Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not that I think you will listen or this will change your mind but you need to know that this is not playing well for the dems in the south or the heartland or the rust belt and the southern border states...that's pretty much everywhere but CA and NY.....keep cheering on the illegal Caravan members and watch Trump win in a landslide in 2020....yes it is....by order of the president of mexico and president Trump two weeks ago....Mexico said they would provide them with a safe harbor and offer asylum....so why do you want them to get in?....Did you even bother to read your own link? Yes, if the country is designated ALREADY as a "safe third country", they would have to seek asylum there. But, currently, Mexico isn't designated as a safe third country YET.
Actually, no, Mexico isn't designated as a safe third country yet, and the incoming Mexican administration said they won't be either. They will allow a short term solution, but Mexico isn't going to be designated as a safe third country. And this article was written last week.
Incoming Mexico gov’t: No deal to host US asylum-seekers - The Washington Post
MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s incoming government denied a report Saturday that it plans to allow asylum-seekers to wait in the country while their claims move through U.S. immigration courts, one of several options the Trump administration has been pursuing in negotiations for months.
The deal was seen as a way to dissuade thousands of Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S., a process that can take years. In effect, Mexican border towns are already acting as waiting rooms for migrants hoping to start new lives in the U.S. due to bottlenecks at the border.
“There is no agreement of any sort between the incoming Mexican government and the U.S. government,” future Interior Minister Olga Sanchez said in a statement.
Hours earlier, The Washington Post quoted her as saying that the incoming administration of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had agreed to allow migrants to stay in Mexico as a “short-term solution” while the U.S. considered their applications for asylum. Lopez Obrador will take office on Dec. 1.
The statement shared with The Associated Press said the future government’s principal concern related to the migrants is their well-being while in Mexico.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has won support from the Mexican president-elect’s team for a plan dubbed “Remain in Mexico.”
The newspaper also quoted Sanchez as saying: “For now, we have agreed to this policy of Remain in Mexico.”
Sanchez did not explain in the statement why The Washington Post had quoted her as saying there had been agreement.
your hatred for Trump is stronger than your love for your country....
Actually, it's because I love my country (served over 20 years in the military), and don't want to see Trump fuck it up. THAT is the reason I call Trump on his bullshit.
So now you can see that Mexico ISN'T a safe third country, and no long term agreement has been worked out. So, because Mexico isn't a safe third country yet, the immigrants are legally allowed to seek asylum in the US.
Trump told you that N. Korea denuclearized, but they haven't.
Now, Trump is telling you that Mexico is a safe third country, but currently, it isn't, and according to the president of Mexico, they won't become one either.
Dude...its been all over the news...it was when Mexico agreed and its fact....like I said look it up...but you still won't answer...why do you want them here?....Actually, no, Mexico isn't designated as a safe third country yet, and the incoming Mexican administration said they won't be either.
Mexico hasn't agreed to anything other than a short term solution. In post 349, I have the link. While Mexico has agreed to a short term solution, their incoming president has said that they will not be designated as a safe third country. They said they will help them for a little while with food and shelter, but nothing permanent as of yet.
It's kinda like when Trump went to N. Korea and signed a piece of paper that equated to nothing, and then came back and said we could all sleep good because N. Korea has been "denuclearized". No, still hasn't happened, and Un is looking at starting up his missile program again.
Sorry dude, but an agreement to a short term solution isn't the same thing as being designated as a safe third country.
WHY DO YOU WANT THEM TO GET IN?......
Cause some of us have Christian Beliefs that say we should look after the vulnerable.
I have. The authority of immigration is granted to the Executive Branch. I do not care that most of the left follows administrative law over Constitutional law.Yep, they can get in line and we'll open a single door at a port of entry. Outside that door will be a stack of asylum applications. Inside, an ICE agent backed by a platoon of the First Cavalry, fully armed. Give the ICE agent a single rubber stamp and an ink pad. The stamp should read, "Rejected".Don’t believe the righty propaganda about “applying the right way”. You actually have to be in the US to claim asylum. So if someone walks up to the border and claims asylum they aren’t illegal .
Obtaining Asylum in the United States
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
So they give us their applications outside the US. If the application is approved, then they can come in and claim asylum. What's the problem?
