Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71314151617181920 LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 287

Thread: Trump pitches 'merit-based' immigration proposal

  1. #241 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Please, get it right. The phrase is "the one who squeals is the one you hit", no reference to any animals.
    This Black DEMOCRAT says different.



    Why are you racist?

  2. #242 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Port Tack View Post
    You are a either a liar or are simply ignorant of the facts.
    dolt

    That number combines people who came to official border crossings and migrants who were caught by Border Patrol after crossing illegally. While current apprehension levels are higher than they’ve been in the last decade, they’re still way below pre-recession levels.
    that's an old cite talking about "pre-ecession numbers" and you don't cite the sources you loose this argument as well - but here -last I looked we have arrested more so far this year (109k) then all of last year

    Latest Border Numbers Show Worsening Crisis
    https://cis.org/Arthur/Latest-Border...rsening-Crisis
    Border Patrol apprehensions in April 2019 were 98,977, an almost seven-percent increase over the month before. The individual numbers are worse, because the number of FMUs increased to 58,474 in April, an almost 10-percent increase over the month before. Plainly, FMUs and the smugglers who are assisting them have identified the loopholes that they can exploit to enter the United States illegally and gain release, and in particular the Flores settlement agreement and the lack of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detention space for FMUs.

    Most of those in your ridiculously inflated number are those who are knocking on the door and seeking asylum which is perfectly legal, they aren't "illegal crossings". what the fuck is a wall going to do to stop them? Nothing.
    knocking on the door?? does this look like knocking on the door?
    they are flooding the border crossing and in between points of entry as well - not "knocking"


    Why doesn't trump hire more judges to hear these cases, maybe he would not have to just release most of them. He doesn't give a shit, he has morons like you trying to blame the left for it. The dumbshit wants to spend billions on a fucking wall when the ones he wants to keep out are coming in through the front door. How does that make sense unless one is an ignorant bigot. If we now had that stupid wall from sea to sea we would still have the sort of numbers coming in as we do now.
    He has to get the money from Congress -Congress has given some money, but the flood of illegals overwhelms more judges -which is why we a re now releasing illegals directly into the USA without an immigration hearing

    It's only a crisis because we have a dumbshit who wants to build a wall instead of dealing with it. That is manufactured.
    You are as stupid as Pelosi -although even Pelosi now has backed away from calling it a "manufactured crisis"

    I never used to like Nancy but her "fuck you" stance with Trump has made me change my mind about her.
    -showing you true colors - you aren't interested in solving the border crossings just "fuck you Trump"

  3. #243 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Port Tack View Post
    No trump isn't going to set jack shit, his immigration proposal isn't worth the paper it's printed on. We will go about setting the rules after the next election.
    You will be doing what you are doing now. All curled up in the fetal position, pissing yourselves.

  4. #244 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Talk Smack View Post
    No trump isn't going to set jack shit, his immigration proposal isn't worth the paper it's printed on. We will go about setting the rules after the next election.


    President Trump is using the authority granted to him by the Immigration and Nationality Act to manage and protect the integrity of our immigration system and our national sovereignty.

    • Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states plainly: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
    • Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act similarly states: "Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe."

    This rule would apply only prospectively to proclamations issued on or after the effective date of this rule. It would not apply to a proclamation that specifically includes an exception for aliens applying for asylum, nor would it apply to aliens subject to a waiver or exception provided by the proclamation.

    The rule does not impact the statutory provisions regarding the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (8 U.S.C. 1232).

    The United States is a global leader when it comes to assisting individuals fleeing persecution—including refugees and asylum seekers. We accept far more refugees referred from the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees than any other country in the world. From Fiscal Year 2008 to Fiscal Year 2017, the United States gave Lawful Permanent Resident status to 1,761,927 individuals, which is a number larger than the entire population of twelve states and the District of Columbia.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/11/09/dhs-myth-vs-fact-asylum-proclamation-and-rule

  5. #245 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    the flood of illegals overwhelms more judges -which is why we a re now releasing illegals directly into the USA without an immigration hearing
    Not any more.


    Congress added an expedited removal provisions to the INA to make it easier to remove aspiring entrants, in practice that process has not resulted in speedy removal of the bulk of illegal Central American immigrants, who have sought to unlawfully enter the United States in increasing numbers since 2014.

    The key reason is that Central American migrants often come to the United States claiming to be families with children.

    Under current judicial rulings regarding the federal court settlement in the Flores v. Reno case, immigration officials cannot detain children—whether accompanied by parents or not—for longer than 20 days.

    Officials releasing children into the United States after 20 days also have to release any adults claiming to be the children’s parents.

    Even with the more summary procedures authorized in expedited removal, it is virtually impossible to complete an asylum case within 20 days.

    So claiming asylum, whatever the merits of the claim, became a path to unsupervised release into the United States for many illegal Central American border entrants.

    That is why the Trump administration turned to the “remain in Mexico” option.

    The “remain in Mexico” option or Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), requires the return of certain migrants to Mexico pending a full immigration court hearing.

    The MPP flows from a provision of the INA added in 1996—8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C)—that allows immigration officials to return new entrants to a country that is “contiguous” tothe United States while those foreign nationals await a full hearing before an immigration judge.

    As the New York Times noted, most Central American asylum claimants ultimately lose in immigration court.

    As a result, immigrants subject to the MPP will typically not be released into the United States. Instead, they will “remain in Mexico,” receive an immigration court hearing, and then—if they lose—either stay in Mexico permanently or wait in Mexico for removal to their Central American country of origin.

    On May 7, the Ninth Circuit stayed an injunction against the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. That policy requires the return of certain migrants to Mexico pending a full immigration court hearing. The Ninth Circuit panel’s majority found that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) granted immigration officials discretion to either keep foreign nationals in the United States under the “expedited removal” process or require them to wait in Mexico for a hearing.

    The Ninth Circuit’s decision allows the administration to continue with this policy.



    https://www.lawfareblog.com/asylum-update-trumps-remain-mexico-policy-can-continue-ninth-circuit-rules



  6. #246 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Nope.

    As of January 14, 2013, all Cuban government-imposed travel restrictions and controls have been abolished.[55][56]

    Since that date, any Cuban citizen, with a valid passport, can leave the country at will, without let or hindrance from the Cuban authorities. Visa requirements for Cuban citizens are administrative entry restrictions by the authorities of other states placed on citizens of Cuba. In 2014, Cuban citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 61 countries and territories, ranking the Cuban passport 69th in the world. Persons holding dual Spanish and Cuban citizenships are now allowed to travel freely, using their Spanish passport in lieu of a visa for countries normally requiring a visa for the Cuban passport. Moreover, ever since that date, the Cuban government extended the allowable time abroad from 11 to 24 months, allowing Cubans who return within the 24-month time frame to retain their status and benefits of "Cuban Resident of the Interior". Should the citizen remain out of Cuba for more that 24 months, then his status would change to "Cuban Resident of the Exterior" and he would lose his privileges within.

    By this change, there is no longer such a thing as "illegal" or "unauthorized" travel, and therefore persons who leave Cuba via unconventional means (boats etc.) are no longer violating Cuban law, and therefore not subject to detention or imprisonment.
    That is all about to change, Snowflake.

    http://authenticubatours.com/us-legal-cubatravel.htm

    USA National Security Advisor, John Bolton, hints for new restrictions to Cuba travel for American citizens.

  7. #247 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Not any more.


    Congress added an expedited removal provisions to the INA to make it easier to remove aspiring entrants, in practice that process has not resulted in speedy removal of the bulk of illegal Central American immigrants, who have sought to unlawfully enter the United States in increasing numbers since 2014.

    The key reason is that Central American migrants often come to the United States claiming to be families with children.

    Under current judicial rulings regarding the federal court settlement in the Flores v. Reno case, immigration officials cannot detain children—whether accompanied by parents or not—for longer than 20 days.

