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.
JHC. Can you even read?apply at port of entry.
A port of entry is IN the US...and by law you must be granted a hearing
so you must be a dumbshitThen change the friggin law and uit bichinall the more reason to keep them out --DUH
if they have a right to asylum, then half the world also does
Immigration Law: The Rules and Procedure for Asylum SeekersThose seeking asylum must prove that that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[9] The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly provides these five bases for granting asylum,[10] having been heavily influenced by the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.
you have to be a dumbshit to want your tax $$$$ wasted on this shit
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.
JHC. Can you even read?apply at port of entry.
A port of entry is IN the US...and by law you must be granted a hearing
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.JHC. Can you even read?apply at port of entry.
A port of entry is IN the US...and by law you must be granted a hearing
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.JHC. Can you even read?apply at port of entry.
A port of entry is IN the US...and by law you must be granted a hearing
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.JHC. Can you even read?apply at port of entry.
A port of entry is IN the US...and by law you must be granted a hearing
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.JHC. Can you even read?A port of entry is IN the US...and by law you must be granted a hearing
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
No, what prompted the rush is how Democrats have treated invaders in the past. They were expecting the same curtesy which is to just walk on in, apply for asylum, and eventually allowed in the US for several years.
Trump said no more, and he means it.
While a port of entry may be on the soil. You may be barred from leaving that port of entry. There have been several cases throughout the world the most famous being The Terminal Man...When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.JHC. Can you even read?apply at port of entry.
A port of entry is IN the US...and by law you must be granted a hearing
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
While a port of entry may be on the soil. You may be barred from leaving that port of entry. There have been several cases throughout the world the most famous being The Terminal Man...When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.JHC. Can you even read?A port of entry is IN the US...and by law you must be granted a hearing
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
Mehran Karimi Nasseri - Wikipedia
Please educate yourself before spouting nonsense.
Why do we need more people who can’t read or write in their native language, let alone English?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.
When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.JHC. Can you even read?
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
No, what prompted the rush is how Democrats have treated invaders in the past. They were expecting the same curtesy which is to just walk on in, apply for asylum, and eventually allowed in the US for several years.
Trump said no more, and he means it.
Walking in and applying for asylum is the process, dope. The legal process.
Well, you should write him a very stern letter and argue that very point.While a port of entry may be on the soil. You may be barred from leaving that port of entry. There have been several cases throughout the world the most famous being The Terminal Man...When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.JHC. Can you even read?
"You may ask for ask for asylum at a point of-entry(airport, seaport or border crossing) or, if you are already in the United States you may file form I-589."
Exact quote from the OP's link you both failed to comprehend .
A port of entry is just that.
You are not officially in country until cleared by customs and immigration .
A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
Mehran Karimi Nasseri - Wikipedia
Please educate yourself before spouting nonsense.
I never said they should leave, dope.
Applying for asylum at a port of entry is the proper and legal way of doing so.
Closing the port of entry is not proper at all or any kind of solution.
Trump has had a majority in congress for two years. The proper thing to have done was to work with congress to change or modify the laws. He did not.
When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
No, what prompted the rush is how Democrats have treated invaders in the past. They were expecting the same curtesy which is to just walk on in, apply for asylum, and eventually allowed in the US for several years.
Trump said no more, and he means it.
Walking in and applying for asylum is the process, dope. The legal process.
You're not worried about any process, you're a puppet who carries the water for your party that wants as many illegals in this country they can stuff in.
So let's say that they apply for asylum on our soil, and then sent back over the line to Mexico to wait for their hearing. You would be okay with that?
Well, you should write him a very stern letter and argue that very point.While a port of entry may be on the soil. You may be barred from leaving that port of entry. There have been several cases throughout the world the most famous being The Terminal Man...When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.A port of entry is on American soil, fool.
So what do you call closing the port of entry when applicants arrive? Is that proper in your view?
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
Mehran Karimi Nasseri - Wikipedia
Please educate yourself before spouting nonsense.
I never said they should leave, dope.
Applying for asylum at a port of entry is the proper and legal way of doing so.
Closing the port of entry is not proper at all or any kind of solution.
Trump has had a majority in congress for two years. The proper thing to have done was to work with congress to change or modify the laws. He did not.
Dope.
When overwhelmed by an attempted illegal rush. Absolutely.
Apparently the OR in the quote confuses you. Makes a definite designation that you are not in the United States yet.
Also as andylusion correctly pointed out. There is always the Embassy.
They were already offered amnesty by Mexico. They should take it.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
No, what prompted the rush is how Democrats have treated invaders in the past. They were expecting the same curtesy which is to just walk on in, apply for asylum, and eventually allowed in the US for several years.
Trump said no more, and he means it.
Walking in and applying for asylum is the process, dope. The legal process.
You're not worried about any process, you're a puppet who carries the water for your party that wants as many illegals in this country they can stuff in.
So let's say that they apply for asylum on our soil, and then sent back over the line to Mexico to wait for their hearing. You would be okay with that?
There's already a legal process in place, dope.
If Trump doesn't like it, he should have used his congressional majority to change it. He did not.
What country does the port of entry occupy?
There is no such thing as an " attempted illegal rush". The border crossing was closed when they arrived. That is what prompted the rush.
No, what prompted the rush is how Democrats have treated invaders in the past. They were expecting the same curtesy which is to just walk on in, apply for asylum, and eventually allowed in the US for several years.
Trump said no more, and he means it.
Walking in and applying for asylum is the process, dope. The legal process.
You're not worried about any process, you're a puppet who carries the water for your party that wants as many illegals in this country they can stuff in.
So let's say that they apply for asylum on our soil, and then sent back over the line to Mexico to wait for their hearing. You would be okay with that?
There's already a legal process in place, dope.
If Trump doesn't like it, he should have used his congressional majority to change it. He did not.
I see you avoided answering the question, instead, just giving more blah blah.
No, what prompted the rush is how Democrats have treated invaders in the past. They were expecting the same curtesy which is to just walk on in, apply for asylum, and eventually allowed in the US for several years.
Trump said no more, and he means it.
Walking in and applying for asylum is the process, dope. The legal process.
You're not worried about any process, you're a puppet who carries the water for your party that wants as many illegals in this country they can stuff in.
So let's say that they apply for asylum on our soil, and then sent back over the line to Mexico to wait for their hearing. You would be okay with that?
There's already a legal process in place, dope.
If Trump doesn't like it, he should have used his congressional majority to change it. He did not.
I see you avoided answering the question, instead, just giving more blah blah.
I answered the question, dope.
I told you there is an existing legal process.
An orderly process that has been in place for years. Trump created this shitshow to get dopes like yourself riled up.
It has obviously worked.
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.
Walking in and applying for asylum is the process, dope. The legal process.
You're not worried about any process, you're a puppet who carries the water for your party that wants as many illegals in this country they can stuff in.
So let's say that they apply for asylum on our soil, and then sent back over the line to Mexico to wait for their hearing. You would be okay with that?
There's already a legal process in place, dope.
If Trump doesn't like it, he should have used his congressional majority to change it. He did not.
I see you avoided answering the question, instead, just giving more blah blah.
I answered the question, dope.
I told you there is an existing legal process.
An orderly process that has been in place for years. Trump created this shitshow to get dopes like yourself riled up.
It has obviously worked.
Okay, so we can both conclude the reason you won't answer the question is because you don't care about any laws or process. All you care about is getting these filthy varmints in the country anyway you can legal or illegal. You want to use loopholes in the wording so these people can take advantage of us and work against US interest.
Thanks for playing.
