Dan refutes Ben

smac97 · January 29, 2025

18 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

So are you advocating for open borders?

Changing the discussion?

Not really. Ben Shapiro remarks, and Dan's response thereto, were about Bishop Budde's comments to Donald Trump regarding immigration. A major point - perhaps the key party of the discussion - is about policy regarding whether we should secure the border.

18 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

My opinion is irrelevant.

We're all here sharing our opinions, so our offerings are all equally irrelevant.

For some, wanting to have an open order is, I think, the "quiet part" about the immigration debate that they are not quite willing to to "say out loud." I don't know if you are in favor of open borders, so I asked if you are one of these folks. And you are refusing to answer. You have that right, of course.

18 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What do you think is an appropriate number of immigrants that we should invite into the country every year?

I am open to a very large number of such persons, provided that

A) we secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws (including modifying them as needed), and administer immigration policy in a lawful and ordered and structured manner, including careful vetting;
B) the invitations are based on, and constrained if detrimental to, the best interests of the United States and its citizens;
C) we are fair and equitable in the invitations (that is, people from Africa, Asia, etc. should be on equal footing for entry as applicants from Mexico, Central and South America);
D) those we invite come by way of invitation and application, and arrive and remain here in a lawful and ordered and structured manner;
E) the conditions of their entering into and residing in the United States are clear and complied with throughout the relevant time period (including penalties for committing crimes while in the United States);
F) there is no pathway to citizenship for anyone who comes or remains here illegally; and
G) we remove or mitigate perverse incentives for illegal entry, and heavily penalize those who come here illegally.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · January 29, 2025

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Plenty of people thought her sermon was political.

So in lieu of looking at what was actually said, you’re just using your feelings. Huh.

My initial response: "I disliked the sermon because A) it was overtly political and politicized, B) it was showboating, C) it was to a captive audience, and D) it misappropriated the venue."

This seems more clinical than emotional.

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How ironic for the person that describes himself as one who just wants to look at the facts. You keep doing you champ!

And you, as per usual, devolve into personal taunts and insults in lieu of substantive contributions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Benjamin McGuire · January 29, 2025

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really. Ben Shapiro remarks, and Dan's response thereto, were about Bishop Budde's comments to Donald Trump regarding immigration. A major point - perhaps the key party of the discussion - is about policy regarding whether we should secure the border.

It is changing the subject though. You are really good at it. It seems like a question you love to ask - that "so you are in favor of open borders". I will say this - I am more in favor of open borders than I am of trying to prevent all immigration completely. I am sure that there is a decent middle ground.

bearhoof · January 29, 2025

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really. Ben Shapiro remarks, and Dan's response thereto, were about Bishop Budde's comments to Donald Trump regarding immigration. A major point - perhaps the key party of the discussion - is about policy regarding whether we should secure the border.

We're all here sharing our opinions, so our offerings are all equally irrelevant.

For some, wanting to have an open order is, I think, the "quiet part" about the immigration debate that they are not quite willing to to "say out loud." I don't know if you are in favor of open borders, so I asked if you are one of these folks. And you are refusing to answer. You have that right, of course.

I am open to a very large number of such persons, provided that

A) we secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws (including modifying them as needed), and administer immigration policy in a lawful and ordered and structured manner, including careful vetting;

B) the invitations are based on, and constrained if detrimental to, the best interests of the United States and its citizens;

C) we are fair and equitable in the invitations (that is, people from Africa, Asia, etc. should be on equal footing for entry as applicants from Mexico, Central and South America);

D) those we invite come by way of invitation and application, and arrive and remain here in a lawful and ordered and structured manner;

E) the conditions of their entering into and residing in the United States are clear and complied with throughout the relevant time period (including penalties for committing crimes while in the United States);

F) there is no pathway to citizenship for anyone who comes or remains here illegally; and

G) we remove or mitigate perverse incentives for illegal entry, and heavily penalize those who come here illegally.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would add to this list that they must have the means to earn a living (i.e., marketable skills). If they plan to come here and join the welfare rolls, we should pass.

smac97 · January 29, 2025

19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Serious question: if this had been Biden instead of Trump, would you be responding this way?

