Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez

[_honorentheos]

Also, I fixed this for you.

One side is treating immigrants with contempt attempting to usurp power from Congress to the Executive Branch and is butthurt the Judicial Branch wasn't having it. The other has no solutions that offer any sort of decent compromise, just more of the same, and that clearly doesn't work is pointing out if the President wants to throw money at the problem it should take the form of immigration judges and lawyers rather than soldiers and multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects doomed to fail.

*shrugs*

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Cam, we've had this discussion before about asylum seekers and my opinion then as well as now is still the issue requires a resource allocation solution. The President seems to think the same thing but wants those resources to take the form of walls and military activity while I think the solution is to beef up the judicial capabilities of the immigration courts to perform the needed hearings and proceed accordingly as determined in a lawful, humane way. It's easy to say, yes, but not as easy as build a wall and lock 'em up.

I really don't see you as being a good faith participant because you present the baseline conditions as one demanding the abandonment of the rule of law in favor of either letting people just move on in or creating concentration camps (and that's what is being described) on the Mexican side of the border. And calling asylum seekers criminals isn't addressing Trump's attempt to further erode our democracy. You can easily remedy that by acknowledging it, though. A simple nod to the fact that you misspoke before would do.

Well, the feeling is mutual. You're still not providing a solution to the here and now. I mean, since we're wishing for things, I wish Central America was a beautiful utopia and all of its citizens had Star Trek replicators.

You want me to acknowledge that people who break our laws or game our system aren't criminals? Ok. Since we're into post-modernistic interpretation of law then enforcing our borders and not allowing people to game our system is criminal and the Border Patrol agents who act on illegitimate orders to defend it and manage it under current rules are willing actors in the suppression of the proletariat and should face harsh penalties.

The people who organized and funded this caravan are freedom fighters and we should immediately allow any and all immigrants to enter our country with an issuance date of TBD when they can be screened for an asylum request. We'll take them on good faith that they'll show up to an asylum hearing even if we can't track them, know where their residence may be, or what they'll be doing in the US. We should willingly incur all costs associated with their immigration to include housing, medical care, education, and whatever other benefits they may enjoy.

Do you have any other fantasyland suggestions, or are you actually interested in a good faith discussion regarding this caravan, future caravans, and how they should be processed?

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

You want me to acknowledge that people who break our laws or game our system aren't criminals?

No. The issue is acknowledging that our laws allow a person to seek asylum protections. It's not criminal to do so. And the law is set up to vet if people are lying or deserve said status. We're underfunding the system compared to the current demand. Claiming that the law is incapable of addressing issues that they've used to scare people so new powers are needed is how authoritarian regimes take over control.

I'm asking you to acknowledge that and that the Trump administration made an attempt at that as ground level for a good faith discussion. You seem to think it's only in bizarro liberal land where Trump is some kind of boogeyman that the claim exists Trump legit attempted to act as an authoritarian and got butthurt because the Judicial Branch exerted it's independence including the highest judge in our nation making public comment on it. There is a serious problem with not recognizing that.

[_subgenius]

Here you go, subbie -

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB ... -1687.html

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).

no one is disputing their ability to ask for asylum....its whether entering the country illegally makes you a crime...and yes, it in fact makes you a criminal. Again, you can receive asylum and still be prosecuted for illegal entry.
How is this difficult for you to understand?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, I want you to acknowledge that immigrants are attempting to game our system, and use what they see as loophole language in order to claim asylum. Look. I'll help you out.

1) You still haven't made a compelling argument as to why they should be claiming asylum under the current system. Outside of shoehorning in that escaping poverty, gang violence, or some other, at best, tangential relation to the law as it currently stand their claims for asylum are unconvincing (especially since most of the caravaneers aren't even claiming it).

2) Say we can both agree that they have a legitimate claim to asylum, then what do YOU do with them so they're not 'treated as criminals' under the current real-world scenario regarding resources.

3) Trump is acting, in his team's mind, as an Executive AND the issue most likely will work its way up to the Supreme Court unless he gets a change of heart from the 9th circuit court. I don't know why he can't appeal the current decision and send it higher.

