Border… I didnt see this one coming

[rockota]

I get it, y'all are already throat-deep with Trump, so you can't actually read anything. It will be funny when the republicans pass the exact bill after Trump is elected, or one that's even worse if Biden wins.

There you go again...

you're not actually engaging in any honest discussion... but personally attacking people who disagree with you... And have proven you incorrect.

Cant' have honest discussion, sir, if you're standing there with your fingers in your ears yelling 'la lalalalala'....

 

[rockota]

No.

Do you believe that the people encountered on the border that aren't seeking asylum are being set free in the country? Because they're not.


The vast majority are requesting asylum, even if they know they're not eligible because they know it gets them 10 years to hide out in the US. That system HAS to get fixed.

Wait... what?

 

[ApeEater]

No it doesn’t. Congress needs to do a proper budget and allocate funds appropriately. They haven’t done that for 40 years damn near. Yet can still use emergency measures when needed. They write their own budget, they dont want to close the border.

Stop saying it needs funding. The ability to enforce the laws on the books is there regardless of funding during emergencies. They wont do it because it plays bad politically regardless of the side that enforces it because the left/media has made it a “race” based issue vs a country issue.

So, forced-labor to run the courts and border patrol? Don't be dumb. Nothing happens without budget.

And yes, congress should be ineligible for reelection if they don't pass an actual budget, I agree.

 

[ApeEater]

There you go again...

you're not actually engaging in any honest discussion... but personally attacking people who disagree with you... And have proven you incorrect.

Cant' have honest discussion, sir, if you're standing there with your fingers in your ears yelling 'la lalalalala'....

Did you even read the comments I quoted in that reply? Double standard much? Go fuck yourself.

 

[rockota]

Did you even read the comments I quoted in that reply? Double standard much? Go fuck yourself.

And... My point proven.

 

[ApeEater]

And... My point proven.

That you have a double standard? Apparently so.

 

[Texas97]

Do you believe that the people encountered on the border that aren't seeking asylum are being set free in the country? Because they're not.

yes they are. they are being set free.

 

[rockota]

That you have a double standard? Apparently so.

what was that response you offered recently "replying in kind."

what double standard do I have. I've been all but begging you to answer honest questions, but you refuse...

 

[ApeEater]

what was that response you offered recently "replying in kind."

what double standard do I have. I've been all but begging you to answer honest questions, but you refuse...

I've answered every question you've asked, and provided the text of the laws in response. You just don't like my answers.

The useful idiots are the ones arguing against a wall because “they dont work”

the useful idiots are the ones saying, "We waste lots of money, let's waste even more."

Yup, definitely me starting the personal attacks. This is the one where I stated "responding in kind."

Democrats....we're just going to put the head in. We won't go balls deep.

ApeEater....that sounds like a reasonable compromise.

ApeEater....you said you we're going balls deep!

Democrats...we won't cum inside you.

ApeEater...Promise!

I get it, y'all are already throat-deep with Trump, so you can't actually read anything. It will be funny when the republicans pass the exact bill after Trump is elected, or one that's even worse if Biden wins.

There you go again...

you're not actually engaging in any honest discussion... but personally attacking people who disagree with you... And have proven you incorrect.

Cant' have honest discussion, sir, if you're standing there with your fingers in your ears yelling 'la lalalalala'....

Oh yeah, it's definitely me not having an honest discussion.

I get it, you don't like me being an actual conservative and not parroting whatever line fox or newsmax tells me to parrot, but you could at least attempt to be honest with yourself.

 

[rockota]

I've answered every question you've asked, and provided the text of the laws in response. You just don't like my answers.

[/QUOTE]

Okay, Gary.

Yup, definitely me starting the personal attacks. This is the one where I stated "responding in kind."




Oh yeah, it's definitely me not having an honest discussion.

I get it, you don't like me being an actual conservative and not parroting whatever line fox or newsmax tells me to parrot, but you could at least attempt to be honest with yourself.

Not sure you know what the phrase means - "actual Conservative. "

As for being honest... you're factually inaccurate about text of proposed laws and the overall situation as a whole. "people are not being let go"? C'mon man. If you want to be honest - be honest. Your current game of "this is my view and y'all are not being honest for not agreeing... and how dare you question me" is showing your true colors...

I'll ask you again... what makes you think that a government that doesn't enforce current laws will suddenly enforce new laws?

 

[Thefishguy77]

So, forced-labor to run the courts and border patrol? Don't be dumb. Nothing happens without budget.

And yes, congress should be ineligible for reelection if they don't pass an actual budget, I agree.

It’s not forced labor. If the federal employees are not enough then the national guard is an option. None of it is forced not 1 bit.