Candidly, yes. For a few reasons.

First, I have said - a few times now - that I am in agreement with the substance of what Bishop Budde said regarding unity and mercy.

Second, my dislike of her remarks arose from her misappropriating the venue and event.

Third, I concur with this assessment (quoted previously) :

Quote

"For a general analysis to work, you need to change the message 180 degrees. If Bishop Budde had called on Pres. Biden to protect the unborn and cease promoting sinful lifestyles, would you still support that use of her office and opportunity (or shift from opposing to supporting it)? Pick a position that works as well for a message you support as it does for one you oppose."

Fourth, I also concur with this assessment (also quoted previously) :

Quote

"The sermon given was inappropriate for that setting because it was a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion. The sermon should have, and could have, made a number of the same basic points without the brazen political statements. The sermon should have been addressed to all of the leaders present, not merely the president. Attacking President Trump personally for his policies turned this from a sermon to a political attack in a service that was originally meant to rise above politics and unify the leadership and nation before God."

Fifth, I also concur with this assessment (also quoted previously) :

Quote

The bishop could have spoken of kings and magistrates, reminding us of how God bends history to His will. She could have spoken about life’s brevity—which Trump so nearly learned about first hand this summer. She could have spoken about the fleeting nature of governments and kingdoms. But she didn’t.

Instead, at the end of her message she closed a door. She delivered a lecture—aimed not at the congregation, but at a single member in it. The pulpit became a podium, the sanctuary a platform for ethical and political instruction.
...

I understand that she feels deeply about immigration and the rights of sexual minorities. What she said would be hard to disagree with. I don’t disagree. As we sort out all of the issues that everyone knows need sorting, we must maintain mercy. We need to show mercy. Mercy is an advanced human characteristic that God loves to see in us!

What she said to him would better have been said in another place at another moment. She has been hailed as a courageous bishop speaking truth to power. She is courageous, I’ll agree. But sometimes truth needs not to be delivered in a sermon to a single man in the middle of church, but carried to him over a time of fellowship and pastoral concern.

I have previously spoken against activists misappropriating Church properties (Temple Square, the "Y" on Y Mountain, etc.). See, e.g., here:

Quote

"Special Pleading" is the order of the day, it seems.

Equality Utah has its offices in downtown Salt Lake City. Although generally open to the public, I don't think they should be expected to acquiesce to ideological opponents setting up shop in there, or using their office front windows to post criticisms of their goals and policies. See, even if someone disagrees with Equality Utah (I generally don't and in fact I find some of their efforts quite admirable), I think Equality Utah is not obligated to provide a forum for the expression of that disagreement. There are all sorts of other places where its critics can go without violating the basic property rights of Equality Utah. I think the law, and basic notions of common decency and respect, preclude such obnoxious and unseemly (and illegal) behavior.

But when it comes to BYU's property rights, it's "pass the popcorn."

Time, place and manner. Bishop Budde did poorly as to these considerations.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · January 29, 2025

3 minutes ago, bearhoof said:

I would add to this list that they must have the means to earn a living (i.e., marketable skills). If they plan to come here and join the welfare rolls, we should pass.

Yes, that should be an important part of the vetting process.

Rain · January 29, 2025

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really. Ben Shapiro remarks, and Dan's response thereto, were about Bishop Budde's comments to Donald Trump regarding immigration. A major point - perhaps the key party of the discussion - is about policy regarding whether we should secure the border.

We're all here sharing our opinions, so our offerings are all equally irrelevant.

For some, wanting to have an open order is, I think, the "quiet part" about the immigration debate that they are not quite willing to to "say out loud." I don't know if you are in favor of open borders, so I asked if you are one of these folks. And you are refusing to answer. You have that right, of course.

I am open to a very large number of such persons, provided that

A) we secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws (including modifying them as needed), and administer immigration policy in a lawful and ordered and structured manner, including careful vetting;

B) the invitations are based on, and constrained if detrimental to, the best interests of the United States and its citizens;

C) we are fair and equitable in the invitations (that is, people from Africa, Asia, etc. should be on equal footing for entry as applicants from Mexico, Central and South America);

Do you find fair and equitable should only be based on where they come from? What if ALL of those who are most vulnerable and danger are all in, say, Tahiti does that matter? Does that mean they only get the same percentage of people coming? Or what if they are in France and Tahiti and the UK is willing to take those from France? You would still want to take in the same number from both countries?