The problem is like most Democrats, you want them sneaking in this country like they did under Ears and disappear after they make their claim never to be seen again.
The first question on the form should be, "have you been offered asylum from any other country?
The second should read, "Have you in the past 24 hours, fled for your life from your home country?
The legalese should read, "Under penalty of perjury, punishable by 25 years in US Federal Prison, I certify that these statements are true.
The form should be written in English only.
Then let them line up for an application. Should take about two years or so.
Really should read the Constitution, there is a bit in there about due process...
So they give us their applications outside the US. If the application is approved, then they can come in and claim asylum. What's the problem?
The problem is like most Democrats, you want them sneaking in this country like they did under Ears and disappear after they make their claim never to be seen again.
Think about it . If that was the process the INS would be bombarded with millions of apps every year .
God do any of you ever put a thought into anything you say?
And that's exactly what happened under Hussein. Ever hear of Catch and Release?
Right . Cause our immigration courts are swamped. Better to spend wall money on more courts and agents .
By the way , catch and release is way cheaper than jailing everyone .
If we had a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year federal prison sentence, nobody would come here illegally.
Asylum Seekers are not in the US illegally... Have you got that?
So Mexico went back on their word of asylum. That is NOT our problem.Dude...its been all over the news...it was when Mexico agreed and its fact....like I said look it up...but you still won't answer...why do you want them here?....Actually, no, Mexico isn't designated as a safe third country yet, and the incoming Mexican administration said they won't be either.
Mexico hasn't agreed to anything other than a short term solution. In post 349, I have the link. While Mexico has agreed to a short term solution, their incoming president has said that they will not be designated as a safe third country. They said they will help them for a little while with food and shelter, but nothing permanent as of yet.
It's kinda like when Trump went to N. Korea and signed a piece of paper that equated to nothing, and then came back and said we could all sleep good because N. Korea has been "denuclearized". No, still hasn't happened, and Un is looking at starting up his missile program again.
Sorry dude, but an agreement to a short term solution isn't the same thing as being designated as a safe third country.
Trump isn't fucking it up. The left is.yes it is....by order of the president of mexico and president Trump two weeks ago....Mexico said they would provide them with a safe harbor and offer asylum....so why do you want them to get in?....Did you even bother to read your own link? Yes, if the country is designated ALREADY as a "safe third country", they would have to seek asylum there. But, currently, Mexico isn't designated as a safe third country YET.
Actually, no, Mexico isn't designated as a safe third country yet, and the incoming Mexican administration said they won't be either. They will allow a short term solution, but Mexico isn't going to be designated as a safe third country. And this article was written last week.
Incoming Mexico gov’t: No deal to host US asylum-seekers - The Washington Post
MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s incoming government denied a report Saturday that it plans to allow asylum-seekers to wait in the country while their claims move through U.S. immigration courts, one of several options the Trump administration has been pursuing in negotiations for months.
The deal was seen as a way to dissuade thousands of Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S., a process that can take years. In effect, Mexican border towns are already acting as waiting rooms for migrants hoping to start new lives in the U.S. due to bottlenecks at the border.
“There is no agreement of any sort between the incoming Mexican government and the U.S. government,” future Interior Minister Olga Sanchez said in a statement.
Hours earlier, The Washington Post quoted her as saying that the incoming administration of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had agreed to allow migrants to stay in Mexico as a “short-term solution” while the U.S. considered their applications for asylum. Lopez Obrador will take office on Dec. 1.
The statement shared with The Associated Press said the future government’s principal concern related to the migrants is their well-being while in Mexico.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has won support from the Mexican president-elect’s team for a plan dubbed “Remain in Mexico.”
The newspaper also quoted Sanchez as saying: “For now, we have agreed to this policy of Remain in Mexico.”
Sanchez did not explain in the statement why The Washington Post had quoted her as saying there had been agreement.
your hatred for Trump is stronger than your love for your country....
Actually, it's because I love my country (served over 20 years in the military), and don't want to see Trump fuck it up. THAT is the reason I call Trump on his bullshit.
So now you can see that Mexico ISN'T a safe third country, and no long term agreement has been worked out. So, because Mexico isn't a safe third country yet, the immigrants are legally allowed to seek asylum in the US.
