If we can’t stop this invasion, we no longer have a sovereign nation

[Oceander]

@Oceander

You see the word invading force or army anywhere in here?

Big deal.  And irrelevant.  The issue was asylum, not entry, and the president cannot deny the right to apply for asylum on the basis that the applicant entered the US illegally.  8 USC 1158 flatly says so.  Period.  End of discussion.  And no, none of the exceptions apply to that group of aliens as a whole, including the safe third country exception of 8 USC 1158(a)(2)(A).

Maybe you should try reading the law itself, reading it carefully, understanding fully the issues it deals with, and researching carefully the actual content of the terms it contains, and leave off parroting the lies told to you by others with ideological axes to grind. 

Furthermore, the precise issue of “invasion” had to do with the flatulent suggestion by certain other posters that the president could use his authority to protect the states from “invasion” as the basis for denying asylum to this motley crowd of aliens.

[mrclose]

Big deal.  And irrelevant.  The issue was asylum, not entry, and the president cannot deny the right to apply for asylum on the basis that the applicant entered the US illegally.  8 USC 1158 flatly says so.  Period.  End of discussion.  And no, none of the exceptions apply to that group of aliens as a whole, including the safe third country exception of 8 USC 1158(a)(2)(A).

Maybe you should try reading the law itself, reading it carefully, understanding fully the issues it deals with, and researching carefully the actual content of the terms it contains, and leave off parroting the lies told to you by others with ideological axes to grind.

Your dishonesty (or ignorance) astounds me!

We went through that argument already and you chose to ignore it!

He can, if he chooses to do so ... ignore any amnesty requests and if you really need me to do so, I can find That law, that stands on it's own.

Somehow, I think you would ignore that too!

[Oceander]

Your dishonesty (or ignorance) astounds me!

We went through that argument already and you chose to ignore it!

He can, if he chooses to do so ... ignore any amnesty requests and if you really need me to do so, I can find That law, that stands on it's own.

Somehow, I think you would ignore that too!

Why don’t you stop being an ideological liar and start reading the law as written, and start actually living by the motto of applying the law as written. 

The president cannot deny a person the right to apply for asylum because that person entered the U.S. illegally.  8 USC 1158. 

Now, you claim there is another law that says otherwise.  Find it, and post it, or be exposed for the liar and hypocrite that you are. 

8 USC 1158(a)(1) provides:

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 1225(b) of this title.

[Chosen Daughter]

@Oceander

You see the word invading force or army anywhere in here?

Seems straight forward to me. 

[Emjay]

Why don’t you stop being an ideological liar and start reading the law as written, and start actually living by the motto of applying the law as written. 

The president cannot deny a person the right to apply for asylum because that person entered the U.S. illegally.  8 USC 1158. 

Now, you claim there is another law that says otherwise.  Find it, and post it, or be exposed for the liar and hypocrite that you are. 

8 USC 1158(a)(1) provides:

I've read a few posts from you lately that seem to indicate you are okay with unlimited invasion/arrival of illegal aliens.

Are is it that you just dislike Trump to the point that you would disagree with anything Trump supports even if it harms our country?

[Oceander]

I've read a few posts from you lately that seem to indicate you are okay with unlimited invasion/arrival of illegal aliens.

Are is it that you just dislike Trump to the point that you would disagree with anything Trump supports even if it harms our country?

Then you’ve read my posts wrong.  I am in favor of reading the express law by its terms and applying unambiguous terms as written.  It is crystal clear that the president cannot deny a person the right to apply for asylum simply because the person entered the country illegally. 

Keep in mind, that is an issue of applying for asylum, which is very different from the issue of whether an individual should be granted entry into the US. 

[truth_seeker]

Sure is disappointing that the outgoing MAJORITY GOP congress, has not corrected any deficiencies in immigration/amnesty laws.

Consider this failure one in a long line from our GOP establishment, to include but not limit too, Bush I, Bush II, McCain, Jeb, Ryan, and several others.



After sitting President of late, the GOP has elevated Dennis Hastert, John Boner and Paul Ryan to top status.

[Chosen Daughter]

Sure is disappointing that the outgoing MAJORITY GOP congress, has not corrected any deficiencies in immigration/amnesty laws.

Consider this failure one in a long line from our GOP establishment, to include but not limit too, Bush I, Bush II, McCain, Jeb, Ryan, and several others.



After sitting President of late, the GOP has elevated Dennis Hastert, John Boner and Paul Ryan to top status.

You left out Lindsey Graham.  Oops Graham is Senate.

[Emjay]

Then you’ve read my posts wrong.  I am in favor of reading the express law by its terms and applying unambiguous terms as written.  It is crystal clear that the president cannot deny a person the right to apply for asylum simply because the person entered the country illegally. 

Keep in mind, that is an issue of applying for asylum, which is very different from the issue of whether an individual should be granted entry into the US.

Okay, appreciate your clearing that up.  Then you're okay with Trump denying members of the caravan entrance across our borders?

[Oceander]

Okay, appreciate your clearing that up.  Then you're okay with Trump denying members of the caravan entrance across our borders?

Sure.  As a matter of broad immigration policy, I tend to favor a guest worker regime, where people with generally clean noses would be allowed to come in and work, so long as they stayed clean and employed.  But we’re not there yet, and both the Constitution and the statutes allow the president to control who comes across the border, so I’m good with that.

In the matter that has been the source of so much sound and fury, I’m simply insisting that the asylum laws be obeyed as written, and asylum is different from entrance. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Sure.  As a matter of broad immigration policy, I tend to favor a guest worker regime, where people with generally clean noses would be allowed to come in and work, so long as they stayed clean and employed.  But we’re not there yet, and both the Constitution and the statutes allow the president to control who comes across the border, so I’m good with that.

In the matter that has been the source of so much sound and fury, I’m simply insisting that the asylum laws be obeyed as written, and asylum is different from entrance.

Fantastic posts.
You're a rare breed @Oceander .  You understand the meaning of words and use words that express the specific meaning of what you intend to say.  I wish there were more posters like you.

[Fishrrman]

Emjay wrote:
"You are a rare Briefer who thinks we should passively let these people in."

Quite the contrary.
I suspect he has a vested interest in "letting these people in"...

[libertybele]

Weren't the asylum/refugee laws contrived by the U.N?

 "The 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum" ....

There have been laws and amendments afterwards, but " Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its terms...."

IMHO there is a gray area here in that the President can still declare a moratorium on asylum and immigration; due to protecting its citizens form all enemies; foreign and domestic.

Most importantly:

Although the Convention is "legally binding" there is no body that monitors compliance. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has supervisory responsibilities, but cannot enforce the Convention, ...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees