Father and daughter drown at US border

MrFresh

Bambi wrote: »

I'll be generous and say I don't think you watched the video

Though it's possible you're as on the ball as the bould Ms Cortez shows herself to be in that clip

It's simply a difference of opinion. She says he recommended a child separation policy, he says he recommended a zero tolerance policy which resulted in child separations. She doesn't believe there is a distinction, he does. Nobody was schooled on anything.

Dyr

MrFresh wrote: »

It's simply a difference of opinion. She says he recommended a child separation policy, he says he recommended a zero tolerance policy which resulted in child separations. She doesn't believe there is a distinction, he does. Nobody was schooled on anything.

Why are you trying to interpret what was said and ignore the rest? I can't decide if you're genuinely a bit dense of just doing the usual disingenuous boards routine


“If I get arrested for DUI and I have a young child in the car I’m going to be separated. When I was a police officer in New York and I arrested a father for domestic violence, I separated that father from his family.


“Mr. Homan, with all due respect, legal asylees are not charged with any crime,”


“When you’re in this country illegally, it’s violation 8, United States Code 1325,”

“Seeking asylum is legal,” .

“If you want to seek asylum, you go through a port of entry. Do it the legal way. The attorney general of the United States has made that clear,”

“Okay,”

MrFresh

Bambi wrote: »

Why are you trying to interpret what was said and ignore the rest? I can't decide if you're genuinely a bit dense of just doing the usual disingenuous boards routine


“If I get arrested for DUI and I have a young child in the car I’m going to be separated. When I was a police officer in New York and I arrested a father for domestic violence, I separated that father from his family.


“Mr. Homan, with all due respect, legal asylees are not charged with any crime,”


“When you’re in this country illegally, it’s violation 8, United States Code 1325,”

“Seeking asylum is legal,” .

“If you want to seek asylum, you go through a port of entry. Do it the legal way. The attorney general of the United States has made that clear,”

“Okay,”

First of all, Mr Homan is incorrect. You are not committing a violation by simply being in the country. The code he refers to applies to the act of crossing the border, not being in the country.


Second of all, I am surprised you have an issue with me interpreting what was said considering you are doing the exact same. Seems a little hypocritical.


Third, the main argument in the video was over the family separation policy. AOC was accusing him of recommending it. He was denying it. His argument was that he recommended a zero tolerance prosecution policy and family separation was simply a natural consequence of the prosecutions.


Finally, it is legal to apply for asylum at any point along the border. A 3 month renewing presidential proclamation has deemed people who do so outside a port of entry to be ineligible for asylum, but they still aren't doing anything illegal.


Take your time going through all that now.

Dyr

MrFresh wrote: »

First of all, Mr Homan is incorrect. You are not committing a violation by simply being in the country. The code he refers to applies to the act of crossing the border, not being in the country.


Second of all, I am surprised you have an issue with me interpreting what was said considering you are doing the exact same. Seems a little hypocritical.


Third, the main argument in the video was over the family separation policy. AOC was accusing him of recommending it. He was denying it. His argument was that he recommended a zero tolerance prosecution policy and family separation was simply a natural consequence of the prosecutions.


Finally, it is legal to apply for asylum at any point along the border. A 3 month renewing presidential proclamation has deemed people who do so outside a port of entry to be ineligible for asylum, but they still aren't doing anything illegal.


Take your time going through all that now.

Ah right so not thick just disingenuous. Usual attempt to drag the issue off into a game of tautology. Here we go :rolleyes:

First of all, Mr Homan is incorrect. You are not committing a violation by simply being in the country. The code he refers to applies to the act of crossing the border, not being in the country

Yeah, forgive me but I'll take the word of the former head of ICE over yours on that topic, especially when the first sentence in the quoted code is "Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers"

Finally, it is legal to apply for asylum at any point along the border. A 3 month renewing presidential proclamation has deemed people who do so outside a port of entry to be ineligible for asylum, but they still aren't doing anything illegal.

Which is completely irrelevant when the topic at hand is those who enter the country illegally.

I didn't interpret anything, I posted quotes. I stated that Cortez was some dope. That's a reasonable opinion to arrive at from an exchange where every point she makes is immediately refuted

MrFresh

Bambi wrote: »

Yeah, forgive me but I'll take the word of the former head of ICE over yours on that topic, especially when the first sentence in the quoted code is "Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers"

That's your prerogative. Entering the state is not the same as being in the state. You can enter the state legally and still become undocumented. It is not illegal to be in the state undocumented. It is a civil violation. This is well recognised and was established in the Supreme Court in Arizona v US

Bambi wrote: »

Which is completely irrelevant when the topic at hand is those who enter the country illegally.

You are allowed under the law apply for asylum even if you entered the country illegally. Trump has simply made a rule that you simply won't be eligible for being granted that asylum.

Bambi wrote: »

I didn't interpret anything, I posted quotes. I stated that Cortez was some dope. That's a reasonable opinion to arrive at from an exchange where every point she makes is immediately refuted

Simply refuting something doesn't make you right. I refuted you just there. Does that make you a dope?