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

D) those we invite come by way of invitation and application, and arrive and remain here in a lawful and ordered and structured manner;

E) the conditions of their entering into and residing in the United States are clear and complied with throughout the relevant time period (including penalties for committing crimes while in the United States);

F) there is no pathway to citizenship for anyone who comes or remains here illegally; and

What if they entered a different country illegally would that matter about them coming here?

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

G) we remove or mitigate perverse incentives for illegal entry, and heavily penalize those who come here illegally.

Thanks,

-Smac

Danzo · January 29, 2025

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are people at risk simply because it is demanded that they immigrate to the United States legally?

People are at risk from people who immigrate to the the United States Legally

People are at risk form US Citiziens

People are at risk from women

People are at risk from Red headed people

People are at risk from people with beards

People are at risk from a lot of different people with attributes that are irrelevant to to said risk.

Danzo · January 29, 2025

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay, fine: So don't mention anybody by name. Frame the issue of crimes committed by illegals after they get here however you wish, but, at the same time, don't pretend that nobody wants to come here because our criminal justice and penal systems, as compared with those in much of the rest of the world, are remarkably lenient.

what is your experience with penal systems in other countries?

Danzo · January 29, 2025

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know. The fact of the matter is, even if I don't have proximate causation on my side, I do have "but for" causation on my side: If criminal illegal aliens who victimized those who reside here had not been allowed into the country in the first place, such victimization (at least at the hands of those criminal illegals) never would have occurred.

I spent Christmas eve with an immigrant from Guatemala that serves as a bishop.

Are you willing to concede that the spiritual benefit, blessings and help people receive from this bishop is also caused by him being allowed to enter the country?

Danzo · January 29, 2025

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

F) there is no pathway to citizenship for anyone who comes or remains here illegally; and

You really don't like statutes of limitations, Do you?

Calm · January 29, 2025

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

CBP data is public record. You may find the actual data for arrests, border apprehensions, and deportations for the last 4 years, compared to the previous 4 years interesting.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics#:~:text=Total CBP Enforcement Actions,(FY) 2017 - 2025.&text=Beginning in March FY20%2C OFO,origin within a short timeframe.&text=Beginning in March FY20%2C USBP,not result in an arrest.

Calm · January 29, 2025

2023 is the latest, chose 2019 as 2020 is likely atypical

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/typical-day-fy2019

Edited January 29, 2025 by Calm

Doctor Steuss · January 29, 2025

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics#:~:text=Total CBP Enforcement Actions,(FY) 2017 - 2025.&text=Beginning in March FY20%2C OFO,origin within a short timeframe.&text=Beginning in March FY20%2C USBP,not result in an arrest.

<snip pics>

The abuse (or use, depending on one's outlook/opinion of the measure) of Title 42 expulsion measures by the last admin alone are enough to put a wet blanket on the "open border" silliness. If I'm remembering correctly, in the final months before the national emergency was lifted that allowed its use, a third of all border encounters resulted in expulsions using Title 42.

If ignoring immigration laws, and having an "open border" was the goal, the last 4 years were some otherworldly Brobdingnagian incompetence of obtaining the goal.

smac97 · January 29, 2025

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

F) there is no pathway to citizenship for anyone who comes or remains here illegally; and

You really don't like statutes of limitations, Do you?

I like them a lot. I think they are a vital component of both the criminal justice and civil law aspects of our judicial system.

That said, I don't think they should be used to excuse deliberate subversion of the law, nor should they be used to create perverse incentives to violate the law. The system of "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years (until you're past the applicable SOL), then you're home free!" is unsustainable. It creates a massive incentive to break the law.

That's not to say that people who have been here a long time should necessarily deported. I broadly agree with the Church's position:

Quote

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

I have previously said:

Quote

Living in the United States is a wonderful opportunity that many, many people would like to have. I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here. This justification is a huge part of how we have ended up with such massive immigration issues. It incentivizes breaking the law, and therefore invites all the downstream consequences which follow.