There are Zero conscripts in our government employees. The NG is also something you Have to sign up for. Zero forced labor. Doing your job is not forced labor. Try again

 

[ApeEater]

oh, are you done claiming I'm an asshole for responding in kind now?

Okay, Gary.

Now who's making personal attacks

Not sure you know what the phrase means - "actual Conservative. "

Yes, I know what actual conservative means, it means small fucking government.

As for being honest... you're factually inaccurate about text of proposed laws and the overall situation as a whole. "people are not being let go"? C'mon man. If you want to be honest - be honest. Your current game of "this is my view and y'all are not being honest for not agreeing... and how dare you question me" is showing your true colors...

I literally quoted the exact text of the law. Not sure how much more factual you want me to get.

I'll ask you again... what makes you think that a government that doesn't enforce current laws will suddenly enforce new laws?

If that's your entire argument, then we're done here. I've already explained it, you've claimed my explanations are wrong. So what's the point of continuing this back and forth?

Since May 12, 2023 and through February 29, 2024, DHS has removed or returned over 593,000 individuals, the vast majority of whom crossed the southwest border, including more than 93,000 individual family members Total removals and returns since mid-May exceed removals and returns in every full fiscal year since 2012. The majority of all individuals encountered at the southwest border since January 2021 have been removed, returned, or expelled.

From here: CBP Releases February 2024 Monthly Update

 

[ApeEater]

It’s not forced labor. If the federal employees are not enough then the national guard is an option. None of it is forced not 1 bit.

There are Zero conscripts in our government employees. The NG is also something you Have to sign up for. Zero forced labor. Doing your job is not forced labor. Try again

and where there still aren't enough people and the lines become 10 years long... like they are today. Your option is more funding or long lines.

 

[Texas97]

Since May 12, 2023 and through February 29, 2024, DHS has removed or returned over 593,000 individuals, the vast majority of whom crossed the southwest border, including more than 93,000 individual family members Total removals and returns since mid-May exceed removals and returns in every full fiscal year since 2012. The majority of all individuals encountered at the southwest border since January 2021 have been removed, returned, or expelled.

From here: CBP Releases February 2024 Monthly Update

this is a complete lie.

"Official U.S. Customs and Border Protection data includes 3,201,144 apprehensions in fiscal 2023; 2,766,582 in fiscal 2022; 1,956,519 in fiscal 2021; and 471,954 in the nine months Biden was in office in fiscal 2020."



From ICE

"ICE ERO's 142,580 removals and 62,545 Title 42 expulsions to more than 170 countries worldwide in Fiscal Year 2023 reflect increased capacity and agreements to conduct removals and returns – particularly after the lifting of the Title 42 public health emergency on May 12."

 

[Texas97]

and where there still aren't enough people and the lines become 10 years long... like they are today. Your option is more funding or long lines.

you dont need long lines if you apprehend an illegal crosser and deport them. what are they in line for?

 

[rockota]

and where there still aren't enough people and the lines become 10 years long... like they are today. Your option is more funding or long lines.

I still think this is incorrect.

if a person is not allowed to cross (allowed being the key word here), then there's no actually need to expand courts, because they were not here to claim asylum "illegally."

Whether or not we should have an easier path to legal immigration is a secondary debate... I can, and have, argued both sides of that debate. But legal immigration issues will never be solvable until illegal immigration laws are enforced.

 

[rockota]

oh, are you done claiming I'm an asshole for responding in kind now?

Now who's making personal attacks

never called you an asshole...

Yes, I know what actual conservative means, it means small fucking government.

I literally quoted the exact text of the law. Not sure how much more factual you want me to get.

you quoted the text of the (proposed) law that states the exact opposite of what you said it does.

If that's your entire argument, then we're done here. I've already explained it, you've claimed my explanations are wrong. So what's the point of continuing this back and forth?


From here: CBP Releases February 2024 Monthly Update

You've never actually answered that question, though. And you refuse to do so. Posting text of a proposed law as a solution to non-enforced current laws doesn't answer the question.. I'm curious why.

 

[Filthy McChevy]

Do removals and returns being more than previous years mean anything when the non removals and non returns have increased astronomically?

Durrrrh. Meaningless.

 

[ApeEater]

you dont need long lines if you apprehend an illegal crosser and deport them. what are they in line for?

until they claim asylum.

I still think this is incorrect.

if a person is not allowed to cross (allowed being the key word here), then there's no actually need to expand courts, because they were not here to claim asylum "illegally."

Whether or not we should have an easier path to legal immigration is a secondary debate... I can, and have, argued both sides of that debate. But legal immigration issues will never be solvable until illegal immigration laws are enforced.