Trump told you that N. Korea denuclearized, but they haven't.
Now, Trump is telling you that Mexico is a safe third country, but currently, it isn't, and according to the president of Mexico, they won't become one either.
There is no logical reason for them to feel unsafe in Mexico...they could have gone south....why do you want them to get in?....Not if you don't feel safe in Mexico...
They could have gone south? Umm...............might wanna check out a map sometime. The countries they were fleeing are SOUTH of Mexico. Why would they go back? And, who are you to determine how they do or don't feel? Are you qualified to hear cases and decide who stays and who doesn't?
Dude...its been all over the news...it was when Mexico agreed and its fact....like I said look it up...but you still won't answer...why do you want them here?....Actually, no, Mexico isn't designated as a safe third country yet, and the incoming Mexican administration said they won't be either.
Mexico hasn't agreed to anything other than a short term solution. In post 349, I have the link. While Mexico has agreed to a short term solution, their incoming president has said that they will not be designated as a safe third country. They said they will help them for a little while with food and shelter, but nothing permanent as of yet.
It's kinda like when Trump went to N. Korea and signed a piece of paper that equated to nothing, and then came back and said we could all sleep good because N. Korea has been "denuclearized". No, still hasn't happened, and Un is looking at starting up his missile program again.
Sorry dude, but an agreement to a short term solution isn't the same thing as being designated as a safe third country.
Korea has missiles and hasn't shot off one since Trump met with Un. And no, Trump never once said they denuclearized. What he said is that they had one of many meetings towards denuclearization, and yes, it's going to take time.
Denuclearization is not like taking down a pup tent in your backyard.
My reply was to a previous post. How the migrants got to the border is irrelevant as far as asylum laws are concerned but is relevant in regard to their determination to present their petition for asylum. Nobody spends two months walking 1700 miles without good reason. They are well aware that they are not likely to be accepted but it's likely their best option.Telling 4,000 people that walked 2,000 miles to get to the border that they have go back home and get more identification should be good for another riot at the border which would certainly please Trump immensely.all congress has to do this next month is pass a one line bill written like the president's EO..
New executive order making immigrants ineligible for asylum if they arrive in the U.S. without papers. It's really quite simple and they can do while they have the House.
BTW, Mexico requires ids at both their southern and northern border.
Sorry, but I fail to see how their hike - which we didn't ask them to make and, in fact, have repeatedly told them NOT to make - engenders any sort of obligation on our part. Is there some heretofore secret section of the Immigration and Naturalization Code that says, "But if you make pointless effort and then have a riot, you get to bypass the normal requirements"?
BTW, no one gives a shit what Mexico does and doesn't require for their borders. Last time I checked, Mexico isn't part of the US government, and has no authority in regards to our immigration laws.
Actually, a lot of people do care what Mexico does on their southern border. They are demanding that Mexico tighten security and in effect stop the caravans which is ridiculous. Mexico has relativity open borders and they're under no obligation to change their policy just because of US immigration laws.
Mexico allows them to use their country as a boardwalk to the United States. Of course they bear some responsibility. If we had people running guns to the drug lords in Mexico and our government welcomed it with open arms, wouldn't you think Mexico would have a legitimate complaint against us?
Allies and trading partners should look out for each other. We look out for Mexico by sending over 320 million taxpayer dollars a year, the least they can do for that money is try to keep these people away from our border.
Have been complaining for years...
Trump echoes Mexican president, says lax US gun laws help arm drug cartels
Even Trump agrees with them until some told him who the gun lobby are...
Don’t believe the righty propaganda about “applying the right way”. You actually have to be in the US to claim asylum. So if someone walks up to the border and claims asylum they aren’t illegal .
Obtaining Asylum in the United States
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
So they give us their applications outside the US. If the application is approved, then they can come in and claim asylum. What's the problem?
The problem is like most Democrats, you want them sneaking in this country like they did under Ears and disappear after they make their claim never to be seen again.
Have you even read the OP... The point is you can't apply for Asylum from outside the country...
Mexico, the first country they entered offered asylum.
There is where they should stay.
These people are not escaping persecution. They will not get economic asylum in the U.S.
Get over it.