    Officials releasing children into the United States after 20 days also have to release any adults claiming to be the children’s parents.

    Even with the more summary procedures authorized in expedited removal, it is virtually impossible to complete an asylum case within 20 days.

    So claiming asylum, whatever the merits of the claim, became a path to unsupervised release into the United States for many illegal Central American border entrants.

    That is why the Trump administration turned to the “remain in Mexico” option.

    The “remain in Mexico” option or Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), requires the return of certain migrants to Mexico pending a full immigration court hearing.

    The MPP flows from a provision of the INA added in 1996—8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C)—that allows immigration officials to return new entrants to a country that is “contiguous” tothe United States while those foreign nationals await a full hearing before an immigration judge.

    As the New York Times noted, most Central American asylum claimants ultimately lose in immigration court.

    As a result, immigrants subject to the MPP will typically not be released into the United States. Instead, they will “remain in Mexico,” receive an immigration court hearing, and then—if they lose—either stay in Mexico permanently or wait in Mexico for removal to their Central American country of origin.

    On May 7, the Ninth Circuit stayed an injunction against the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. That policy requires the return of certain migrants to Mexico pending a full immigration court hearing. The Ninth Circuit panel’s majority found that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) granted immigration officials discretion to either keep foreign nationals in the United States under the “expedited removal” process or require them to wait in Mexico for a hearing.

    The Ninth Circuit’s decision allows the administration to continue with this policy.

    REMAIN only applies to "ports of Entry" ( i am fairly sure) -there are threads up about flying illegals into Florida and just today I head San Diego.

    REMAIN is useful,but only a drop in the bucket

  8. #248 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    REMAIN only applies to "ports of Entry" ( i am fairly sure) -there are threads up about flying illegals into Florida and just today I head San Diego.

    REMAIN is useful,but only a drop in the bucket

    The MPP will allow asylum applicants (including "families" to be deported to Mexico (the nearest contiguous country) to await their Immigration hearing.


    AG Barr has ruled that those entering illegally may be held without bond, also.

  9. #249 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    The Canadians, for decades, traveled to Cuba and propped up the Castro brothers and allowed them to enslave the Cuban people and persecute and jail any dissidents who spoke up for freedom.

  10. #250 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    The MPP will allow asylum applicants (including "families" to be deported to Mexico (the nearest contiguous country) to await their Immigration hearing.


    AG Barr has ruled that those entering illegally may be held without bond, also.
    I have to research it LEGION, but I'm pretty sure that just effects Asylum claims from ports of entry.


    when they get arrested for illegal entry they get put in detention facilities -awaiting processing ( after they pass the initial screening_

  11. #251 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    The MPP will allow asylum applicants (including "families" to be deported to Mexico (the nearest contiguous country) to await their Immigration hearing.


    AG Barr has ruled that those entering illegally may be held without bond, also.
    Excellent, Legion.

  12. #252 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,532
    Thanks
    65,153
    Thanked 38,090 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Earl View Post
    That is all about to change, Snowflake.

    http://authenticubatours.com/us-legal-cubatravel.htm

    USA National Security Advisor, John Bolton, hints for new restrictions to Cuba travel for American citizens.
    This isn't about Americans traveling to Cuba, it's about Cubans having the freedom to leave their country.


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  13. #253 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    I have to research it LEGION, but I'm pretty sure that just effects Asylum claims from ports of entry.


    when they get arrested for illegal entry they get put in detention facilities -awaiting processing ( after they pass the initial screening_
    If aliens arrive at a Port of Entry they remain eligible to seek asylum and may proceed through the existing credible-fear screening process. The Department of Homeland Security has incorporated into the credible fear screening process a check to see whether aliens are subject to the new 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(3) mandatory bar to asylum eligibility—that is, aliens who are barred from receiving asylum because they are the subjects of an Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(f) or § 215(a)(1) order. Such aliens who are ineligible for asylum necessarily cannot establish a credible fear of persecution. This rule positively affects the aliens with meritorious asylum claims by reducing frivolous claims and allowing meritorious cases be adjudicated more swiftly if the number of non-meritorious cases declined.


