Explaining the border problem...

Well I've not needed my own words, just quoting you seemed sufficient to make my point.

 

Breaking the law has always had it's lure and rewards.. Thats why crime is so popular here

 

NOT if they're seeking asylum.

ENTRY is NOT a prosecutable crime if they are seeking asylum because your life or freedom are at risk. If they commit other crimes, that's a different matter.

In fact, entry is REQUIRED by law, in order to apply for asylum. They MUST be physically present in the country. And it makes no difference if this is done at a designated point of entry or not.

If you bar asylum seekers from entering, REGARDLESS of their status, you would be violating our laws AND international law... as well as human rights.

What kind of lawyer doesn't know these things?

 

I wouldn't know....

 

Yep, you just wrote the winning argument - in some discussions the winning argument is to accuse our opponent that his opinions are "purely to satisfy the cruel instincts against foreigners that too many people feel (a.k.a xenophobia)", racists, communists, socialists, homophobic and they hate America.

 

Seems there is much you don't know either. You're trying to interpret immigration law with your personal bastardized version

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

You do realize this encompasses their records from the country they come from too, right? So when does the vetting begin

 

1) Virtually none of those committing nation rape (penetrating our border without consent) are actual asylum seekers. And if one or two of them actually somehow are? They have the right to go to a legal port of entry and apply.
2) Entering the country illegally violates of eight US Code 1325.

 

Entry without inspection is always a crime. They can enter at any of numerous checkpoints or other ports of entry.

They can have ENTRY at a port of ENTRY. It makes no difference to current laws as we enforce them. As you've so blithely said before "laws can change".

No, you're not in violation if you tell them to present at a port of entry.

 

I'm not interpreting anything. I'm quoting the law.

The vetting begins when Republicans release the funds needed to do it. Which they won't do, because (as they themselves have said) "vetting" would solve (or ameliorate) the problem. And that would give Biden a victory. So no... no vetting.

 

Yup you are, only it's the selected version

 

The first thing most asylum seekers do as soon as they cross the border is wait for border patrol to start the asylum process. They are SEEKING inspection.

 

No, entering the US without papers is NOT a crime.

Can you just imagine what would happen if those who entered without papers had access to our criminal justice system?

The LAST thing we want is for illegally crossing the border to be a crime.

 

Like we really need a leftist to explain how we should run the border. It increased 400% when Biden took over.

 

I'm puzzled about what this "vetting" thing is in your mind. It's as if you believed that when Juan Perez applies for asylum, they send an investigator to Nicaragua to ask Ortega "Hey! Is it true what Juan tells us? That you Sandinistas want to kill him?". So if Ortega says "Nah! We would never do that" the investigator comes back and expels Juan.

Is something like that how you think it works?

It doesn't. Juan will have to PROVE that the Sandinistas will kill him if they send him back. It's HIS burden! Problem is that there are not enough agents to perform the interview. And not enough resources to hold Juan while he's waiting. Because REPULBICANS refuse to approve funding. And they refuse to approve it because, according to their own words, that would be a solution and it would give Biden a win.

 

Do you support denying Biden the resources to make improvements?

What I see is Republicans using this issue as a political game. Republicans have NOT been serious about using the power of congress in addressing this issue, and they have worked to PREVENT other action.

The idea of preserving the issue for political gamesmanship is the ENTIRE Republican plan in the House.

 

So in your mind those countries do not keep RECORDS? Or maybe you think Juan Perez is an alias and he's to poor to have ID?

OR MAYBE you think they just show up with a invented name like Julio Alvarado or Miguel Sanchez?

What makes you so certain he's not Sandinistas, ms13, or some other Christian follower?

 

He may indeed get more resources but not until he restores the border the way it was before he took office! How much did we lose in materials already purchased for the wall? How much was storage? How much are the Feds going to reimburse Texas for the actions they have taken? and legal expenses?

I don't see how any more money is required. It will cost a great deal to deport all these illegal invaders but sealing it up now won't cost any more.

 

And you been there? Or are you just reciting MSM made for leftist consumption news..

Odd you don't include these types of facts..

 

Of course they do! And it's because they keep records that Juan Perez is running away from them.

You really DO believe that the Sandinistas would share any records that would benefit Juan Perez with us?

That's funny but, in any case, it doesn't matter. That's NOT how vetting works. The way it works it's the applicants BURDEN to show credible evidence that he's being persecuted. If they don't, they are sent back.

You would have known this if you had done your due diligence BEFORE posting. Please read y sig!

 

You might never know the wonders you discover when you do research unless you read my sig.

 

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325/
LOL... LMAO even.

 

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325/

You seek inspection at designated ports of entry. No butts, not cuts, no coconuts.

 

Lmao

 

Immigration law is not a death warrant for the country.
South America has around 450 million people. Using your logic, everyone who sets foot here is "home", and can yell "asylum" to avoid the immigration process.
You are grossly misusing the concept of "asylum" and using it as an excuse to allow as many as the 450 million in as wish to come, all presumably to stop Republicans from winning elections, because we sure as hell do not need more labor, and we don't need more crime. Using conventional statistics, ~ 9% of illegals become criminals, today's YTD of ~ 22 million @ 9% = ~ 2 million additional criminals.

And to not leave out the Enviro-Weenies, have they weighed the impact of the additional population growth and its impact on the "live smaller, greener, lesser" society they wish to create? (Or less politely, "Who is paying them to shut up and remain silent?")

 

Is terrorism a possible reason Juan(?) is seeking entry in to the U.S.? We simply write down the names of paperless people and welcome to the U.S.

Nope, but it might benefit our country.. See above

But you claim it doesn't matter if they sneak in it's legal entry

Or do like you and just toss out ridiculous nonsense