We are not responsible for the failed corrupt regimes to our south and their failure to take care of their own citizens.
The U.S. has every right like any sovereign country to determine how many and who emigrates.
Not if you don't feel safe in Mexico... You are running from danger... The same gangs (which come from US) are operating in Mexico as in Honduras..
Even so US has to let them in so they can make that case. Asylum Seekers have the right to due process as well...
My reply was to a previous post. How the migrants got to the border is irrelevant as far as asylum laws are concerned but is relevant in regard to their determination to present their petition for asylum. Nobody spends two months walking 1700 miles without good reason. They are well aware that they are not likely to be accepted but it's likely their best option.Telling 4,000 people that walked 2,000 miles to get to the border that they have go back home and get more identification should be good for another riot at the border which would certainly please Trump immensely.all congress has to do this next month is pass a one line bill written like the president's EO..I'm sorry, but I just don't see the political advantage one way or the other. Yes, laws need to be changed, but good luck finding the people to do it. Piglosi and her clan certainly won't, and they plan on spending most of their time trying to remove Trump from office than anything else that needs to be addressed by Congress.
New executive order making immigrants ineligible for asylum if they arrive in the U.S. without papers. It's really quite simple and they can do while they have the House.
BTW, Mexico requires ids at both their southern and northern border.
Sorry, but I fail to see how their hike - which we didn't ask them to make and, in fact, have repeatedly told them NOT to make - engenders any sort of obligation on our part. Is there some heretofore secret section of the Immigration and Naturalization Code that says, "But if you make pointless effort and then have a riot, you get to bypass the normal requirements"?
BTW, no one gives a shit what Mexico does and doesn't require for their borders. Last time I checked, Mexico isn't part of the US government, and has no authority in regards to our immigration laws.
Actually, a lot of people do care what Mexico does on their southern border. They are demanding that Mexico tighten security and in effect stop the caravans which is ridiculous. Mexico has relativity open borders and they're under no obligation to change their policy just because of US immigration laws.
Mexico allows them to use their country as a boardwalk to the United States. Of course they bear some responsibility. If we had people running guns to the drug lords in Mexico and our government welcomed it with open arms, wouldn't you think Mexico would have a legitimate complaint against us?
Allies and trading partners should look out for each other. We look out for Mexico by sending over 320 million taxpayer dollars a year, the least they can do for that money is try to keep these people away from our border.
Dude...its been all over the news...it was when Mexico agreed and its fact....like I said look it up...but you still won't answer...why do you want them here?....Actually, no, Mexico isn't designated as a safe third country yet, and the incoming Mexican administration said they won't be either.
Mexico hasn't agreed to anything other than a short term solution. In post 349, I have the link. While Mexico has agreed to a short term solution, their incoming president has said that they will not be designated as a safe third country. They said they will help them for a little while with food and shelter, but nothing permanent as of yet.
It's kinda like when Trump went to N. Korea and signed a piece of paper that equated to nothing, and then came back and said we could all sleep good because N. Korea has been "denuclearized". No, still hasn't happened, and Un is looking at starting up his missile program again.
Sorry dude, but an agreement to a short term solution isn't the same thing as being designated as a safe third country.
Korea has missiles and hasn't shot off one since Trump met with Un. And no, Trump never once said they denuclearized. What he said is that they had one of many meetings towards denuclearization, and yes, it's going to take time.
Denuclearization is not like taking down a pup tent in your backyard.
They didn’t start shooting until he became prez. Un was fucking wh Don.
Why do you want them to get in?....My reply was to a previous post. How the migrants got to the border is irrelevant as far as asylum laws are concerned but is relevant in regard to their determination to present their petition for asylum. Nobody spends two months walking 1700 miles without good reason. They are well aware that they are not likely to be accepted but it's likely their best option.Telling 4,000 people that walked 2,000 miles to get to the border that they have go back home and get more identification should be good for another riot at the border which would certainly please Trump immensely.all congress has to do this next month is pass a one line bill written like the president's EO..
New executive order making immigrants ineligible for asylum if they arrive in the U.S. without papers. It's really quite simple and they can do while they have the House.
BTW, Mexico requires ids at both their southern and northern border.