Bizarre rational.

You're only breaking the law at the moment you cross the border. If your whole body is across, you're breaking no laws anymore, and should be treated better than an American breaking the law.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Outlaw Pete

MrFresh wrote: »

First of all, Mr Homan is incorrect. You are not committing a violation by simply being in the country. The code he refers to applies to the act of crossing the border, not being in the country.

False. Of course someone is committing a violation if they are in the US illegally.

When someone is detained at the border after having either gained access to the US illegally, or are attempting to, they are arrested under 1325. If they are found months later are deemed, they will be arrested under 1325 also. Even when illegals marry or set up a business when in the country illegally, they will be found to have violated 1325. That's why they call them illegal aliens for heaven sake.

His argument was that he recommended a zero tolerance prosecution policy and family separation was simply a natural consequence of the prosecutions.

And he's correct, it is. No family is separated if they seek asylum at a port of entry. I said this at the start of the thread. Unless the parent is wanted for another crime or is fraudulently claiming parenty, then there is no automatic family separation policy in place.

Finally, it is legal to apply for asylum at any point along the border.

Port of entries are the only place that migrants can seek entry for any reason. They are the only places equipped to process applications. There are queues at every port of entry. People sleeping in tents for months in an effort to obey the law. If it was legal to apply at any point along the border, such queues would be pointless.


I see democrats resorting to the usual nonsense when the facts don't support their cause when Garcia implied Homan was actually a racist:


https://twitter.com/tylerjohnpratt/status/1149974307029864448

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

Bizarre rational.

You're only breaking the law at the moment you cross the border. If your whole body is across, you're breaking no laws anymore, and should be treated better than an American breaking the law.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

It's not that bizarre. As I said, you don't have to enter illegally to become undocumented. Overstaying a visa can put you in the same position. That's probably why the law was kept that way. They had two years of republican control of the house and senate and presidency. They could have changed it if they wanted.


The concept of laws applying to different stages is also not unusual. In Ireland it's illegal to be on possession of certain drugs but it is not illegal to be intoxicated on those same drugs. Logic would dictate you have to have been in possession before being high but you still can't be prosecuted for that possession.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/tylerjohnpratt/status/1149974307029864448

Jesus Christ. You know you're on the losing side when you accuse someone of not caring because they're a different race. Shameful behaviour.

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

False. Of course someone is committing a violation if they are in the US illegally.

They are not committing a crime.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

When someone is detained at the border after having either gained access to the US illegally, or are attempting to, they are arrested under 1325. If they are found months later are deemed, they will be arrested under 1325 also. Even when illegals marry or set up a business when in the country illegally, they will be found to have violated 1325. That's why they call them illegal aliens for heaven sake.

Yes, that's 1325 alright. Again, it doesn't change what I said. it is not a criminal offence to be undocumented in the US. They are called illegals by some people.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And he's correct, it is. No family is separated if they seek asylum at a port of entry. I said this at the start of the thread. Unless the parent is wanted for another crime or is fraudulently claiming parenty, then there is no automatic family separation policy in place.

And as I've mentioned a few times, the issue isn't with separation at port of entry. You keep trying to narrow it down to that to avoid the actual issue.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Port of entries are the only place that migrants can seek entry for any reason. They are the only places equipped to process applications. There are queues at every port of entry. People sleeping in tents for months in an effort to obey the law. If it was legal to apply at any point along the border, such queues would be pointless.

They aren't pointless. While it is legal to apply for asylum at any point on the border, Trump has decided you won't be granted it unless you apply at a port of entry. So you can legally apply for it, you just have 0% of getting it.

MrFresh

MrFresh wrote: »

It's not that bizarre. As I said, you don't have to enter illegally to become undocumented. Overstaying a visa can put you in the same position. That's probably why the law was kept that way. They had two years of republican control of the house and senate and presidency. They could have changed it if they wanted.


The concept of laws applying to different stages is also not unusual. In Ireland it's illegal to be on possession of certain drugs but it is not illegal to be intoxicated on those same drugs. Logic would dictate you have to have been in possession before being high but you still can't be prosecuted for that possession.

What exactly is it you're arguing here? And this isn't about children being separated. I want you to spell out your views on illegal immigrants' status and what should happen to them.

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is it you're arguing here? And this isn't about children being separated. I want you to spell out your views on illegal immigrants' status and what should happen to them.

Due process and humane treatment.

Outlaw Pete

MrFresh wrote: »

They are not committing a crime.

They may be and the vast majority of illegal aliens are committing a crime by virtue of the fact that they are violating US immigration laws.

Yes, that's 1325 alright. Again, it doesn't change what I said. it is not a criminal offence to be undocumented in the US. They are called illegals by some people.

You said Homan was incorrect, but Homan made his comments in the context of border arrests and those people, to which he was referring, had absolutely committed a crime.

And as I've mentioned a few times, the issue isn't with separation at port of entry. You keep trying to narrow it down to that to avoid the actual issue.