I don't like the generalized notion of incentivizing cheating, particularly when doing so creates a detriment to those who are seeking to come to the United States lawfully.

I don't like the generalized notion of incentivizing unlawful behavior, which is the natural and foreseeable consequence of the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that some want to advance.

Here is my generalized position:

Quote

I think we should secure the border, and keep it rigorously secured against unlawful crossings.

I also think we should deport illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors).

I think that having commenced serious work on these initial objectives, we start to re-work and improve immigration laws.

Again, I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

Again, during this process we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people.

Again:

Quote

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior. "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!" I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence. Let's improve the Green Card system. Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

Again:

Quote

To some extent, I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system. But not as a wholesale thing.

Again:

Quote

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization. I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously). I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2025 by smac97

smac97 · January 29, 2025

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

Do you find fair and equitable should only be based on where they come from?

No. We should also consider their education, skill sets, criminal history, health history, work history, etc.

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

What if ALL of those who are most vulnerable and danger are all in, say, Tahiti does that matter?

You seem to be referencing refugees. My prior list was not about such folks. Refugee applications should, I think, be materially distinguishable from people who want to come here to work.

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

Does that mean they only get the same percentage of people coming? Or what if they are in France and Tahiti and the UK is willing to take those from France? You would still want to take in the same number from both countries?

I haven't give these considerations much thought.

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

What if they entered a different country illegally would that matter about them coming here?

Yes, that would matter a lot. Criminality in an applicant's background should matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · January 29, 2025

The crisis at the southern border, involving millions of unvetted persons with who-knows-what kinds of backgrounds, motives, etc. illegally crossing it and spreading throughout the United States, was an entirely manufactured one:

Wow. Wow.

More here:

Quote

Fewer than 600 illegal crossings were recorded at the southern border Sunday — a dramatic plummet from the thousands regularly encountered at the height of the Biden administration’s border crisis.

Across the entire southern border, just 582 people were caught attempting illegal crossings, with not one of the nine sectors from Texas to California seeing more than 200 people, according to Fox News.

In Texas’ Del Rio sector — which regularly saw 4,000 daily crossings when the crisis peaked in December 2023 — just 60 people were caught on Sunday.

The numbers are a startling drop from the peaks of the border crisis when more than 6,000 people were sometimes encountered across the southern border.

This was, I think, an important first step. Another was the capture and deportation of violent illegal immigrants, which is also happening a lot:

Quote

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has also begun conducting raids in sanctuary cities.

More than 7,300 illegal immigrants were arrested across the country in the first week of the raids, with 1,179 being detained on Sunday alone.

I have previously stated my generalized position this way:

Quote

I think we should secure the border, and keep it rigorously secured against unlawful crossings.

I also think we should deport illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors).

I think that having commenced serious work on these initial objectives, we start to re-work and improve immigration laws.

Again, I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

Again, during this process we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people.

Thanks,

-Smac

Rain · January 29, 2025

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No. We should also consider their education, skill sets, criminal history, health history, work history, etc.

You seem to be referencing refugees. My prior list was not about such folks. Refugee applications should, I think, be materially distinguishable from people who want to come here to work.

No, not refugees. Refugees are a legal designation and they don't choose which country they go to. The country chooses them.

Those that cross the US borders on their own is who I am talking about. Many who cross the American border legally or not are fleeing violence. They are not all crossing for work. So does their vulnerabily count in you fair and equitable qualification?

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't give these considerations much thought.

Yes, that would matter a lot. Criminality in an applicant's background should matter.

These are people who are fleeing for their lives from their own country. Many of them get the choice of death or cross the border illegally. So in your eyes they would now be criminals?

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

Benjamin McGuire · January 29, 2025

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The crisis at the southern border, involving millions of unvetted persons with who-knows-what kinds of backgrounds, motives, etc. illegally crossing it and spreading throughout the United States, was an entirely manufactured one:

This graph, published personally by Donald Trump on Truth Social appears to be totally fabricated. Let's get the politics off this forum.