    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/11/09/dhs-myth-vs-fact-asylum-proclamation-and-rule

  14. #254 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,777
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,276 Times in 27,089 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Nope.

    As of January 14, 2013, all Cuban government-imposed travel restrictions and controls have been abolished.[55][56]

    Since that date, any Cuban citizen, with a valid passport, can leave the country at will, without let or hindrance from the Cuban authorities. Visa requirements for Cuban citizens are administrative entry restrictions by the authorities of other states placed on citizens of Cuba. In 2014, Cuban citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 61 countries and territories, ranking the Cuban passport 69th in the world. Persons holding dual Spanish and Cuban citizenships are now allowed to travel freely, using their Spanish passport in lieu of a visa for countries normally requiring a visa for the Cuban passport. Moreover, ever since that date, the Cuban government extended the allowable time abroad from 11 to 24 months, allowing Cubans who return within the 24-month time frame to retain their status and benefits of "Cuban Resident of the Interior". Should the citizen remain out of Cuba for more that 24 months, then his status would change to "Cuban Resident of the Exterior" and he would lose his privileges within.

    By this change, there is no longer such a thing as "illegal" or "unauthorized" travel, and therefore persons who leave Cuba via unconventional means (boats etc.) are no longer violating Cuban law, and therefore not subject to detention or imprisonment.
    Myth-busting teabaggers could be a full time job for you!

    Here is the thing teabaggers do not understand: In general, the United States has always been pretty stingy when accepting international refugees, or taking action on humanitarian grounds. That reality does not comport with our rhetoric, which makes it hard for a teabagger to swallow.

    The U.S. accepted very few Jews fleeing Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

    As for communism, to the extent we accepted refugees, it was almost always done for our own political interest as part of they asymetric warfare of Cold War propaganda. Sure, we would accept some high profile Soviet emigrees, aka Solzhenitsyn, and we would accept Cuban refugees. Those actions were beneficial for winning the propaganda during the Cold War. It was a game of Realpolitick. The president who was actually the most genuinely humanitarian towards Soviet dissidents was Jimmy Carter.

    And long before teabaggers tried to make our immigration policy racist against brown people, our immigration policy was racist against Chinese and East Asians. Some ethnic Russians trying to flee communist Chinese oppression were denied entry into the United States. Even though these Russians did not have a drop of Chinese DNA, for immigration purposes the U.S. considered them Chinese because they were born on Chinese soil -- and our policy was to not allow any Chinese immigration whatsoever. A total rejection. Those ethnic Russians had to go to countries that would accept them: Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Argentina, et al.

    So when Bedtime for Bonzo was holding out American as the shining city on the hill, the reality was we were always stingy about who we would let into the country. And we were never particularly generous on humanitarian grounds or to refugees.

  15. The Following User Groans At Cypress For This Awful Post:

    Earl (05-18-2019)

  16. #255 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creeper View Post
    In general, the United States has always been pretty stingy when accepting international refugees, or taking action on humanitarian grounds.
    Maybe you should stick to stalking and harassing women - if you can find any that haven't gotten a judge to order you to stay away from them.


    The United States is a global leader when it comes to assisting individuals fleeing persecution—including refugees and asylum seekers. We accept far more refugees referred from the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees than any other country in the world. From Fiscal Year 2008 to Fiscal Year 2017, the United States gave Lawful Permanent Resident status to 1,761,927 individuals, which is a number larger than the entire population of twelve states and the District of Columbia.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/11/09/dhs-myth-vs-fact-asylum-proclamation-and-rule

Similar Threads

  1. Democratic vs Republican sales pitches
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-12-2019, 10:33 AM
  2. Proposal to redefine illegal immigration
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-10-2018, 08:06 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-31-2018, 10:27 AM
  4. Watermark's proposal on immigration
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-09-2018, 05:17 PM
  5. Ronald "Based" Reagan on illegal immigration
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2017, 05:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •