The Third Option

[jimnyc]

Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-


(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/...html#0-0-0-192

And they can go the proper route - so a wall would have no bearing on those wanting to come in legally.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

This is some made up bullshit. Source please. Show me the law.

I do realize you know all about MADE UP BULL SHIT, so when someone presents you with the TRUTH, you have a hard time recognizing it, but, sorry to burst your little leftard fake news bull shit bubble... and you could have just as EASILY looked this up as I did, you just LOVE to play your little STUPID game...

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/tex...ocid=4bab55da2

[Drummond]

Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-


(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/...html#0-0-0-192

The issue of 'recognising' any 'legal' status isn't relevant to those who cross the border, at the time that they do. It's only relevant when such an application HAS BEEN MADE, THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS, and ASYLUM IS GRANTED.

Until that point, there's no way you can claim that these would-be immigrants have legal status to be on US soil.

I know that you want to. But, you actually can't.

This means that you're trying to defend the presence of illegal aliens ... which brings me back to my earlier post. I'd like for you to quantify for me how many illegal aliens the US should do nothing at all about, before this becomes a problem you feel should be meaningfully addressed.

My post of before, which you've so far dodged, said:

... tell us what they are !! How many illegal immigrants per year should the US tolerate, before the authorities begin to see there's a problem to be tackled ? Come on ....

.... tell us all where you draw the line. How many ILLEGALS should be ACCEPTED, before their illegality is actually, ahem, ILLEGAL ?

In short ... how many illegals does it take to equal 'illegal', in the Leftie mindset ... ? H'mm ... ??

Who else but a Leftie would be content to defend illegality, on so-called 'moral' grounds ??

[STTAB]

This is some made up bullshit. Source please. Show me the law.

What the fuck? Are you seriously this uneducated as to international law and opining on the topic anyway? Or are you just being dishonest?

Pete, I'm a little feller like you's worse nightmare.

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/tex...ocid=4bab55da2

Here you go dipshit, the exact document that defines the concept of first country which is the international law, to which both the US and Mexico are signatories.

In reality the US can deport EVERYONE who came here through Mexico and requested asylum right back to Mexico without granting them an asylum hearing, because under international law MEXICO would be required to grant them asylum under international law (unless of course Mexico wasn't the first safe country they entered)

That we have been generous and done MORE than the law calls for doesn't mean they have a right.

[pete311]

I do realize you know all about MADE UP BULL SHIT, so when someone presents you with the TRUTH, you have a hard time recognizing it, but, sorry to burst your little leftard fake news bull shit bubble... and you could have just as EASILY looked this up as I did, you just LOVE to play your little STUPID game...

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/tex...ocid=4bab55da2

I take my comment back as there is something to this, but I've found it's not clear cut, because that appears to only apply when a country is deemed a "safe third country". Trump is currently trying to label Mexico that, but I don't think it's happened yet.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/06...third-country/

[jimnyc]

I take my comment back as there is something to this, but I've found it's not clear cut, because that appears to only apply when a country is deemed a "safe third country". Trump is currently trying to label Mexico that, but I don't think it's happened yet.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/06...third-country/

Even if - WHY does the wall even harm those wanting to come legally, or seeking asylum?

[STTAB]

Let them try, and see if the SC allows it. I'll bet $500 right now, and let someone of YOUR choice on the board hold the money...

And hell, by the time the Dems get the presidency again, Ginsburg may no longer be around, but there may be a replacement!!

False Jim, the Supreme Court , nor any lower court, should be allowed to tell the President that he needs to justify a national emergency. Elections have consequences. If the man elected says "This is a national emergency" well that's why he was elected, to make that call. We shouldn't want any court over ruling him simply because a minority disagrees.

Leave being inconsistent to the liberal shit bags.

[jimnyc]

False Jim, the Supreme Court , nor any lower court, should be allowed to tell the President that he needs to justify a national emergency. Elections have consequences. If the man elected says "This is a national emergency" well that's why he was elected, to make that call. We shouldn't want any court over ruling him simply because a minority disagrees.

