasing more then ever.

If you showed up to the border and claimed you were under 18, didint matter if you had a criminal record, no i.d. you were released and provided transportation to a city you could locate a family member.

Family members willing to take in an unacompannied minor would recieve up to 1,500 a month.

So if 26 year old ms13 member took in his cousin who just showed up to the border he would recieve 1,500 a month in care.

This created households of young men who were financially taken care of.

Obama's unaccompanied minor program was a direct result in the rise of ms13.

So there are plenty of ways politicians can have open borders without openly saying it.
Obama constantly hinted he would change the demographics of the country.

I just wanted to make sure it was clear that there are very little to no pros

So when you hear candidates call for the end of ice and no walls, more social program's.

Its giving the impression the borders are open.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


The money in the spending bill went further south than mexico.

I know. We send a lot of cash to these countries to try and improve the lives of people there. I support stopping that cash flow if these countries do not take steps to stop these caravans.


I am reminded of the caravan member at the fence that said pay us all 50000 each and we will go away. Next thing we have a massive expenditure going to those countries of origin.

As far as I am concerned, that should be an immediate disqualification for asylum and a lifetime denial of entry into the US. It is nothing but extortion. By not acting on such attempts, we encourage them.

If one is qualified for asylum, one is unable or unwilling to return to their country under any circumstances. By definition.

TheRedneck


What do you do when you try and give plenty of cash and plenty of opportunity, but they still fail.

There are specific reason these places are the way they are.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Get with the program.

These are not my claims. This is the reality we live in. It is not illegal to cross the border anywhere and claim asylum. This is backed up by several high court decisions.

None of your spinning and deflection does you any good in this matter.

If the law says in black and white it is lawful to claim asylum beyond the legal ports and the law says unless otherwise directed by an official then that means it is a free for at the border.

You really should get past the thought that i am here expressing my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join