American Politics XIV: The Dawning of the Age of the Pumpkin

[Reverend Norv]

First of all, you can apply for a visa from your home country, and indeed you are required to do so in order to enter the U.S. legally.

Asylum, however, is different. The legal standard to claim asylum is that you must have a well-founded fear of persecution in your home country.

Now: if you are in your home country, actively being persecuted, in danger of torture or death - would you really hang around for six months waiting for the U.S. embassy to process your application? Or would you flee, get to the U.S. any way you could, and then ask for asylum once you managed to arrive?

Asylum is a category for people who couldn't stay in their home countries - who did not have that option - who had no choice but to flee while they still could. That's why we don't allow people to apply for asylum from their home countries: at least in principle, if it's safe enough for them to stay in their own countries while they apply, then they have no business claiming asylum in this one.

I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but this is the traditional understanding of asylum, and it's important to understand it before we critique it.

This logic doesn't really apply when they're not in the country they fled from. Like there is no reason a person fleeing from Venezuela needs to come to the US and ask for asylum. We have embassies in Brazil, Colombia and Guyana. Truth is a lot are economic migrants.

As I understand it, the rationale is that if you are safe in Brazil, Colombia, or Guyana, then you should apply for asylum there - rather than going to an American embassy in those countries and seeking asylum in the U.S. instead. If the purpose of asylum is to protect people from persecution in their home countries, then once they are in a safe third country, they have no basis on which to claim asylum in the U.S.

Now, this comes with the caveat that immigration law is not my chosen field, and I know just enough about this area of the law to understand that it's complicated and not entirely internally coherent. You are not, for example, required to request asylum in the first safe country you reach; you can continue to the U.S., and "save" your asylum claim to use there. That's pretty inconsistent with our reasons for refusing to hear asylum petitions in safe third countries: if folks are just going to continue to the U.S. anyway, we could at least start processing their asylum claims before they get here.

This is mostly to say that you make a good point, but that I'm not qualified to assess the full consequences of your proposal.

[Reverend Norv]

First of all, you can apply for a visa from your home country, and indeed you are required to do so in order to enter the U.S. legally.

Asylum, however, is different. The legal standard to claim asylum is that you must have a well-founded fear of persecution in your home country.

Now: if you are in your home country, actively being persecuted, in danger of torture or death - would you really hang around for six months waiting for the U.S. embassy to process your application? Or would you flee, get to the U.S. any way you could, and then ask for asylum once you managed to arrive?

Asylum is a category for people who couldn't stay in their home countries - who did not have that option - who had no choice but to flee while they still could. That's why we don't allow people to apply for asylum from their home countries: at least in principle, if it's safe enough for them to stay in their own countries while they apply, then they have no business claiming asylum in this one.

I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but this is the traditional understanding of asylum, and it's important to understand it before we critique it.

Asylum, however, is different. The legal standard to claim asylum is that you must have a well-founded fear of persecution in your home country. and very few illegals qualify, but Biden is letting them in, busing them and flying them to Republican Red States, now they complain when we send them back to them in leftist Democrat sanctuary cities.

How exactly do you know that "very few illegals qualify" for asylum? We have an entire system of immigration courts with judges who spend day after day hearing these asylum petitions. Are you one of those judges? Are you an expert in the legal standard involved here? Have you reviewed thousands of asylum petitions? How on Earth would you know how many of these "illegals" qualify for asylum?

[The Black Forrest]

and Martha's Vineyard, an official leftist Democrat majority sanctuary city, deported them and bused them to a US Naval Base, claiming they can't house 50 illegal persons, Obama at Obama's Mansion alone can house them, feed them and provide for all their expenses $ free of Charge, they all proved their leftist political hypocrisy on illegal immigration.

Normally; I would not reply. A lie must be challenged.

Marthas Vineyard is NOT a sanctuary island. None of the towns on it registered. For one thing; its a resort. It doesn’t not have the facilities for such things. Mass has a total of eight sanctuary cities if I remember right. None of them are near the island.

A persons property is an inane argument.

How many republicans politicians are taking in people from the Florida disaster? Hell Trump could take on a great many…..he won’t.

[Haganham]

and Martha's Vineyard, an official leftist Democrat majority sanctuary city, deported them and bused them to a US Naval Base, claiming they can't house 50 illegal persons, Obama at Obama's Mansion alone can house them, feed them and provide for all their expenses $ free of Charge, they all proved their leftist political hypocrisy on illegal immigration.

Normally; I would not reply. A lie must be challenged.

Marthas Vineyard is NOT a sanctuary island. None of the towns on it registered. For one thing; its a resort. It doesn’t not have the facilities for such things. Mass has a total of eight sanctuary cities if I remember right. None of them are near the island.

All municipalities in Massachusetts are sanctuary cities, per State Law. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... state.html

[The Black Forrest]

Asylum, however, is different. The legal standard to claim asylum is that you must have a well-founded fear of persecution in your home country. and very few illegals qualify, but Biden is letting them in, busing them and flying them to Republican Red States, now they complain when we send them back to them in leftist Democrat sanctuary cities.

How exactly do you know that "very few illegals qualify" for asylum? We have an entire system of immigration courts with judges who spend day after day hearing these asylum petitions. Are you one of those judges? Are you an expert in the legal standard involved here? Have you reviewed thousands of asylum petitions? How on Earth would you know how many of these "illegals" qualify for asylum?

One thing they love to ignore was a request by border patrol a long time ago. Before the brown horde became a thing. Asked what they could use? The guy responded about 75 more judges to evaluate the asylum claims. Never happened…….

[Tarsonis]

Normally; I would not reply. A lie must be challenged.

Marthas Vineyard is NOT a sanctuary island. None of the towns on it registered. For one thing; its a resort. It doesn’t not have the facilities for such things. Mass has a total of eight sanctuary cities if I remember right. None of them are near the island.

All municipalities in Massachusetts are sanctuary cities, per State Law. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... state.html

Federalism in action.

[The Black Forrest]

Normally; I would not reply. A lie must be challenged.

Marthas Vineyard is NOT a sanctuary island. None of the towns on it registered. For one thing; its a resort. It doesn’t not have the facilities for such things. Mass has a total of eight sanctuary cities if I remember right. None of them are near the island.

All municipalities in Massachusetts are sanctuary cities, per State Law. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... state.html

https://www.yahoo.com/video/posts-false ... 58469.html

[Prima Scriptura]

All municipalities in Massachusetts are sanctuary cities, per State Law. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... state.html

Federalism in action.

I’ve notice a lot of the right and especially DeSantis are actually pissed off that the people of Massachusetts and other locations that they are busing migrants to are actually welcoming them with open arms. Their attempt to “own da Libs” failed miserably and their throwing a tantrum over it.

[Cannot think of a name]

All municipalities in Massachusetts are sanctuary cities, per State Law. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... state.html

https://www.yahoo.com/video/posts-false ... 58469.html

But the narrative!

[San Lumen]

Do they? Or is their opposition to the specific mandatory treatment programs on the table?

I'd certainly disagree with these AnComs if they're stopping actual rehabilitation programs because "drugs good" or whatever. But not if the program in question is just throwing them in jail or something similar.

They don’t support mandatory treatment. They believe that if people want to live on the streets, defecate and use needles less than a 100 yards away from a Elementary school, they should be allowed to do so.

I’d like a source for this claim.

[Haganham]

All municipalities in Massachusetts are sanctuary cities, per State Law. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... state.html

https://www.yahoo.com/video/posts-false ... 58469.html

Leave that goalpost alone

[Cannot think of a name]

https://www.yahoo.com/video/posts-false ... 58469.html

Leave that goalpost alone

Wasn't the goal post 'sanctuary cities'? Your article dubs Mass. 'effectively a sanctuary state' but that's not an official position of the state and that one particular law is part of sanctuary city practice but not the sole defining element.

Furthermore, by accentuating state as is made clear in your article, the mislead asylum seekers were not removed from the state they were just positioned in a part of it that was better suited for it than a low population/infrastructure island.

Just because you didn't understand the terms in use doesn't mean that the goalposts were moved. You just didn't understand. That's different.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

All municipalities in Massachusetts are sanctuary cities, per State Law. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... state.html

https://www.yahoo.com/video/posts-false ... 58469.html

I have found that 3 of the 6 towns of Martha's Vineyard's, Edgertown, Chilmark and Tisburg declared themselves sanctuary communities a distinction to not call it sanctuary cities, So you challenge Haganham's links with your own links, but Haganham challenges your links with his links, I am not lying and neither is Haganham, you are presenting your Facts that agrees with your views and we are presenting our Facts that agrees with our views, this is how a real debate works, and politics works, at most we are even.

The Leftists Democrats on Martha's Vineyard have Mansions that can house these persons if they wish to do so, but they don't do so, they did bus them out of Martha's Vineyard to the US Military Base this is a Fact.

I have posted a few times the video links of Fox News Reporter Bill Melugin, on Biden's open border policies of illegal migrants, busing them and flying them to cities across the nation.

Bill Melugin Responds To Attacks Against His Reporting At The Southern Border: ‘I’m Going To Keep Doing My Job’
Sep 30, 2022

“I know that some people want me to shut up, be a good boy, and ask the president about his ice cream instead of what we do down on the border. Right. What we’re showing every day is a direct contradiction to what we hear on that White House podium. They say the border is closed, secure. People aren’t walking across. Anybody with a pair of eyes knows that’s not true. And how do they know that? Because of the images we’re showing every single day. We’ve been doing it for a year and a half. They can say whatever they want about me. I don’t care. They can dig in to where I worked in college or the fact that I used to go by Billy when I was 19 years old. If they think that somehow waters down me or my reporting, they can think that. But we’re going to keep doing our job every single day as we have done, and just try to pull the curtain back and shine some light on what’s going down there or what’s going on down there.”