Leave being inconsistent to the liberal shit bags.

But it wouldn't just be because the minority disagreed - but rather because those in favor of the 2nd amendment would be correct in that instance, and it would rightfully get challenged and rejected.

Now, they will likely try similar if Trump were to do this trying to get funding for a wall. But from what he would be doing - to immediately thinking it would be therefore OK to then take guns, would be a stretch, IMO.

But I agree on the inconsistency or aka hypocrisy from the left. And personally, I'm of the belief that they should avoid congress and any emergency by using already funded money from the defense somehow.

[Abbey Marie]

That is for the courts to determine, not your broad assumptions. Change the law.

Ah, so you are in favor of ignoring/breaking any laws if it suits you. That’s wonderful.
How about I say I want to murder someone. Don’t like it? Change the law. What a ridiculously specious argument.

At least now you admit that these people have no right to asylum. That’s good.

[STTAB]

But it wouldn't just be because the minority disagreed - but rather because those in favor of the 2nd amendment would be correct in that instance, and it would rightfully get challenged and rejected.

Now, they will likely try similar if Trump were to do this trying to get funding for a wall. But from what he would be doing - to immediately thinking it would be therefore OK to then take guns, would be a stretch, IMO.

But I agree on the inconsistency or aka hypocrisy from the left. And personally, I'm of the belief that they should avoid congress and any emergency by using already funded money from the defense somehow.

Now if we're talking like a liberal President said "Guns are national emergency" and tried to confiscate guns, well then that would of course end up in court, and is entirely different than what I was getting at.

For one that would end up in court, becuase of the gun issue, for another it would end up in court because Presidents do not make laws. They enforce them.

So in order for Noir's statement to be accurately compared you would have to imagine a Democrat President declaring a national emergency to build something required to enforce existing federal law, not something that would create federal law itself.

For example, let's take the same issue and reverse it a little bit. Suppose a Democratic President said "we need more immigration courts and judges, it's ridiculous that these people are having to wait 3-5 years for a hearing" and a Republican Congress refuse to give him funding for those additional courts he wanted and he just said "to hell with Congress" and declared a national emergency.

Now, let's go a step further with that. Imagine this Democratic President had ran on that platform and was elected with everyone knowing that if elected he was going to one way or the other add those courts .

Should THAT end up in court ? I think not. A President has the authority to say "this is a national emergency, we NEED more assets to enforce federal law" and no court should be able to say "Sorry President, but you must convince US that there in a national emergency"

[STTAB]

That is for the courts to determine, not your broad assumptions. Change the law.

False moron. International law determines who qualifies for asylum and why.

I told you Petey, I'm a moron such as yourself's worst nightmare.

https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/

Do some research kid.

[jimnyc]

Now if we're talking like a liberal President said "Guns are national emergency" and tried to confiscate guns, well then that would of course end up in court, and is entirely different than what I was getting at.

That's the exact scenario I was defending - and assuming what liberals are talking about, as I've heard this several times now. "If Trump declares this, then what's to stop the next Dem president from declaring similar and taking all guns away".

[STTAB]

That's the exact scenario I was defending - and assuming what liberals are talking about, as I've heard this several times now. "If Trump declares this, then what's to stop the next Dem president from declaring similar and taking all guns away".

That is an ENTIRELY different scenario. Because Presidents do not make law, well unless they are named Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, or Obama anyway.

[Black Diamond]

That is for the courts to determine, not your broad assumptions. Change the law.

The courts. I guess OJ was innocent.

[Black Diamond]

Ah, so you are in favor of ignoring/breaking any laws if it suits you. That’s wonderful.
How about I say I want to murder someone. Don’t like it? Change the law. What a ridiculously specious argument.

At least now you admit that these people have no right to asylum. That’s good.

I love it when leftists say it is up to the courts. There are many Supreme Court decisions in the 1800s they must think were spot on.