If moving asylum seekers is illegal for the government

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: matafuchs

Except Dems are for more border security, just not a literal wall, Dems don't want to use humans as political pawns, and Dems don't want to deal with a manchild who always wants to 'win'. See how there is always another side to the story?

When you can come down to reality and stop listening to the BS that comes from biased sources and Trumps mouth, you can see the Dems and Republicans are simply just playing tit for tat. There needs to be a compromise between the two, not just one sided.

Care to say then which Democratic candidate you will be voting for in 2020 ?

The poster is Canadian.

So can only probably vote 6 times in Vermont and New York.

That being set aside, I would love to see who the poster is voting for in 2020 as well.

You know, the one that is for stronger border security and not for open borders.

Well played.

a reply to: Lumenari

I can't even begin to respond to this 'blah' of emotions and thoughts you've just unloaded on me.

Need to get anything else off your chest?

a reply to: Mach2

He is in a way. But the dems give it right back. And he doesn't know how to respond, he just responds with more of what he is used to and that's money.

I still stand by my view point that the dems want border security, but dont want it as strict as the the
Republicans want. I mean Obama was worse for immigration than trump. How did the dems get this title of being open borders and open world rhetoric?

a reply to: Lumenari

Sanctuary cities are the ones that welcome asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, by definition.

“Sanctuary cities” is actually a misnomer. While many Americans believe that it refers to a city that doesn’t prosecute immigrants, so-called “sanctuary cities” actually refer to something far more specific.

There’s no single definition of what is a sanctuary city, but generally speaking, it’s a city (or a county, or a state) that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents in order to protect low-priority immigrants from deportation, while still turning over those who have committed serious crimes. This is why we prefer the term “safe cities”.

americasvoice.org...

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: matafuchs

Except Dems are for more border security, just not a literal wall, Dems don't want to use humans as political pawns, and Dems don't want to deal with a manchild who always wants to 'win'. See how there is always another side to the story?

When you can come down to reality and stop listening to the BS that comes from biased sources and Trumps mouth, you can see the Dems and Republicans are simply just playing tit for tat. There needs to be a compromise between the two, not just one sided.

Care to say then which Democratic candidate you will be voting for in 2020 ?

The poster is Canadian.

So can only probably vote 6 times in Vermont and New York.

That being set aside, I would love to see who the poster is voting for in 2020 as well.

You know, the one that is for stronger border security and not for open borders.

Well played.

I did not know that the poster was Canadian . Rarely do I pay attention to such. I had assumed that in seeing this poster in most of the US political forums , they were a US citizen
Thanks for calling that to my attention.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: timequake

The dems want border security, where did this whole thing that they want completely open borders come from?

OMG they're called asylum seekers now? I suppose next we're just going to call them the citizenship challenged, the voting-capable.

Love that my country loves and values illegal non-citizens more than Americans.

a reply to: Mach2

Now wait a minute. How would it be unconstitutional for trump to decide where to place these people when obama did exactly that against the wishes of a dozen or so state governors?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

LOL you guys really do get your talking points emails and run out to spread the narrative! I thought it was just a joke!

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Mach2

Now wait a minute. How would it be unconstitutional for trump to decide where to place these people when obama did exactly that against the wishes of a dozen or so state governors?

Excellent point, but I'm sure the liberal activist courts would point out that, in Obama's case, they had already been given asylum. In this case, they have not.

a reply to: Mach2

And? If we have to hold them here in the US instead of deporting, who decides where? Why, the executive of course.

originally posted by: strongfp
Except Dems are for more border security, just not a literal wall,

And Dems are too dem-witted to understand that you simply can not have border security without a physical barrier.

originally posted by: strongfp
Those people seeking Asylum are literally being shoved through the Mexican system right up to the US.

IF Trump can find a way to deny any/all immigrants, both legal and illegal, asylum seekers included, any/all welfare or government assistance benefits in any form at all for their first 10 years in the country, and terminated all such assistance, I wonder how long before they all leave?

DO IT DONALD!

originally posted by: Fallingdown
That is exactly what I was thinking. A go fund me page to buy bus tickets.

I'd donate, but only if the destination was outside the US.