Sorry, but I fail to see how their hike - which we didn't ask them to make and, in fact, have repeatedly told them NOT to make - engenders any sort of obligation on our part. Is there some heretofore secret section of the Immigration and Naturalization Code that says, "But if you make pointless effort and then have a riot, you get to bypass the normal requirements"?
BTW, no one gives a shit what Mexico does and doesn't require for their borders. Last time I checked, Mexico isn't part of the US government, and has no authority in regards to our immigration laws.
Actually, a lot of people do care what Mexico does on their southern border. They are demanding that Mexico tighten security and in effect stop the caravans which is ridiculous. Mexico has relativity open borders and they're under no obligation to change their policy just because of US immigration laws.
Mexico allows them to use their country as a boardwalk to the United States. Of course they bear some responsibility. If we had people running guns to the drug lords in Mexico and our government welcomed it with open arms, wouldn't you think Mexico would have a legitimate complaint against us?
Allies and trading partners should look out for each other. We look out for Mexico by sending over 320 million taxpayer dollars a year, the least they can do for that money is try to keep these people away from our border.
Why does Mexico bear any responsibility for letting the caravans come to the US? It is our asylum laws that attract them, not theirs. For the most part, the people in the caravans are not violating any Mexican law by crossing their border.
Furthermore, Mexico benefits from having relatively open borders. It increases commerce and the mobility of it's people. For Mexico to do what the US wants, they would have to change their laws and dedicate a lot of money to border control, something the Mexican people don't support. And they should do this because they should lookout for US who branded them as rapists, murders, and animal. I don't think so.
My reply was to a previous post. How the migrants got to the border is irrelevant as far as asylum laws are concerned but is relevant in regard to their determination to present their petition for asylum. Nobody spends two months walking 1700 miles without good reason. They are well aware that they are not likely to be accepted but it's likely their best option.Telling 4,000 people that walked 2,000 miles to get to the border that they have go back home and get more identification should be good for another riot at the border which would certainly please Trump immensely.all congress has to do this next month is pass a one line bill written like the president's EO..
New executive order making immigrants ineligible for asylum if they arrive in the U.S. without papers. It's really quite simple and they can do while they have the House.
BTW, Mexico requires ids at both their southern and northern border.
Sorry, but I fail to see how their hike - which we didn't ask them to make and, in fact, have repeatedly told them NOT to make - engenders any sort of obligation on our part. Is there some heretofore secret section of the Immigration and Naturalization Code that says, "But if you make pointless effort and then have a riot, you get to bypass the normal requirements"?
BTW, no one gives a shit what Mexico does and doesn't require for their borders. Last time I checked, Mexico isn't part of the US government, and has no authority in regards to our immigration laws.
Actually, a lot of people do care what Mexico does on their southern border. They are demanding that Mexico tighten security and in effect stop the caravans which is ridiculous. Mexico has relativity open borders and they're under no obligation to change their policy just because of US immigration laws.
Mexico allows them to use their country as a boardwalk to the United States. Of course they bear some responsibility. If we had people running guns to the drug lords in Mexico and our government welcomed it with open arms, wouldn't you think Mexico would have a legitimate complaint against us?
Allies and trading partners should look out for each other. We look out for Mexico by sending over 320 million taxpayer dollars a year, the least they can do for that money is try to keep these people away from our border.
Why does Mexico bear any responsibility for letting the caravans come to the US? It is our asylum laws that attract them, not theirs. For the most part, the people in the caravans are not violating any Mexican law by crossing their border.
Furthermore, Mexico benefits from having relatively open borders. It increases commerce and the mobility of it's people. For Mexico to do what the US wants, they would have to change their laws and dedicate a lot of money to border control, something the Mexican people don't support. And they should do this because they should lookout for US who branded them as rapists, murders, and animal. I don't think so.
What's the big deal about just getting a work visa and then applying for citizenship?
We have normal ways to immigrate.
Trump's new plan is to have asylum seekers wait in Mexico if they can not establish creditable fear of doing so. A Mexican official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that current Mexican immigration law does not allow those seeking asylum in another country to stay in Mexico.Very few immigrants win their asylum claims and are denied entry into the nation...but we used to let them in to wait for a hearing they never show up for....Trump has ended that nonsense...now they must wait outside of the US...
