PFF - Pennock's Fiero Forum, PDA Edition

Who's in charge of the border? (Page 15/15)

BingB

AUG 17, 03:11 PM

quote

Originally posted by cliffw:

You have never posted the Supreme Court decision making it illegal to use Title 42, Sec *** to control immigration !

Yes I did. Multiple times. The Supreme Court order clearly says "Title 42". Since it does not mention any specific section then it applies to all of Title 42.

. . . Waits for Willie's new argument that Sec *** of Title 42 is not a part of Title 42.

This is fun. Keep it up Willie.

[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 08-17-2024).]

NewDustin

AUG 22, 01:56 AM

quote

Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

No, this is not true at all. You know this.

This is the exact same policy that Obama had, and used. He had more people in cages than Trump ever did. This is preposterous that you'd even suggest this.

The exact same as Obama? Please explain the existence of any of the following in that context:

In January 2017 Trump signed Executive Order 13769, making it illegal to seek asylum in the US if you were from a number of high-refugee countries. He superseded it with Executive Order 13780, refining it, in March 2017.
Trump suspended the right of asylum to any migrant crossing the border outside a port of entry on Nov, 2018. The action was found to be illegal shortly thereafter, but that ruling is what led to the MPP. "Remain in Mexico" is a slightly neutered take on the exact same thing the proclamation was trying to accomplish.
In July 2019, the Trump administration announced asylum seekers would be ineligible for asylum if they hand't applied in all of the counties they traveled through.
In April 2019, the Trump administration enacted a policy deny bail to any asylum seeker.

...that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of restrictions to asylum that came about under the Trump administration that were not present in previous administrations, and even more failed attempts. How is that the exact same as Obama?

quote

And yes, that is perfectly acceptable to do.

From your perspective, maybe. The Federal Courts haven't been as historically amicable towards the Trump administration's asylum restrictions, nor has the majority of the public, human rights orgs, the succeeding administration, previous administrations, congress at large...

quote

There are tons of consulates and places where you can apply for asylum in their own countries. I know, I've been all over Central America when I worked for U.S. SOUTHCOM.

The problem is, they aren't interested in doing that. They hope that by making that trip, they will get to stay in America because they'll simply avoid the law. Our country is being destroyed because we cannot afford it. They would not be coming here if they weren't automatically getting benefits. Again, total misrepresentation of the facts... either intentionally, or you just didn't know.

We have already covered this, and I've shown repeatedly that immigrants in general, and asylum seekers in particular, are highly employed and economically beneficial. I do not remember you providing any kind of evidence showing that asylum seekers are likely to avoid their court dates (they aren't, btw), that they are only coming for benefits, or that they are destroying our country. To whit, every citation you make in this thread is as follows:

An article about how Obama ended wet foot dry foot (though you misrepresent the "why" discussed in the very article you posted)
An article about how Biden discouraged Venezuelan migrants at the Southern Border (though again, the "why" discussed in the article is misrepresented)
An article about how the US dumps trash in other countries
An article about how Hispanic immigrants say life is better in the US
A blog about poor people having phones in the US
An article about how China provides routers worldwide
An article about how the United Nations has a large budget for US-bound migrants
An interview where the Executive Director of the Heritage Foundation thinks George Soros is involved in an immigration conspiracy with the Catholics
An article about how China is supplying cell phones to Central America
Links to definitions for asylum seekers and refugees
An article about the length of court cases (that again, you misrepresent the "why" given in the article)
Links showing that non-citizens can get SNAP, Medicaid, free cell phones
An alt-tech video with an anecdotal take how illegal immigrants get too much free stuff

None of this individually proves (or even supports) your conclusion that asylum seekers are coming to the US to avoid the law and destroy our country by using resources and not contributing to our economy. It doesn't taken as a whole either; you have to conflate multiple streams of information and litter them with inferences and intuition that corrupts the conclusions the sources themselves come to.

To bolster your point you would need statistics showing asylum seekers/refugees are largely unemployed, as well as something that quantifies the economic damage they are causing, maybe some numbers comparing their use of resources to the economic stimulus they bring...ANYTHING that directly addresses what their actual impact is. Nothing of what you have provided does any of that, and it fails to do so in the face of a large list of credible evidence I provided showing the opposite.