Thousands of Hondurans heading toward the US

[Trumptonium1]

They didn't disperse, they are still at the border.

The ones who attacked the border are gone.
The ones there who are not violating any US law should not be punished.
They can legally apply for asylum and wait for the results. After that Mexico can keep or deport those whose claims are denied.

And my argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to

[Mystic Warriors]

Enhance the current closed borders with national guard and voluntary citizen militias. Hasten the wall building and add cameras.

Continue tear gassing the shit out of them until they disperse or stop being violent.

1. No. The border doesn't need to be closed. No high level threat exists

2. The guard should be decreased and citizens should not be doing the governments job.

3. No wall. America should never be walled off.

4. Very few are going violent and we shouldn't gas people just for being at the border

[Mystic Warriors]

The ones who attacked the border are gone.
The ones there who are not violating any US law should not be punished.
They can legally apply for asylum and wait for the results. After that Mexico can keep or deport those whose claims are denied.

And my argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to

For what reason? Anybody should be allowed to apply.

[Novus America]

That is not evidence. Claiming everything the US government says is automatically a lie is not evidence. And there have been several times things have been fired across the border at someone throwing rocks at it and the like. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.
Also stop with the “attacked Mexico” part. Mexico has not complained about the US response. On the contrary they are blaming the migrants involved and throwing them out of Mexico.

And there are walls, in places, along the border.

So we should believe that the migrants were throwing rocks because the lying government said so without proof?

I dunno, man, that doesn't seem like a great way to do things.

A large number of sources are now mentioning things were thrown.
The Mexican government said the attack by the migrants was violent.
No reputable source is claiming that the Border Patrol lied.

So the preponderance of evidence is that it did happen. So the burden is now on you to show the government lied here.

Of course I doubt you really care about evidence anyways. But if you have anything to support you claim the government lied, provide it, or drop the conspiracy theory.

[Novus America]

The ones who attacked the border are gone.
The ones there who are not violating any US law should not be punished.
They can legally apply for asylum and wait for the results. After that Mexico can keep or deport those whose claims are denied.

And my argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to

On what grounds? They are in Mexico, so we cannot do anything about them unless they are trying to breach the US border. Those still there are not trying to do so.

And under US law they have that right. Unless US law is changed we have to enforce the law.

And pretty much nobody in the US is saying there is no right to asylum at all, some are saying we should have stricter rules. But no reasonable person or lawmaker is saying no asylum at all.

[Trumptonium1]

And under US law they have that right. Unless US law is changed we have to enforce the law.

This is an opinion not a fact. Laws don't have to be enforced, especially if they are incredibly stupid.

[Novus America]

And under US law they have that right. Unless US law is changed we have to enforce the law.

This is an opinion not a fact. Laws don't have to be enforced, especially if they are incredibly stupid.

In the US we have the rule of law. Not anarchy. And if we do have anarchy then there is no border.

And who are you to decide what laws get enforced and which ones do not?
Who gets to decide which laws are “stupid”, beyond the legislative and judicial branches acting through legal means?

Also pretty much everyone in the US agrees there should be some right to asylum though there is disagreement as to the details.

[Ifreann]

So we should believe that the migrants were throwing rocks because the lying government said so without proof?

I dunno, man, that doesn't seem like a great way to do things.

A large number of sources are now mentioning things were thrown.
The Mexican government said the attack by the migrants was violent.
No reputable source is claiming that the Border Patrol lied.

So the preponderance of evidence is that it did happen. So the burden is now on you to show the government lied here.

Of course I doubt you really care about evidence anyways. But if you have anything to support you claim the government lied, provide it, or drop the conspiracy theory.

What the US government can assert without evidence, I can refute without evidence. But as I've been saying, the AP had reporters on the ground and reported no violence.

[Xadufell]

Wtfreak are you serious?!

Yes, unfortunately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM

Oh no, bombing terrorist families, what a great loss.

[Novus America]

A large number of sources are now mentioning things were thrown.
The Mexican government said the attack by the migrants was violent.
No reputable source is claiming that the Border Patrol lied.

So the preponderance of evidence is that it did happen. So the burden is now on you to show the government lied here.

Of course I doubt you really care about evidence anyways. But if you have anything to support you claim the government lied, provide it, or drop the conspiracy theory.

What the US government can assert without evidence, I can refute without evidence. But as I've been saying, the AP had reporters on the ground and reported no violence.

Well obviously you CAN make claims without evidence. You just admitted to doing it.

But it is not just the US government, the Mexican government reported violence as well.
Just because one dated article made no mention of violence does not provide any evidence that both the US and Mexican governments are lying.

[Ifreann]

Yes, unfortunately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM

Oh no, bombing terrorist families, what a great loss.

Murdering innocent people is generally considered bad, yes.

[Ifreann]

What the US government can assert without evidence, I can refute without evidence. But as I've been saying, the AP had reporters on the ground and reported no violence.

Well obviously you CAN make claims without evidence. You just admitted to doing it.

But it is not just the US government, the Mexican government reported violence as well.
Just because one dated article made no mention of violence does not provide any evidence that both the US and Mexican governments are lying.

A government saying something is not evidence that what the government is saying is true, and if the government doesn't need to provide evidence that what they are saying is true, then I do not need to provide evidence that what they are saying is not true.

Are you seriously going to try to hold me to a higher standard than the US government?

[Trumptonium1]

This is an opinion not a fact. Laws don't have to be enforced, especially if they are incredibly stupid.

In the US we have the rule of law. Not anarchy. And if we do have anarchy then there is no border.

And who are you to decide what laws get enforced and which ones do not?
Who gets to decide which laws are “stupid”, beyond the legislative and judicial branches acting through legal means?

The President.

[Novus America]

Well obviously you CAN make claims without evidence. You just admitted to doing it.

But it is not just the US government, the Mexican government reported violence as well.
Just because one dated article made no mention of violence does not provide any evidence that both the US and Mexican governments are lying.

A government saying something is not evidence that what the government is saying is true, and if the government doesn't need to provide evidence that what they are saying is true, then I do not need to provide evidence that what they are saying is not true.

Are you seriously going to try to hold me to a higher standard than the US government?

Yes, obviously. The US government is a legitimate source of information.
You are not.
The US government is not infallible, and if you have any contrary evidence from a source other than yourself I will be glad to hear it.

But you seem to struggle with the concept of preponderance of the evidence. I recommend you stay out of civil court.

If one side has one witness, and the other side has none, and the other side does nothing to refute said witness, they are almost certainly going to lose.

Besides if you are alleging some conspiracy on the part of the US and Mexican governments, you definitely need evidence to support you claims.

The Mexican government has supported the US government the US government’s response.

[Novus America]

In the US we have the rule of law. Not anarchy. And if we do have anarchy then there is no border.

And who are you to decide what laws get enforced and which ones do not?
Who gets to decide which laws are “stupid”, beyond the legislative and judicial branches acting through legal means?

The President.

The President is not a dictator. We have separation of powers.
And if Hillary had won would you be saying she should have dictatorial powers?

[Trumptonium1]

The President.

The President is not a dictator. We have separation of powers.
And if Hillary had won would you be saying she should have dictatorial powers?

The President - elected by popular vote - speaks for the people. The people don't want these other people in. The President has a moral duty to ensure that is the case.

[Novus America]

The President is not a dictator. We have separation of powers.
And if Hillary had won would you be saying she should have dictatorial powers?

The President - elected by popular vote - speaks for the people. The people don't want these other people in. The President has a moral duty to ensure that is the case.

The President is NOT elected by popular vote!
And the Congress is also elected.
People choose the Congress as well as the President.

The President has no special legitimacy over Congress.
The President has a duty to enforce the laws Congress enacts however.

I do not think you understand the US government and Constitution.

Please read the Constitution first. Then come back if you want to talk about it.

[Ifreann]

A government saying something is not evidence that what the government is saying is true, and if the government doesn't need to provide evidence that what they are saying is true, then I do not need to provide evidence that what they are saying is not true.

Are you seriously going to try to hold me to a higher standard than the US government?

Yes, obviously. The US government is a legitimate source of information.
You are not.

This is the government that made up a terrorist attack.

The US government is not infallible, and if you have any contrary evidence from a source other than yourself I will be glad to hear it.

I already told you, only a few minutes ago, and you've already forgotten about it.

But you seem to struggle with the concept of preponderance of the evidence. I recommend you stay out of civil court.

If one side as one witness, and the other side has none, and the other side does nothing to refute said witness, they are almost certainly going to lose.

On the one hand we have a reporter from a highly reputable news agency.
On the other hand we have someone who works for the President who said that the crowds at his inauguration were the biggest ever, even when the whole world could see pictures of them, and then made his Press Secretary give a press conference claiming that the small crowds in the pictures are actually big crowds.

[Trumptonium1]

The President - elected by popular vote - speaks for the people. The people don't want these other people in. The President has a moral duty to ensure that is the case.

