Racism or Freedom of Speach

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

I advocate following the US Constitution and all US laws not just the one's I like or agree with. If you don't like the current laws then advocate for change. I have again posted excerpts in the thread to support my position.

Excerpt from the link of a US Embassy in a foreign country:
https://it.usembassy.gov/embassy-con...efugeesasylum/

Asylum
The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States grants asylum only to aliens who are physically present in the United States. Here it is again and feel free to visit the webpage of any US Embassy for verification.

Link to plain English explanation of why it is not normally possible for foreign nationals to apply for asylum in US Embassies and Consulates in foreign countries and why individuals seeking asylum are not considered illegal immigrants:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...consulate.html

Who are you people?

You do know that "living in a shithole nation" is NOT grounds for asylum, yeah?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

I advocate following the US Constitution and all US laws ....

Who are you people?

Personally, I am a knowledgeable U.S. citizen. Here's a quote from the material you just referenced ...

You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States.

What you attempt to do, like you probably do similarly with "climate change" is intentionally confuse the concept of "climate change" (which is a natural evolution of the changes in the Earth over BILLIONS OF YEARS) with "man-made" variations in temperature averages based on speculative modeling that is hyped to justify a modification of social and cultural changes in lifestyle in a purported effort to slow and/or stop the process.

It would be more helpful to the conversation if you would separate the concepts of what a person seeking asylum is required to do and prove from what a person claiming to be a "refugee" must do and prove.

But the bottom line is ... THEY ALL must make a prima facie case of their status when they assert their initial status. What you are selectively ignoring is that ALL PERSONS from ALL countries without a contiguous border with the U.S. have failed to meet the requirement of the initial "out cry" when they pass through other countries on their way to the U.S. with their intent to sneak into the U.S. without complying with their obligation to report they request for asylum in the first country into which they flee. And from the "asylum" application (I-589) found on the website you, yourself, have identified in your post:

To qualify for asylum, you must establish that you are a refugee who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality, or last habitual residence if you have no nationality, because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. This means that you must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for your persecution or why you fear persecution. (See section 208 of the INA; 8 CFR sections 208 and 1208, et seq.)

Now .. go find "refugee" .... and remember:

You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States..

Now, let's talk about that "background check" ..... you need a legitimate document evidencing who you are, when you were born, and where you were born FIRST!

Go get your "birth record" .....



Remember "New Orleans" .....

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You do know that "living in a shithole nation" is NOT grounds for asylum, yeah?

your image link didn't work.

[Whisky_1]

You fail to note the difference between refugee or parolee status and asylum status. Clearly, no such referral from outside the US is required for asylum seekers because diplomatic offices outside of the US do not normally process them as previously indicated. On the other hand, diplomatic offices outside the US do provide referrals for parolees and refugees as well as provide temporary lodging for individuals in eminent danger. I never said otherwise and my submission in the thread should confirm that.

My point is those individuals seeking refugee or parolee status must follow a different procedure than individuals seeking asylum. An individual seeking asylum that presents themselves at a US port of entry or diplomatic office within the US are not illegal because that is what immigration law requires. Nothing you or I have submitted states that "asylum seekers" must get an out of country referral or may apply for asylum at US diplomatic offices in foreign countries. That is just something you made up in your mind's eye.

[lustylad]

Hey Whisky - why don't you stop being so damn pedantic and hung up on "proving" minor points such as where to apply for asylum? If you're such a know-it-all, then tell us what YOU would do to fix the crisis on our southern border!

Or is that above your pay grade?

[Whisky_1]

When will you and your colleagues learn to think critically? Actually, I am retired and would not consider the situation that exist along our Southern border to be a crisis. I'm more interested in how you and your colleagues would fix what y'all perceive to be a crisis along the Southern US border? You have my attention. Please begin.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

You're going to support the law and the Constitution? Does this mean you're okay with Barr following the law and redacting parts of the Mueller Report?

[dilbert firestorm]

aren't you guys going off topic with the border and asylum cases? take that to another thread.

[Whisky_1]

I'm done. I'm surprised it went on this long. I'm out!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

When will you and your colleagues learn to think critically?

Is this supposed to establish your "thought process" as superior?

Since you are "retired" I'm more interested in wanting to know why you didn't fix the illegal immigration crisis BEFORE you retired. It's obvious you believe you are smarter than the "Deplorables."

BTW: One doesn't quit smoking by buying more smokes or bumming off others.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

My point is ....

You're "retired" .... then remain "retired" and on the porch.

BTW: The "process" doesn't mean shit if the people "in the process" cannot be screened.

But since you believe in "the law" and respect it's establishment and interpretation:

Here's what Justice Roberts opined just last year on the topic, generally:

"Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States undergo a vetting process to ensure that they satisfy the numerous requirements for admission. The Act also vests the President with authority to restrict the entry of aliens whenever he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1182(f)."

No. 17–965
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HAWAII, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 26, 2018]

That's rather broad, and it's a Page 1 Salvo supporting Trump's authority.

It also underlines a couple of points you intentionally overlooked:
#1: The President has the authority to REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS.
#2: The President can restrict entry of persons HE considers a threat.

Let me repeat: "HE" considers a threat! Not YOU! Or blubber bunny Schumer.

So stay on the porch, please. You are not contributing to a solution. Just bloviating.

For those students of the law who prefer to remain lawful in their decisions:

The text of §1182(f) states:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

"By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. ”

From Trump vs. Hawaii, et al, supra page 10.

But I feel safe in ASSUMING that if it were HillariosNoMore you would agree with Justice Roberts and a majority of the Court in the opinion. But you disagree if Trump! She lost. He won! That means he's President. She's not.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Tom Jickery

http://www.fox4news.com/news/pro-con...ty-free-speech


First Amendment

Here's the topic of this thread. Not ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

I'm done. I'm surprised it went on this long. I'm out!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Here's the topic of this thread. Not ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Glad you decided to take the offer on the porch sitting!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.....But since you believe in "the law" and respect it's establishment and interpretation:

It also underlines a couple of points you intentionally overlooked:
#1: The President has the authority to REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS.
#2: The President can restrict entry of persons HE considers a threat.

Let me repeat: "HE" considers a threat! Not YOU! Or blubber bunny Schumer.

Justice Roberts just keeps on preaching .... with the majority!

See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13662, 3 CFR 233 (2014) (President Obama) (suspending entry of Russian nationals working in the financial services, energy, mining, engineering, or defense sectors, in light of the Russian Federation’s “annexation of Crimea and its use of force in Ukraine”); Presidential Proclamation No. 6958, 3 CFR 133 (1997) (President Clinton) (suspending entry of Sudanese governmental and military personnel, citing “foreign policy interests of the United States” based on Sudan’s refusal to comply with United Nations resolution). And while some of these reprisals were directed at subsets of aliens from the countries at issue, others broadly suspended entry on the basis of nationality due to ongoing diplomatic disputes. For example, President Reagan invoked §1182(f) to suspend entry “as immigrants” by almost all Cuban nationals, to apply pressure on the Cuban Government. Presidential Proclamation No. 5517, 3 CFR 102 (1986).

Same opinion, supra, page 20.

[Whisky_1]

Wow! I don't believe y'all still here whining and carrying on. No need to drag this out any longer. Why don't you oldboys just pack up your lies, your non-sense, close the thread and call it a day.