I linked somewhere above that asylum seekers ARE crossing at ports of entry in massive numbers.

This is where the automatic locking of the asylum process would be helpful.

 

[ApeEater]

you quoted the text of the (proposed) law that states the exact opposite of what you said it does.

You've never actually answered that question, though. And you refuse to do so. Posting text of a proposed law as a solution to non-enforced current laws doesn't answer the question.. I'm curious why.

I shared the link to that law in response to a question about what immigration reform could be more effective than investing in a wall in a remote location.

It's better than wasting money on a wall without monitoring because it reduces the incentive to come to the US. Right now, anyone claiming asylum gets a basically free pass for 10ish years, even if they know they're not eligible for asylum. That 10-year timeline MUST be reduced, or all the money in the world will not stop the inflow. That's where we started this derailment.

 

[Texas97]

until they claim asylum.

false because asylum should be the "first country they encounter". so technically, the only asylum seekers who can "legally" claim asylum at our southern border are mexicans. and ive heard thats a small fraction of who are coming now.

its mostly chinese, south american, carribean, and Levant.... with many of them being on the terror watch list.

 

[ApeEater]

false because asylum should be the "first country they encounter". so technically, the only asylum seekers who can "legally" claim asylum at our southern border are mexicans. and ive heard thats a small fraction of who are coming now.

its mostly chinese, south american, carribean, and Levant.... with many of them being on the terror watch list.

Hey look what else was in that law that Trump blocked.

• Prohibits ilegal migrants who could have relocated within their home country from being eligible for asylum in the US.
• Bars criminal aliens from getting through the first asylum screening at the border.
• Bars any alien that re-settled or could have re-settled in another country on the way to the United States.
• Raises the standard for evidence of persecution to the higher Trump Administration’s “reasonable possibility” standard. This alone will dramaticaly reduce the number of people allowed through the asylum screening process.
• Combines three separate screenings to make the process faster at the border: Credible Fear (asylum), Convention Against Torture (CAT), and Withholding of Removal. This will quickly send ilegal migrants who do not qualify for asylum back to their home country, instead of being released into the US for seemingly endless appeals and hearings.
• Each of these changes would reduce dramaticaly the number of people eligible to even apply for asylum, but together they will be a powerful tool for any administration willing to enforce the law.

 

[bgaidan]

Hey look what else was in that law that Trump blocked.

What else was in the bill?

 

[ExWrench]

What else was in the bill?

Don't look at the steaming heap of shit; just look at the half-dozen shiny pennies on top

 

[rockota]

I shared the link to that law in response to a question about what immigration reform could be more effective than investing in a wall in a remote location.

It's better than wasting money on a wall without monitoring because it reduces the incentive to come to the US. Right now, anyone claiming asylum gets a basically free pass for 10ish years, even if they know they're not eligible for asylum. That 10-year timeline MUST be reduced, or all the money in the world will not stop the inflow. That's where we started this derailment.

So if we enforced rules for claiming asylum, the 10 year issue you mention may be lessened because the volume wouldn't exist...

 

[Filthy McChevy]

Hey look what else was in that law that Trump blocked.

Hey look more worthless rhetoric.

 

[Texas97]

look what else was in that law that Trump blocked.

• Prohibits ilegal migrants who could have relocated within their home country from being eligible for asylum in the US.
• Bars criminal aliens from getting through the first asylum screening at the border.
• Bars any alien that re-settled or could have re-settled in another country on the way to the United States.

who determines this? the BP agent who has a group there standing in Mission, Texas? So it needs to go to an asylum court like it does now to determine the validity of the asylum claim?

its nothing but white wash to continue to do the same shit they are doing now.

that bill was garbage



it basically codifies and sanctions 1.825 million illegals entering the country a year.

 

[ApeEater]

So if we enforced rules for claiming asylum, the 10 year issue you mention may be lessened because the volume wouldn't exist...

Yes.

Hey look more worthless rhetoric.

who determines this? the BP agent who has a group there standing in Mission, Texas? So it needs to go to an asylum court like it does now to determine the validity of the asylum claim?

its nothing but white wash to continue to do the same shit they are doing now.

that bill was garbage



it basically codifies and sanctions 1.825 million illegals entering the country a year.

Great, then build that wall!!!

And continue letting them in through the gate, just like today.

 

[ApeEater]

Hey look more worthless rhetoric.

What’s your suggestion, that can get passed into law? Right now you’ve got 300k people showing up at the murder each month. Your best case scenario, Trump is elected and takes office in January and he has a republican house and senate. That’s 2,700,000 encounters since April at the current status quo.

 

[ExWrench]

300k people showing up at the murder each month

That's kind'a harsh, but should be effective - let's go with your idea