Most of the people he is referring to are Leftist Liberal Democrat Progressive Politicians, VIPs and the Leftist Media:

Many video link reports from Bill Melugin who speaks perfect fluent Spanish:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frxwlRyn0CQ

Bill Melugin on Twitter: https://twitter.com/billfoxla

We are all on NS to share our political views on all issues, which are our Facts, according to us and our views or opinions if you prefer to use this term instead, this rule applies to me, you and all persons on and off NS, lets keep it this way, with personal respect.

No one teaches another person the difference between Facts and opinions, no one accepts another persons definition of Facts and opinions when they strongly disagree with each other on political issues, this is a Fact.

[Prima Scriptura]

This is my Biden-Desantis 2024 map

https://www.270towin.com/maps/1Zvrm

[Kerwa]

So attacking WASP hypocrisy is wrong now?

[Ifreann]

Love to kick the can down the road.

Id love to have all zero emission cars tomorrow but it simply cannot be done.

Not with that attitude.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Do they? Or is their opposition to the specific mandatory treatment programs on the table?

I'd certainly disagree with these AnComs if they're stopping actual rehabilitation programs because "drugs good" or whatever. But not if the program in question is just throwing them in jail or something similar.

They don’t support mandatory treatment. They believe that if people want to live on the streets

I mean, nobody really wants to live on the street but if they do live on the street I don't really care

defecate

this is fearmongering and you know it

and use needles

no

less than a 100 yards away from a Elementary school

less than 100 yards? even if your problem is that the children can see homeless people (!!!!1!), 100 yards seems like a ridiculous distance.

they should be allowed to do so.

I don't think allowing homeless people to be homeless is a radical position. in the case of the other things, I don't think very many people unironically believe those things, so this is a strawman.

[Ifreann]

"Mandatory treatment" is certainly a polite way to phrase a desire to see the homeless rounded up and tortured.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

The Leftists Democrats on Martha's Vineyard have Mansions that can house these persons if they wish to do so, but they don't do so, they did bus them out of Martha's Vineyard to the US Military Base this is a Fact.

they did house the immigrants. but Martha's Vineyard wasn't prepared for the wave of immigrants, and the immigrants had places they needed to go. they were all in the process of seeking asylum.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They believe that if people want to live on the streets, defecate and use needles less than a 100 yards away from a Elementary school

Consider:
By observing by accident the poor and the destitute Siddhārtha Gautama was torn from his upper class environment and started the process which gave us Buddhism. And that his parents did everything in their power to prevent this from happening.

[Rakhalia]

Do they? Or is their opposition to the specific mandatory treatment programs on the table?

I'd certainly disagree with these AnComs if they're stopping actual rehabilitation programs because "drugs good" or whatever. But not if the program in question is just throwing them in jail or something similar.

They don’t support mandatory treatment. They believe that if people want to live on the streets, defecate and use needles less than a 100 yards away from a Elementary school, they should be allowed to do so.

after all there is no better solution to deep-rooted social problems than keeping them bottled up and out of sight. this will not leave a festering sense of ill-will and social rot at all. you care about society!

[Pasong Tirad]

The AnComs oppose any efforts of mandatory treatment.

Are these imaginary anarchists in the room with us right now? I know I've used this line before, but it really does feel like you have a habit of creating fictional people to turn into targets for your rebuttals. Feels like there's a term to describe this phenomenon. Gosh, I wonder what it is.

Anyway, the idea of the unhoused relieving themselves in public feels like it reveals more about the state of local public services than anything. Don't want folks to do the one and two in places they themselves would rather not do that? Maybe make public restrooms more available.

This logic extends to pretty much any concern regarding the houseless. Don't want to see them turning to drug usage in public? Provide supervised injection sites - sites which are proven to be able to save lives due to access to clean and sterilized materials.

Hey maybe we can extend this logic further. Don't want to see unhoused people? Give them houses - the one proven solution to houselessness. Literally, just take a tiny bit of that money that goes to police budgets – which, in Prima Scriptura's case, makes up 35 percent of the entire budget of Minneapolis (assuming he's from Minneapolis and not St. Paul) – and put it into housing the unhoused.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They don’t support mandatory treatment. They believe that if people want to live on the streets, defecate and use needles less than a 100 yards away from a Elementary school, they should be allowed to do so.

after all there is no better solution to deep-rooted social problems than keeping them bottled up and out of sight. this will not leave a festering sense of ill-will and social rot at all. you care about society!

It's not a very Christian attitude towards the poor either...

[Rakhalia]

after all there is no better solution to deep-rooted social problems than keeping them bottled up and out of sight. this will not leave a festering sense of ill-will and social rot at all. you care about society!

It's not a very Christian attitude towards the poor either...

"Christianity" as it commonly exists in America isn't born out of any love for any Christ or God, it's a consumerist political cudgel based off of white supremacy and propertarian violence. "Paternalist" Christians claim to rectify this in part; but realistically they just focus less on care and more on control.

[Prima Scriptura]

"Mandatory treatment" is certainly a polite way to phrase a desire to see the homeless rounded up and tortured.

That’s a load of shite.