Duncan · January 29, 2025

4 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This graph, published personally by Donald Trump on Truth Social appears to be totally fabricated. Let's get the politics off this forum.

and now he's at least floated the idea of deporting American criminals to other countries

smac97 · January 29, 2025

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

No, not refugees. Refugees are a legal designation and they don't choose which country they go to. The country chooses them.

Those that cross the US borders on their own is who I am talking about.

I am against the notion of legitimizing the wanton disregard of American law and widespread unlawful entry into the U.S. (or overstaying visas, which is the other primary mode of unlawful presence in the U.S.). I agree with the Church's statement on this point:

Quote

Around the world, debate on the immigration question has become intense. That is especially so in the United States. Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

We simply cannot sustain an open border / disregard immigration law approach.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Many who cross the American border legally or not are fleeing violence. They are not all crossing for work. So does their vulnerabily count in you fair and equitable qualification?

It sounds like you are referencing refugees after all. From ChatGPT:

Quote

To qualify for refugee status in the United States, an applicant must meet the legal definition of a refugee under Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other applicable U.S. laws. The process is governed by the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) and involves strict eligibility criteria.

1. Definition of a Refugee (INA 101(a)(42))

A refugee is someone who:

Is outside their country of nationality (or, if stateless, their last habitual residence).

Is unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution.

The persecution is based on one or more of the following grounds:

Race

Religion

Nationality

Membership in a particular social group (e.g., LGBTQ individuals, victims of gender-based violence).

Political opinion (e.g., opposition to the ruling government).

Important Notes:

Economic hardship alone does not qualify an applicant for refugee status.

A general condition of war or violence in a country is not enough unless the applicant shows personal persecution.

The persecution must come from the government or groups the government cannot or will not control.

2. Key Eligibility Requirements

To qualify, an applicant must:

Meet the legal definition of a refugee under U.S. law.

Be referred for resettlement by the U.S. government, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), or another designated entity.

Not be firmly resettled in another country before applying.

Pass background checks and security screenings.

Be admissible under U.S. immigration law (or qualify for a waiver if inadmissible).

3. Bars to Refugee Status

An applicant may be ineligible if they:

Have engaged in persecution of others.

Have committed serious crimes or terrorist activities.

Are deemed a security threat to the U.S.

Have firmly resettled in another country before applying for refugee status.

4. Application Process

Referral or Application:

Most refugees are referred by UNHCR, U.S. embassies, or certain NGOs.

Some individuals may apply directly through USRAP priority categories.

Interview with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):

Conducted outside the U.S. at a Refugee Support Center (RSC).

Applicant must prove a credible fear of persecution.

Security and Medical Screenings:

Background checks, fingerprinting, and medical examinations are conducted.

Approval and Resettlement:

If approved, the refugee is assigned to a Resettlement Agency in the U.S.

They receive assistance with housing, work authorization, and social services.

5. Difference Between Refugee and Asylum Status

Category Refugee Status Asylum Status

Location of Applicant Must apply from outside the U.S. Must be physically present in the U.S.

Application Process USRAP referral or direct application abroad File Form I-589 with USCIS within 1 year of arrival

Work Authorization Can work immediately upon arrival Must wait 180 days after filing for asylum

Path to Green Card Eligible to apply after 1 year in the U.S. Eligible to apply after 1 year if granted asylum

6. Pathway to U.S. Citizenship

Refugees may apply for lawful permanent residence (Green Card) one year after arrival.

After five years as a permanent resident, they can apply for U.S. citizenship.

Conclusion

To qualify for refugee status in the U.S., an individual must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. They must also be referred or apply through USRAP while residing outside the U.S. The process includes rigorous background checks, interviews, and screenings to ensure eligibility and security compliance.

The phrase "Not my circus, not my monkeys" is a Polish proverb (originally "Nie mój cyrk, nie moje małpy") that conveys the idea of not getting involved in problems that are not one's responsibility. The United States is one of the greatest countries/societies in the history of the world. Perhaps it is the greatest. Consequently, lots of people want to come here. Some want to come for understandable and legitimate reasons, others for nefarious purposes. Regardless, "Not my circus, not my monkeys" starts to have some application when people advance the notion that America has an obligation - legal, moral, whatever - to taken in endless numbers of whomever from wherever who in their own countries have encountered, or might encounter, "violence," or who want to come here for "a better life."