I think you and others are hyperfocused on Trump, but can't really articulate how this problem can get fixed that would satisfactorily protect our interests, be cost effective, and do justice to our immigration laws. You can scream and cry all you want about how you think Trump is acting like a King, or tyrant, or despot on this issue, but he's doing it anyway. In other words, we're at an impasse and I still believe you and others, on this issue, are still sharing the coin with your counterparts.

I don't see why they can't get a hitch with their activist organizers to another port of entry, and simply claim asylum there. They should diffuse and approach their attempt at asylum in numbers that are manageable for immigration officials.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Releasing asylum seekers fleeing central American violence to live in the US, often with prior connections or host families willing to sponsor them, until their immigration hearings were held was working quite well with the flaws associated with it having attainable fixes.

https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/f ... -Court.pdf

I believe Trump harped on this under the pejorative label "catch and release" and lied about it a lot.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr ... se-n870591

[Guest]

Oh. Ok. What part of that 44-page download did you expect anyone to read? Regardless, you're talking about 6,000 people showing up en masse and you're cool with letting them just go? That's not going to happen, nor should it.

eta: Just a quick reminder to anyone paying attention. Immigrants claiming to want asylum, whoever they are because most of the ones in Tijuana aren't even claiming asylum, refused asylum offered to them by Mexican officials. This is all just a charade by their enablers to cheapen our immigration procedures and attempt to circumvent the law. I find it bizarre they have such a hard-on for these particular immigrants.


- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Well, I want you to acknowledge that immigrants are attempting to game our system, and use what they see as loophole language in order to claim asylum. Look. I'll help you out.

1) You still haven't made a compelling argument as to why they should be claiming asylum under the current system. Outside of shoehorning in that escaping poverty, gang violence, or some other, at best, tangential relation to the law as it currently stand their claims for asylum are unconvincing (especially since most of the caravaneers aren't even claiming it).

2) Say we can both agree that they have a legitimate claim to asylum, then what do YOU do with them so they're not 'treated as criminals' under the current real-world scenario regarding resources.

3) Trump is acting, in his team's mind, as an Executive AND the issue most likely will work its way up to the Supreme Court unless he gets a change of heart from the 9th circuit court. I don't know why he can't appeal the current decision and send it higher.

I think you and others are hyperfocused on Trump, but can't really articulate how this problem can get fixed that would satisfactorily protect our interests, be cost effective, and do justice to our immigration laws. You can scream and cry all you want about how you think Trump is acting like a King, or tyrant, or despot on this issue, but he's doing it anyway. In other words, we're at an impasse and I still believe you and others, on this issue, are still sharing the coin with your counterparts.

I don't see why they can't get a hitch with their activist organizers to another port of entry, and simply claim asylum there. They should diffuse and approach their attempt at asylum in numbers that are manageable for immigration officials.

- Doc

Are there people attempting to claim asylum status who know they don't qualify but hope to use it to get in and slip through the cracks? Of course there are. Are there people who sincerely believe they qualify but won't? Again, of course there are. Immigration law is set up to deal with both conditions as well as people who do qualify.

So what's your real problem here? It costs money to deal with this kind of problem? The Country doesn't have the ability to deal with contingency issues? Concentration camps on the border are so 2019 so time to update one's wardrobe?

Again, Trump's behavior is a separate issue in the sense immigration is one of many vehicles and fronts on which he seems to be waging war on democracy. I suspect it's not because he's intentionally doing so as much as he just doesn't get how it works and isn't qualified for his job. But the result is he is attempting to treat the country like Trump Enterprise, Government Edition and the consequences if left unchecked would be just as disastrous as if he were knowingly trying to install a lasting authoritarian shift in US executive powers.

Yet for some reason you think the solution space includes ignoring his dangerous behavior so, "No one has answers to all these problems so LEFTISTS".

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What do you mean what's my real problem here, Honor? I've been completely transparent with my position on this issue, unlike you and others. You continue to refuse to have an exchange based on good faith dialogue. I feel like I'm arguing with a drunk who's on repeater mode.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I find it bizarre they have such a hard-on for these particular immigrants.

Says the king-making enabler. Again, going back to my earlier posts, priorities Doc.