The President is NOT elected by popular vote!
And the Congress is also elected.
People choose the Congress as well as the President.

The President has no special legitimacy over Congress.
The President has a duty to enforce the laws Congress enacts however.

I do not think you understand the US government and Constitution.

Please read the Constitution first. Then come back if you want to talk about it.

I don't think you understand all of these are choices.

The President has many powers to stop these people coming in, ranging from War Powers Act to Immigration and Nationality Act, where he can suspend the entry of persons without visas and documents and stop them from applying for asylum, which overrides US and international asylum law. Additionally, he can simply pull out CBP personnel and pull in military personnel by closing the border, thus giving no option for asylum claims because there's nobody for non-nationals to surrender to on entry.

You are far left so your opinions matter little.

[Novus America]

Yes, obviously. The US government is a legitimate source of information.
You are not.

This is the government that made up a terrorist attack.

The US government is not infallible, and if you have any contrary evidence from a source other than yourself I will be glad to hear it.

I already told you, only a few minutes ago, and you've already forgotten about it.

But you seem to struggle with the concept of preponderance of the evidence. I recommend you stay out of civil court.

If one side as one witness, and the other side has none, and the other side does nothing to refute said witness, they are almost certainly going to lose.

On the one hand we have a reporter from a highly reputable news agency.
On the other hand we have someone who works for the President who said that the crowds at his inauguration were the biggest ever, even when the whole world could see pictures of them, and then made his Press Secretary give a press conference claiming that the small crowds in the pictures are actually big crowds.

You have one old article from the AP which does not mention the rocks, but does not deny them either. That is not evidence that US and Mexican governments are in some evil conspiracy.

[Ifreann]

This is the government that made up a terrorist attack.

I already told you, only a few minutes ago, and you've already forgotten about it.


On the one hand we have a reporter from a highly reputable news agency.
On the other hand we have someone who works for the President who said that the crowds at his inauguration were the biggest ever, even when the whole world could see pictures of them, and then made his Press Secretary give a press conference claiming that the small crowds in the pictures are actually big crowds.

You have one old article from the AP which does not mention the rocks, but does not deny them either. That is not evidence that US and Mexican governments are in some evil conspiracy.

You have a famously dishonest government saying there were rocks. That's not evidence that the government is telling the truth.

[Novus America]

The President is NOT elected by popular vote!
And the Congress is also elected.
People choose the Congress as well as the President.

The President has no special legitimacy over Congress.
The President has a duty to enforce the laws Congress enacts however.

I do not think you understand the US government and Constitution.

Please read the Constitution first. Then come back if you want to talk about it.

I don't think you understand all of these are choices.

The President has many powers to stop these people coming in, ranging from War Powers Act to Immigration and Nationality Act, where he can suspend the entry of persons without visas and documents and stop them from applying for asylum, which overrides US and international asylum law. Additionally, he can simply pull out CBP personnel and pull in military personnel by closing the border, thus giving no option for asylum claims because there's nobody for non-nationals to surrender to on entry.

You are far left so your opinions matter little.

I am not denying the President has powers, though this is not a war situation.
But there are limits on presidential powers as well.
See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) and associated cases.

Yes the exact details of the law leave some room for legal debate, as there are some contradictions. Yes the President can deny individuals the right to claim asylum for certain reasons. But there is nothing to say for everyone for all reasons.

And the President could theoretically order what you propose, but that would spark a Consitutional crisis and almost certainly be struck down by the courts.

And umm if you think I am far left... I do not think I have ever been called that.

In case you have not seen I have been supportive of increased borde security and the government’s actions here.

[Novus America]

You have one old article from the AP which does not mention the rocks, but does not deny them either. That is not evidence that US and Mexican governments are in some evil conspiracy.

You have a famously dishonest government saying there were rocks. That's not evidence that the government is telling the truth.

That is not evidence the government is lying and that the Mexican government is also lying. You have provided zero evidence the government is lying here.

[Trumptonium1]

And the President could theoretically order what you propose, but that would spark a Consitutional crisis and almost certainly be struck down by the courts.

Is that before or after Ginsburg is kaput?

And umm if you think I am far left... I do not think I have ever been called that.

Exhibit these opinions and you'll be seeing it a lot more.

[Ifreann]

You have a famously dishonest government saying there were rocks. That's not evidence that the government is telling the truth.

That is not evidence the government is lying and that the Mexican government is also lying. You have provided zero evidence the government is lying here.

You've provided zero evidence that they're telling the truth.