Deport them all!

[Ronson]

Democrat Robert Garcia thought he was embarrassing conservatives when he presented this image at the Mayorkas impeachment hearings:

Trump-border-wall-1.jpeg

The conservative response:

"Sure, get alligators, get gun turrets, get sharks with lasers in their eyes, or piranhas, or whatever… BUT, SECURE THE DAMN BORDER!"

Even the ever-reliable (sarcasm) Christopher Wray is claiming military-age Chinese are coming across the border by the hundreds. According to the scripturists here, they should all be welcomed with open arms and given cash. Of course, that should help set them up nicely for their sleeper terrorist cells. I believe I read somewhere that many Iranians had come across as well.

[seer]

I mean, for someone who just got out of jail ...

I paid my penalty - their penalty is to leave...

[Sam]

Even the ever-reliable (sarcasm) Christopher Wray is claiming military-age Chinese are coming across the border by the hundreds. According to the scripturists here, they should all be welcomed with open arms and given cash. Of course, that should help set them up nicely for their sleeper terrorist cells. I believe I read somewhere that many Iranians had come across as well.

The point of a strawman is that it's much easier to torch.

What's been advocated by "the scripturists" is that people making valid asylum claims, which have to pass both a credible fear hearing and an even more rigorous asylum trial, be provided a compassionate and expedient opportunity to do so. What's been advocated by some other Christians, in contrast, is "securing" the border by putting alligators in the water and manning 50mm-caliber gun turrets on the shoreline, it seems. Let's hope that's not sincere.

-Sam

[Sam]

I paid my penalty - their penalty is to leave...

Violent criminal offenses perpetrated while awaiting asylum cases invalidates those claims. So, yes, immigrants applying for asylum who perpetuate acts of criminal violence face penalty of deportation.

For others, who have a misdemeanor offense of unlawful border crossing, the lawful penalty is explicitly not deportation. So, no, their penalty is not "to leave".

A story somewhere about an ungrateful servant ... probably not too important.

-Sam

[Ronson]

The point of a strawman is that it's much easier to torch.

Less a strawman than a scarecrow standing in a burning cornfield.

What's been advocated by "the scripturists" is that people making valid asylum claims, which have to pass both a credible fear hearing and an even more rigorous asylum trial, be provided a compassionate and expedient opportunity to do so. What's been advocated by some other Christians, in contrast, is "securing" the border by putting alligators in the water and manning 50mm-caliber gun turrets on the shoreline, it seems. Let's hope that's not sincere.

If true, then why is the FBI ringing alarm bells? Apparently, even the "deep state" is starting to worry about the lack of vetting going on.

The problems at the border go much deeper than what CNN is claiming.

[seer]

Violent criminal offenses perpetrated while awaiting asylum cases invalidates those claims. So, yes, immigrants applying for asylum who perpetuate acts of criminal violence face penalty of deportation.

But they are not being deported. They all were released without bond - do you really think they will show up for a court date to be deported? And asylum seekers need to be held in detention, not released into the interior to overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services.

For others, who have a misdemeanor offense of unlawful border crossing, the lawful penalty is explicitly not deportation. So, no, their penalty is not "to leave".

Of course it is - they are here illegally - where does the law say they get to stay? Biden is already deporting tens of thousands: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immig...rtations-2023/

A story somewhere about an ungrateful servant ... probably not too important.

Stop being a prig...

[Diogenes]

Not a support of Ronald Reagan's amnesty approach then?

Much like the Bishop of Rome, Reagan is not infallible.

You'd instead prefer Joe Biden's approach of closing the border?

Biden just wants more power as he's shown not to want enforce border control. It's just using a self-made crisis to grab power.

[Ronson]

Much like the Bishop of Rome, Reagan is not infallible.

I've always thought Reagan was given too much credit, or credit for the wrong things. He was great at countering the Carter malaise and putting the Soviets in their place, but he stunk when bailing out the S&Ls, outlawing adult-only communities, and circumventing Congress with his covert activities. Not a fan.

[Sam]

But they are not being deported. They all were released without bond - do you really think they will show up for a court date to be deported? And asylum seekers need to be held in detention, not released into the interior to overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services.



Of course it is - they are here illegally - where does the law say they get to stay? Biden is already deporting tens of thousands: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immig...rtations-2023/



Stop being a prig...

1) No, they are not being deported immediately because they have not been convicted of crimes; due process.

2) Refugee Act of 1980; might be worthwhile to understand the topic before getting too far into the topic.

3) Maybe not the best response to one of Christ's parables but I imagine you'll sort it out.

-Sam

[seer]

1) No, they are not being deported immediately because they have not been convicted of crimes; due process.

Why weren't they held without bail? They are already in the wind according News 4 NY...

2) Refugee Act of 1980; might be worthwhile to understand the topic before getting too far into the topic.

Nonsense, that has nothing to do with allowing illegals to be let go into the country. They can legally be detained until they prove their claim, and should be. And the Act only allowed for 50,000 refugees a year.

[Sam]

Why weren't they held without bail? They are already in the wind according News 4 NY...



Nonsense, that has nothing to do with allowing illegals to be let go into the country. They can legally be detained until they prove their claim, and should be. And the Act only allowed for 50,000 refugees a year.

1) I'm not proficient on New York's bail laws; one alleged perpetrator did have bail imposed because he did not have a permanent address or strong residential ties in the community.

2) You're confusing refugees with asylum seekers and you've got the refugee cap wrong. It's 125,000.

-Sam

[seer]

1) I'm not proficient on New York's bail laws; one alleged perpetrator did have bail imposed because he did not have a permanent address or strong residential ties in the community.

None of them have ties to the community they all live in a camp. So basically, all except one have have got away...

2) You're confusing refugees with asylum seekers and you've got the refugee cap wrong. It's 125,000.

-Sam

You said the Refugee Act of 1980, it is 50,000.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...E-94-Pg102.pdf

[Sam]

None of them have ties to the community they all live in a camp. So basically, all except one have have got away...



You said the Refugee Act of 1980, it is 50,000.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...E-94-Pg102.pdf

It was 50k in 1981. It is now 125k.

Whether the alleged criminals have escaped is a question I'll leave to the future. But the point remains that you can't just allege a crime and violate due process: if the immigrants in question have valid asylum applications and are convicted, those applications will be denied and the men will be deported after serving their criminal sentence. If they are not lawful residents, they will likewise be deported if found guilty, after serving their criminal sentence.

You'd prefer that laws don't apply to those you consider an underclass. That's shortsighted, to say the least.

-Sam

[seer]

It was 50k in 1981. It is now 125k.

So we have blown past that lawful limit - time to deport the rest.

Whether the alleged criminals have escaped is a question I'll leave to the future. But the point remains that you can't just allege a crime and violate due process: if the immigrants in question have valid asylum applications and are convicted, those applications will be denied and the men will be deported after serving their criminal sentence. If they are not lawful residents, they will likewise be deported if found guilty, after serving their criminal sentence.

You'd prefer that laws don't apply to those you consider an underclass. That's shortsighted, to say the least.

-Sam

There was no reason to give any of them bail. Do you really think they will come back for court dates...And I don't see legal immigrants as an underclass, I see the illegals as criminals.

[Sam]

So we have blown past that lawful limit - time to deport the rest.



There was no reason to give any of them bail. Do you really think they will come back for court dates...And I don't see legal immigrants as an underclass, I see the illegals as criminals.

You again confuse the refugee cap with asylum, which has (and can have) no cap.

Bail and release pending trial are determined by New York law. When you've studied up on the relevant law, you can form a strong opinion on whether the alleged criminals were eligible for release, either with or without bail.

-Sam