Nope, not avoiding anything, just making an important distinction. Happy to discuss either. You however seem determined to ignore the fact that a crime is committed by those that enter, or attempt to enter, the US illegally.

They aren't pointless. While it is legal to apply for asylum at any point on the border, Trump has decided you won't be granted it unless you apply at a port of entry. So you can legally apply for it, you just have 0% of getting it.

And 0% isn't pointless?? :P

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They may be and the vast majority of illegal aliens are committing a crime by virtue of the fact that they are violating US immigration laws.

They may have committed a crime when they entered. They are not by simply being undocumented.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You said Homan was incorrect, but Homan made his comments in the context of border arrests and those people, to which he was referring, had absolutely committed a crime.

Zero tolerance did not apply to just border arrests.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope, not avoiding anything, just making an important distinction. Happy to discuss either. You however seem determined to ignore the fact that a crime is committed by those that enter, or attempt to enter, the US illegally.

No, I've explicitly stated it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And 0% isn't pointless?? :P

You seem a little confused. You said "If it was legal to apply at any point along the border, such queues would be pointless". It is legal to do so and the points of entry are not pointless.

Outlaw Pete

MrFresh wrote: »

They may have committed a crime when they entered. They are not by simply being undocumented.

Illegals are not merely undocumented and to keep referring to them as that, in the context of Homan's remarks, means that what you are doing is removing the context in which he made them and then essentially making a strawman argument.

You seem a little confused. You said "If it was legal to apply at any point along the border, such queues would be pointless". It is legal to do so and the points of entry are not pointless.

Sigh. I never said 'points of entry' were pointless, you even quote me as speaking about the queues in the same damn paparagrah. What are you at here?

Look, you cannot apply for asylum at any point along the border as you stated. You must go to a port of entry. That's why there are month long queues at ports of entry. End of story. Those people that are arrestested between ports are not being arrested for trying to seek asylum, they are being arrested because they are committing a crime.

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Illegals are not merely undocumented and to keep referring to them as that, in the context of Homan's remarks, means that what you are doing is removing the context in which he made them and then essentially making a strawman argument.

Are you relying on some official definition for the term "illegals"?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh. I never said 'points of entry' were pointless, you even quote me as speaking about the queues in the same damn paparagrah. What are you at here?

Look, you cannot apply for asylum at any point along the border as you stated. You must go to a port of entry. That's why there are month long queues at ports of entry. End of story. Those people that are arrestested between ports are not being arrested for trying to seek asylum, they are being arrested because they are committing a crime.

You can seek asylum at any time. This is the law. You simply won't be granted if you don't seek it at a port of entry. This is Trumps proclamation.

batgoat

That chief border agent who was emotionally testifying a few weeks back was in a secret Facebook group where the staff made jokes about the dead, engaged in racism, misogyny etc. Pretty big contrast to the public persona.

https://theintercept.com/2019/07/12/border-patrol-chief-carla-provost-was-a-member-of-secret-facebook-group/

Outlaw Pete

MrFresh wrote: »

Are you relying on some official definition for the term "illegals"?

Pointless trying to have a discussion with you.

You said Homan was wrong and he was not. You can drag it out as much as you like but it won't make you right.

You can seek asylum at any time. This is the law. You simply won't be granted if you don't seek it at a port of entry.

Look, you're being pedantic. If I say people can order pizzas in McDonald's and someone corrects me and says actually McDonald's don't sell pizza, I can't then just say "Well, I never said anyone would get one, just sayin that they can order one there if they like".

Things have changed. Migrants at the border wanting to seek asylum must go to a port of entry.

This is Trumps proclamation.

Aye and it should have been done years ago and hopefully the rest of what he has in mind will come to pass also:


https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1128986001165230081

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Pointless trying to have a discussion with you.

It is when you can't answer a simple question.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You said Homan was wrong and he was not. You can drag it out as much as you like but it won't make you right.

Having looked back on the video you are correct. I relied on Bambi's transcript as being accurate. Turns out he made it up. Mr Homan was correct, the poster who quoted him was wrong. Apologies for the confusion.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look, you're being pedantic. If I say people can order pizzas in McDonald's and someone corrects me and says actually McDonald's don't sell pizza, I can't then just say "Well, I never said anyone would get one, just sayin that they can order one there if they like".

Things have changed. Migrants at the border wanting to seek asylum must go to a port of entry.

The law is pedantic. It's one of it's defining characteristics.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1128986001165230081

Apply for Asylum in their own country?

I think poor Lindsey as spent too much time crawled up into the Donald's anus.

Danzy

Boggles wrote: »

Apply for Asylum in their own country?

I think poor Lindsey as spent too much time crawled up into the Donald's anus.

The Asylum process, laws, charters were designed in post WW2, before mass transport, before massive population growth.

That they are even radically top free market for the Republican party tells you all you need to know, labelling them as solidarity etc does not make them any less extreme free market.

Boggles

Danzy wrote: »

The Asylum process, laws, charters were designed in post WW2, before mass transport,

Thought all the scary caravans of people were walking to the border?