Discussion in 'Immigration' started by chris155au, Aug 29, 2019.
I guess I didn't understand your question. That explains that!
For instance, they might deport a naturalized Mexican American to Mexico.
yes, so why blame Obama or any other President, if Trump wants the rules changed, he has to go through Congress, make a deal that is win\win for both dems and repubs
the ones illegals are using to get in per Trump, ask Trump, he will give you a list, prob in his pocket, but he wont let anyone see it
What do you mean "per Trump?"
Who is blaming Obama or any other President?
Is anyone saying that this is not what Trump would have to do to change laws?
So do you actually know whether or not illegal aliens who are NOT claiming asylum are released into the interior of the country?
And why would they do that?
So for people who aren't claiming asylum and are not Mexican, why can't they be removed and "booted" back to their own country? Why do they have to "go through the entire legal process" but Mexicans who aren't claiming asylum do not?
You mean like the authority that they are likely to bump into after they illegally cross the border? And the legal system that they will be place into?
Why the hell would anyone think that this is their ONLY way if they have a legitimate asylum claim? Via traffickers is most certainly the only way that they can get to their destination country if they have no legitimate asylum claim and they don't want to enter legally with a visa.
"Rightly or not?" Aren't you sure about whether or not they would have a better chance of being accepted if they’re in country rather than at the border?
Well children won't be claiming asylum will they? And who are these other "vulnerable people?"
I never claimed the reasons were rational, only that they could be held. The fact remains that automatically assuming that if an immigrant crosses the border away from a port of entry they can’t possibly have a legitimate asylum claim is wrong. The trick is to recognise that these are just normal human beings like you and me, with all the flaws and logical inconsistencies that involves.
Did I say that they "can’t possibly have a legitimate asylum claim?"
You asked “Would you say that anyone who doesn't claim asylum at a port of entry, but instead risks their lives by walking through the remote desert has a genuine asylum claim?”, clearly implying that your answer would be “No”. Why else would you ask the question? My answer is “maybe” but you keep trying to shoot down any of my reasons for answering “maybe”.
Just to see if you think that it is more likely to be genuine than not.
No, I would have to say maybe too, it's just VERY unlikely.
I don't know, I just know that's how they do it.
"Perhaps" referred the person released may be seeking asylum.
Because they're under pressure to deport people. Some of them are stupid.
Well of course they MAY be seeking asylum. I'm asking if you know whether or not illegal aliens who are NOT claiming asylum are released into the interior of the country?
Some of WHO are stupid?
I don't understand why beds are required in order to deport someone. The above also says that "as a result" of the lack of beds, these people will "appear before an immigration judge." This implies that if there WERE enough beds, that they wouldn't appear before an immigration judge. SO UTTERLY confusing!
The answer is "yes."
I think because it takes months to get a hearing before a judge.
It says that "they must be returned to their countries of origin, or third countries that will accept them", but is this only AFTER seeing a judge? As in, is there any way for them to be deported without seeing a judge? I assume that if they aren't claiming asylum and therefore don't need to go before a judge as part of their asylum claim, then they still need to go before a judge because they have broken the law by crossing the border illegally. If this is the case, then surely decriminalising border crossing would be something that could work. It wouldn't be based on compassionate grounds (which is the motivation of the Democrats) but rather for the purpose of INSTANT deportation, which is logically what the Democrats prefer! What does making it a crime actually achieve? Surely all it does is place a burden on the prison system. It's hardly a massive crime, they haven't hurt anyone, so just send them back to where they came from and be done with it! Is there a problem with my solution that I'm not seeing?
Well, I certainly make a distinction between aliens who are pretty settled having been in the country for a while and who are working in jobs. I'm talking about people who have crossed the border and have been caught straight away. Do you know anything about them?
They just picked up 11 Chinese illegal aliens here! Chinese! and we are a very remote part of the US and Mexico.. of course, the coyote ran and has thus far escaped capture. This is definitely a cartel operation (when bringing drugs into the USA gets difficult, they find another criminal enterprise, giving the lie to "if we legalize marijuana, the cartels will go away", because those people are first and foremost criminals
I don't see any evidence Trump is keeping them all in jail.
Well I'm not asking about whether or not they are in jail, I'm asking about whether or not they are immediately deported after being caught crossing the border.
Do you know anything about whether or not aliens are ever immediately sent back to where they came from?
Separate names with a comma.