Texas Governor Sends Kamala Harris "Christmas Present"

[pknopp]

And that is one of many reasons Congress needs a total revamp of our immigration. In fairness to Biden, Trump and other past presidents, their hands are effectively tied when it co es to what tbey can do to address the border situation because it requires an act of Congress to fix. We need these types of workers obviously, and they work hard from all accounts. Most don’t (and shouldn’t qualify for asylum but we have no laws legally allowing them to come and work. Same with those who work in the dairy industry. The only similar law is for seasonal farm workers, which doesn’t apply.

In other words, no one is going to do anything because everyone, despite their cries to the contrary want them here working and consuming.

I'm OK with that BUT I believe they should be doing it legally.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Sure you are.

Until your media shows you dramatic video with the headline "Police Arrest Grandmother for Selling Tamales to Buy Formula for her Grandchild."

Nor is punishing employers hard enough that they actually stop hiring illegals. Large corporations comply with the law by not directly hiring them. Instead, they contract out work such as maintenance and janitorial services to smaller companies that will simply shut down if caught with their illegal alien work force, and be back the next week under a new name. Farmers will always be allowed to hire illegals because they cannot pay what it would take to get Americans to do stoop labor.

And yes. Wealthy people of all political stripes love having their off-the-books maids, gardners and pool boys, so the influential who live in gated communities with private security don't want anything to change, just because children are b eing trafficked and Americans are being killed by bad drugs smuggled in.

So let's talk about what we can do.

First of all eliminate that loophole in the asylum laws that allow illegals to first violate our immigration laws, and then take advantage of them. Any legitimate person with a real fear of returning to their home country would report to a lawful entry port. Why would they not?

Deal with illegals as lawbreakers and then send them back. If they want to try again, fine. Go to a port of entry. But now they have a record of being lawbreakers that will be taken into account when they apply for asylum. Actions have consequences.

Also construction and manufacturing, and retail food service.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, I already agreed to that. Once they are here illegally, they are allowed to apply for asylum. I disagree with that law, but unlike others, I don't pretend that laws I disagree with don't exist.

The fact that we stupidly allow illegal border crossers to apply for asylum doesn't magically transform their prior illegal crossing of the border into a lawful act. If they crossed illegally, it wasn't for asylum, they just ask for it as a way to avoid punishment.

Only the courts can determine that. One can not make such a blanket statement.

But, they are still guilty of a crime, for which they can be punished. Not prosecuting them is just more progressive selective enforcement, like not arresting shoplifters, and releasing murderers with no bail.

Illegally crossing into the U.S. is a misdemeanor. Generally that comes with a small fine.

Let the punishment be that they wait in jail for their asylum process to happen. Expedite the process if you feel sorry for them being in jail, but that means that honest asylum seekers who reported to a port of entry go to the back of the line. But they did not commit a crime, so they are free in the United States and the longer wait won't harm them as much as an incarcerated person.

If the illegal crosser is turned down, let them off for time served and deport them.

One can not hold a person for an extended period of time over a misdemeanor.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, I already agreed to that. Once they are here illegally, they are allowed to apply for asylum. I disagree with that law, but unlike others, I don't pretend that laws I disagree with don't exist.

The fact that we stupidly allow illegal border crossers to apply for asylum doesn't magically transform their prior illegal crossing of the border into a lawful act. If they crossed illegally, it wasn't for asylum, they just ask for it as a way to avoid punishment.

Most appear to be crossing and then turning themselves in to the nearest authority. Regardless of whether or not we think they “deserve” asylum, they have a right to have their claim heard by the appropriate authorities after which, they can then be granted asylum or deported for illegal entry.

But, they are still guilty of a crime, for which they can be punished. Not prosecuting them is just more progressive selective enforcement, like not arresting shoplifters, and releasing murderers with no bail.

I disagree. If they are granted asylum, they aren’t guilty of a crime. If their claim is denied and the appeals process doesn’t change it, then they are to be deported. If they remain in the US at that point, they would be guilty of a crime.

Let the punishment be that they wait in jail for their asylum process to happen.

They have committed no crime at that point, jail is not the appropriate place. In addition, since the immigration is horribly understaffed, the process takes an incredibly long time (this too needs to be fixed).

Expedite the process if you feel sorry for them being in jail, but that means that honest asylum seekers who reported to a port of entry go to the back of the line. But they did not commit a crime, so they are free in the United States and the longer wait won't harm them as much as an incarcerated person.

Until their claim is adjudicated all are honest asylum seekers per the law.

Expedite it? Sure, but that means you need to hire more judges and not overwork the few you have.

If the illegal crosser is turned down, let them off for time served and deport them.

 

[Coyote]

In other words, no one is going to do anything because everyone, despite their cries to the contrary want them here working and consuming.

I'm OK with that BUT I believe they should be doing it legally.

Agree, but until Congress get’s off their partisan butts, it is all bandaids.

 

[Coyote]

.

It doesn't matter if you disagree or not ...
I am not talking about your feelings or opinions ... Simply stating what is written in the law ...

.​

It isn’t about my feelings, it’s about what created the law.

 

[BlackSand]

It isn’t about my feelings, it’s about what created the law.

.

You are not providing anything other than vapid responses.
The Law is not asking you what you think ... It defines what is required and by what standards.

If you are actually interested in better understanding the law ... Instead of attempting to argue nonsense ...
Then I would suggest you further investigate the actual definitions and requirements you are attempting to play with ...
By following my guidance in directing you to the Glossary in 8 USC 1101.

It's not that I don't understand your desires ... It is simply the fact that your desires have no say-so in the matter.

.​

 

[pknopp]

Who best exemplifies Christianity here? Those who would drop people off on the side of the road in freezing weather or those who quickly come into action to help them?

Claudia Tristán, a volunteer with the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network, spent the wee hours of Sunday helping feed 140 migrants who were left by the roadside on Christmas Eve outside Vice President Kamala Harris' official residence, the Naval Observatory.

Volunteers spring into action after migrants left outside Vice President Harris' home

 

[BlackSand]

Who best exemplifies Christianity here? Those who would drop people off on the side of the road in freezing weather or those who quickly come into action to help them?

Claudia Tristán, a volunteer with the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network, spent the wee hours of Sunday helping feed 140 migrants who were left by the roadside on Christmas Eve outside Vice President Kamala Harris' official residence, the Naval Observatory.

Volunteers spring into action after migrants left outside Vice President Harris' home

.

If you want my opinion on the matter ... Self-proclaimed Christians are a lot like self-proclaimed Libertarians ...
You are going to have to give them about month to argue about who is actually who ...

.​

 

[Coyote]

.

Now ... Feel free to inform everyone as to the extent that actually makes anyone legitimately eligible in regard to actually gaining Asylum.​

I haven’t claimed it does so why do you ask this? Very few in fact get asylum. The requirements are stringent. Legitimacy is determined through the process.

It doesn't ... It only allows someone to claim Asylum.​

It doesn’t what?

We are also not required to house anyone that desires to claim Asylum on our soil nor in our territorial waters.

.​

It isn’t that straight forward.

https://justiceforimmigrants.org/what-we-are-working-on/asylum/frequently-asked-questions-remain-in-mexico-policy/

• Under what authority is the U.S. government claiming it has the power to execute the Remain in Mexico policy?

DHS claims authority through Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),[3] which addresses the inspection of individuals seeking to be admitted to the U.S., including those not clearly entitled to admission such as asylum seekers. Specifically, Section 235(b)(2)(C) provides that the U.S. can return an individual arriving (whether at or between an official POE) to a contiguous country through the duration of his or her pending removal proceeding under Section 240 of INA.[4]

• Does the U.S. government have the authority to implement the Remain in Mexico policy under Section 235 of the INA?

It is unlikely, no. While the DHS memorandum cites authority under Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA, returning refugees to Mexico under this policy would directly contradict Congress’s specific instruction that asylum seekers remain in the United States while their cases are pending. Section 235(b)(1) of the INA establishes specific procedures that require the U.S. government to provide asylum seekers a credible fear interview and that those who pass that credible fear review should be held in U.S. detention or released on parole during their applications.


For example:

Obtaining Asylum in the United States | USCIS

ALERT: Court Order on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule On Aug

www.uscis.gov

Affirmative Asylum Processing with USCIS​

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status…

….You may live in the United States while your Form I-589 is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your Form I-589 is pending with the immigration judge. Asylum applicants are not authorized to work unless you meet certain requirements. For more information, please see Permission to Work in the United States. Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).



Currently, the Remain in Mexico policy, which houses asylum seekers outside the US is being legally challenged and until that works its way through the courts it remains to be seen whether or not we can house them elsewhere.

 

[pknopp]

.

If you want my opinion on the matter ... Self-proclaimed Christians are a lot like self-proclaimed Libertarians ...
You are going to have to give them about month to argue about who is actually who ...

.​

I ask who was showing the actions as described in the Bible, not who is or who is not a Christian.

 

[Coyote]

.

You are not providing anything other than vapid responses.
The Law is not asking you what you think ... It defines what is required and by what standards.

If you are actually interested in better understanding the law ... Instead of attempting to argue nonsense ...
Then I would suggest you further investigate the actual definitions and requirements you are attempting to play with ...
By following my guidance in directing you to the Glossary in 8 USC 1101.

It's not that I don't understand your desires ... It is simply the fact that your desires have no say-so in the matter.

.​

We are talking at cross purposes here with neither understanding the point the other is making.

 

[BlackSand]

It doesn’t what?

.

It does exactly what it says it does ... Grants the ability to claim asylum.
Nothing you posted referred to what is actually required to be granted Asylum.

You are correct that the requirements are stringent ... And rarely met.
That's because a Foreign National born in a shitty and dangerous country with the desire to leave and come to the Untied States ...
Doesn't actually make them eligible for Asylum.

Furthermore ... Asylum Seekers are more protected in status than Refugees.
Blanket attempts to suggest they are the same, should be considered the same by default, or that the same allowances apply to all ...
Is simply an attempt to circumvent what is actually written in the law.

.​

 

[BlackSand]

We are talking at cross purposes here with neither understanding the point the other is making.

.

Do not attempt to speak or think for me ... You are neither capable nor qualified.
I thoroughly understand what you want to suggest ... And don't care how you want to bastardize the discussion.

.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you imagine what would have happened to Mary and Joseph if Republicans were around back then?

They wouldn't have been forced to travel to Bethlehem for a census.
They would have stayed home to have their baby.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Did you read your own citation?

You're confused.

He was killed on the Pacific Coast Highway, and I assure you, he was not the only one killed on that highway.

 

[dudmuck]

Who best exemplifies Christianity here? Those who would drop people off on the side of the road in freezing weather or those who quickly come into action to help them?

Claudia Tristán, a volunteer with the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network, spent the wee hours of Sunday helping feed 140 migrants who were left by the roadside on Christmas Eve outside Vice President Kamala Harris' official residence, the Naval Observatory.

Volunteers spring into action after migrants left outside Vice President Harris' home

 

[pknopp]

I'm pro-life and I have never supported a single thing Harris has done so that is not a valid rebuttal to what I said.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

An "inhumane monster" is someone who sends a busload of migrants to a blue sanctuary city?

You people are pathetic.

 

[The5thHorseman]

You're confused.

He was killed on the Pacific Coast Highway, and I assure you, he was not the only one killed on that highway.

My point, exactly.