Colombia

[Green_Mountain]

No.

Illegal = illegal.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Did they sneak in or overstay? Do you know?

Did they show up and get a CBP one appointment? Do you know? I don't know that you do.

If you do know, can you show it? There's a potential parallel I won't draw, but it does seem like a lot of assumptions are being made

Apparently the IDGAF sentiment didn’t sink in.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Green_Mountain

It doesn’t matter how they “got in”.

Illegal = illegal. Out.

This is where the libs get slippery. They keep trying to shift more & more migrants into "documented" categories using loopholes like the parole program, the CBP One app, issuing TPS work permits, not counting those who showed up at a port of entry and immediately applied for asylum, etc.

This is how they create new grey areas and try to re-define more & more migrants as quasi-legal. Then they deny there's a problem, even as cities are visibly bursting with new migrants putting a strain on public services and causing residents to complain.

The average wait time for an asylum-seeker's case to be heard in the US is now 4 years. While they wait and pop out anchor babies, are they counted as legal or illegal?

Up to 90% don't even show up for their asylum hearings. There are some 1.4 million migrants whose cases have been heard and asylum was denied, yet they haven't returned to their home countries. They are squarely in the illegal category and should be found and deported immediately.

[HDGristle]

And yet there's that pesky law that allows them to apply for asylum for up to one year. There are the folks who were granted TPS. Which is another part of Petro's point.

You need Congress to close that hole, whether you agree or not.

And until then all you see are illegals everywhere because you're making some assumptions. It's ok to admit the bias. I won't judge.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by lustylad

This is where the libs get slippery. They keep trying to shift more & more migrants into a "documented" category using loopholes like the parole program, the CBP One app, issuing TPS work permits, not counting those who showed up at a port of entry and immediately applied for asylum, etc.

This is how they create new grey areas and try to re-define more & more migrants as quasi-legal. Then they deny there's a problem, even as cities are visibly bursting with new migrants putting a strain on public services and causing residents to complain.

The average wait time for an asylum-seeker's case to be heard in the US is now 4 years. While they wait and pop out anchor babies, are they legal or illegal?

Up to 90% don't even show up for their hearings. There are some 1.4 million migrants whose cases have been heard and asylum was denied, but they haven't returned to their home countries. They are squarely in the illegal category and should be found and deported immediately.

Sorry, as usual you're off base. Otherwise you need to throw shade at Trump 1.0, too. He used the same powers to grant parole. Some other powers as well to extend the stays of various migrants. And you validated that was true.

We do agree that those with deportation orders need to go... unless the government holds that in abeyance while another iron in the fire plays out. That's government's prerogative. Those who skip their court dates should go, but your 90% isn't based in reality. Even FAIR doesn't go that far which puts you to the far right of the far right.

And are you really trying to take issue with people immediately applying for asylum at the port of entry? That's the best option for it since they have to show up to apply for that status. By law. Sounds like you want the law changed. Trump needs Congress to do that. You're talking about a legal means of entry like it's illegal. Requires a hefty dose of willful blindness and cognitive dissonance

But can tell us who on those planes fell into what categories? We know you can't.

Loving the energy though. This is starting get fun.

If Congress doesn't want TPS to be a power of the executive they should vote to remove it and ensure they have a veto proof majority. Then, those foreign nationals won't have a legal status and they can be put on a plane to Bogota without fake emergencies.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Apparently the IDGAF sentiment didn’t sink in.

Clearly you do. You can't help but share and want to be part of the convo

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

And until then all you see are illegals everywhere because you're making some assumptions. It's ok to admit the bias. I won't judge.

Cut the crap. I don't make any assumptions or "see illegals everywhere". I know people who follow the rules to obtain a green card or Permanent Residency. They go through the trouble and expense of flying back to their home countries to renew their visas and keep their places in line. I have nothing but respect for them. When they're finally sworn in as naturalized citizens, they are generally more patriotic than Uncle Sam, more law-abiding than Eliot Ness, and more grateful than Donald Trump was after the Butler shooting.

We all know people like that. So don't lecture me on biases. And don't assume I assume anything.

[HDGristle]

We disagree. The assumptions are clear and yes, you do seem to have them. It's ok to admit it. We all have biases.

Even me.

This whole convo is full of them from every participant. Conscious and unconscious.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

We disagree. The assumptions are clear and yes, you do seem to have them. It's ok to admit it. We all have biases.

No. I don't profile people I see on the street as citizen or non-citizen, legal or illegal.

That's what you accused me of when you said I "see illegals everywhere".

[HDGristle]

Ooh, there's an assumption.

I see another in how you approach legal statuses so that you can tell us that everyone on the planes were illegal. You feel able to trust some folks in government but not others. You get to illegal very quickly compared to me. I need more info.

You trust Trump but not Petro. There's assumption and bias in there.

It's not accusatory. It's looking to understand and bridge the gap. Kind of thing I wish that Trump would do with his allies instead of trying to wear the strongman costume and put on a show.

I see assumptions about asylum seekers. Assumptions and biases about whether Colombians are deserving of water and restrooms on a 12 hr flight

[Green_Mountain]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

We disagree. The assumptions are clear and yes, you do seem to have them. It's ok to admit it. We all have biases.

Even me.

This whole convo is full of them from every participant. Conscious and unconscious.

Who cares. I don’t worship at the altar of DEI. I’ll bias all day if I want.

And there’s an argument to made that bias is good. Actually preferred.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by Green_Mountain

Who cares. I don’t worship at the altar of DEI. I’ll bias all day if I want.

And there’s an argument to made that bias is good. Actually preferred.

Now tie it back to Colombia and express a whole thought. Get specific. Also, FTFY.

[Hedge Row]

I truly love how much the people on this board seem to be against criminals. Knowing that we are all here for truly upstanding reasons, it seems just slightly hypocritical of an argument to be making here. The reviews seems to suggest something different, hahaha. Sorry, now back to saying how we want to get rid of these Latin American criminals.

[Green_Mountain]

Well Hedge if you think bigger picture and out 5-10-15 years you will see the Colombian example in this thread is a microcosm of what could happen.

And guess what? If that scenario happens it will impact you and everybody you know, 99.99% chance to the negative.

You’re comparing a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. They are both explosives but not the same.

[HDGristle]

Put a pin in that and maybe pull it back out in another thread. Discussion worth having, tho