The United States cannot be all things to all people. We are among the most generous in the history of the world in terms of taking in immigrants, giving out governmental and private aid (financial, food, etc.), and so on. That said, we also have serious problems with housing shortages, heavy inflation, crime, 35 trillion or so in national debt, and a host of other problems. We are still situated to take in some immigrants, but we must do so rationally. On our terms. Within the confines of the law. In ways that to not impair the interests of the United States and its citizens. Open borders and abdicating enforcement of immigration laws is not the way to go.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

These are people who are fleeing for their lives from their own country. Many of them get the choice of death or cross the border illegally. So in your eyes they would now be criminals?

There are only two countries that border the United States. So respectfully, I reject the notion that folks outside of the citizens of Canada and Mexico "get the choice of death or cross the border illegally."

Thanks,

-Smac

ttribe · January 29, 2025

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are only two countries that border the United States. So respectfully, I reject the notion that folks outside of the citizens of Canada and Mexico "get the choice of death or cross the border illegally."

There are people from countries other than Mexico or Canada who enter the U.S. through Mexico or Canada. Don't be obtuse.

Calm · January 29, 2025

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

How do you interpret this? " I do have "but for" causation on my side: If criminal illegal aliens who victimized those who reside here had not been allowed into the country in the first place, such victimization (at least at the hands of those criminal illegals) never would have occurred."

That he wants enforcement to keep criminals out of the US…

I think I just saw your reasoning…the problem being how to identify potential criminals from law abiders to prevent the potential criminals from crossing the border.

How many of these criminals in the US were known criminals before they entered the US? If they were not known, had no records, then the only way they could be blocked from coming in most likely would be trying to ban all illegals. I have a doctor’s appointment shortly, so can’t research this. Maybe someone knows?

Some to be criminals might be found if psych reports were required. This would massively increase time and cost if required for everyone. It was required for me when seeking resident immigrant status in Canada because I was on an antidepressant after my daughter’s birth for a short time because I was misdiagnosed as depressed rather than sleep deprived and it delayed our application for over 6 months, if not a year due to having to go to an overloaded specific psychotherapist for evaluation and them him just letting the file sit for 3 or more months not filing it until we appealed to the university for help (they appealed to the MP who had a special agent assigned to us, what took us 5 years to get nowhere happened in a couple of months). I suspect the process is similar in the US, but perhaps not.

Calm · January 29, 2025

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are only two countries that border the United States. So respectfully, I reject the notion that folks outside of the citizens of Canada and Mexico "get the choice of death or cross the border illegally."

You can also ‘cross the border’ at ports by coming by air or water from all over the world. I have entered the US from Amsterdam and Helsinki, iirc.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Calm

smac97 · January 29, 2025

14 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This graph, published personally by Donald Trump on Truth Social appears to be totally fabricated.

Sign In

Dan refutes Ben

Recommended Posts

smac97

smac97

Benjamin McGuire

bearhoof

smac97

smac97

Rain

Danzo

Danzo

Danzo

Danzo

Calm

Calm

Doctor Steuss

smac97

smac97

smac97

Rain

Benjamin McGuire

Duncan

smac97

1. Definition of a Refugee (INA 101(a)(42))

2. Key Eligibility Requirements

3. Bars to Refugee Status

4. Application Process

5. Difference Between Refugee and Asylum Status

6. Pathway to U.S. Citizenship

Conclusion

ttribe

Calm

Calm

smac97

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse

Category	Refugee Status	Asylum Status
Location of Applicant	Must apply from outside the U.S.	Must be physically present in the U.S.
Application Process	USRAP referral or direct application abroad	File Form I-589 with USCIS within 1 year of arrival
Work Authorization	Can work immediately upon arrival	Must wait 180 days after filing for asylum
Path to Green Card	Eligible to apply after 1 year in the U.S.	Eligible to apply after 1 year if granted asylum