Forthcoming Asylum Rules Crackdown

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I didn't say I was or wasn't. Only thing I did was offer USCIS definition. 

Let’s clarify then:

 

If you go to the DHS site for definitions - https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/data-standards-and-definitions/definition-terms#permanent_resident_alien

 

And look under “I” for immigrant, it says to see Permanent Resident Alien.  Click on “P” and look there, and we find:

 

“Permanent Resident Alien - An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States.”

[Unidentified 2,930]

Just now, Satisfied said:

Let’s clarify then:

 

If you go to the DHS site for definitions - https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/data-standards-and-definitions/definition-terms#permanent_resident_alien

 

And look under “I” for immigrant, it says to see Permanent Resident Alien.  Click on “P” and look there, and we find:

 

“Permanent Resident Alien - An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States.”

Exactly. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Unidentified said:

Exactly. 

So we agree.  They are illegal aliens.  Immigrants who fail to meet the requirements of the US to gain lawful entry.

[Boiler 46,013]

One of these weird MDL things, they seem to have an issue with calling illegals illegals.

[Unidentified 2,930]

Just now, Satisfied said:

So we agree.  They are illegal aliens.  Immigrants who fail to meet the requirements of the US to gain lawful entry.

Sure but they're still defined as immigrant. 

Just now, Boiler said:

One of these weird MDL things, they seem to have an issue with calling illegals illegals.

Who are you talking to? Yourself? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Unidentified said:

Sure but they're still defined as immigrant. 

Yes, they are.  They are also defined as human, person, male or female, and perhaps by race, religion, or color.  So many labels.  Some labels offer more clarity than others.  Human is pretty generic.  Man is more specific.  Black male even more specific.  Black male from Jamaica who is catholic is even MORE specific, no?  In the same fashion, immigrant is very generic.  Guatemalan immigrant is more specific.  Female Guatemalan immigrant with child even more so.  Female Guatemalan illegal alien with son in attendance is even more specific.

 

An immigrant is simply a person who moves to a foreign country to live permanently.  But just like when I offered the simple definition of “sexual orientation”, and you said there was more to it than that, I am now offering you the same courtesy.  There is more to it than just entering a country to live permanently.  There is a right way, and a wrong way to do so.  

 

Hopefully you and I agree that illegal = wrong. 

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

40 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Are you saying because people in the US use the carpool lane inappropriately, we should allow illegals entry into the US?

No.  We are discussing the absurdity of labeling folks illegal. An illegal citizen is not a thing. You are an alleged or convicted criminal. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Rob and Cheryl

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

20 minutes ago, Boiler said:

One of these weird MDL things, they seem to have an issue with calling illegals illegals.

They who?

 

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

10 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Yes, they are.  They are also defined as human, person, male or female, and perhaps by race, religion, or color.  So many labels.  Some labels offer more clarity than others.  Human is pretty generic.  Man is more specific.  Black male even more specific.  Black male from Jamaica who is catholic is even MORE specific, no?  In the same fashion, immigrant is very generic.  Guatemalan immigrant is more specific.  Female Guatemalan immigrant with child even more so.  Female Guatemalan illegal alien with son in attendance is even more specific.

 

An immigrant is simply a person who moves to a foreign country to live permanently.  But just like when I offered the simple definition of “sexual orientation”, and you said there was more to it than that, I am now offering you the same courtesy.  There is more to it than just entering a country to live permanently.  There is a right way, and a wrong way to do so.  

 

Hopefully you and I agree that illegal = wrong. 

The cool linguistic trick is that by labeling folks illegal, without knowing them, the facts of their case, who they are and what their final status would be after appealing to the courts, the morality of US policies or our implementation of them, the abduction of their children and subsequent extortion of folks to give up their application for asylum, all gets put below the water line because these folks are illegal, even before the have seen a judge or magistrate.  Like I said genius spin and marketing for political gain.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

14 minutes ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

No.  We are discussing the absurdity of labeling folks illegal. An illegal citizen is not a thing. You are an alleged or convicted criminal. 

Actually if we are following this absurdity to this new level of semantic definitions, you are either a criminal or not, our legal system gives you the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Using this, perhaps illegal immigrant is incorrect and we should call them criminals with no legal basis for obtaining the benefits of an LPR as it fits the definitions proposed here

[Unidentified 2,930]

28 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Yes, they are.  They are also defined as human, person, male or female, and perhaps by race, religion, or color.  So many labels.  Some labels offer more clarity than others.  Human is pretty generic.  Man is more specific.  Black male even more specific.  Black male from Jamaica who is catholic is even MORE specific, no?  In the same fashion, immigrant is very generic.  Guatemalan immigrant is more specific.  Female Guatemalan immigrant with child even more so.  Female Guatemalan illegal alien with son in attendance is even more specific.

 

An immigrant is simply a person who moves to a foreign country to live permanently.  But just like when I offered the simple definition of “sexual orientation”, and you said there was more to it than that, I am now offering you the same courtesy.  There is more to it than just entering a country to live permanently.  There is a right way, and a wrong way to do so.  

 

Hopefully you and I agree that illegal = wrong. 

Labeling and defining are two different things though. Labels are not always a good thing. 

 

Yes, we can agree that illegal is wrong. Are asylum seekers illegals? No. You can't be illegal while seeking refuge. 

23 minutes ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

No.  We are discussing the absurdity of labeling folks illegal. An illegal citizen is not a thing. You are an alleged or convicted criminal. 

Saying that someone is here illegally is not absurd. Even USCIS uses the word "illegal" though they prefer the term alien. 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

4 minutes ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

The cool linguistic trick is that by labeling folks illegal, without knowing them, the facts of their case, who they are and what their final status would be after appealing to the courts, the morality of US policies or our implementation of them, the abduction of their children and subsequent extortion of folks to give up their application for asylum, all gets put below the water line because these folks are illegal, even before the have seen a judge or magistrate.  Like I said genius spin and marketing for political gain.

If I am convicted of murder and appeal are you saying I am not a murderer? Can my kids stay with me in maximum security until I exhaust all my appeals? I will even post an optic of an alleged child crying due to the inaccurate portrayal  of the situation by the photographer?

 

Are you so blinded by hatred of our current government that you believe children separated from their parents while in commission of a crime is abduction? Or that enforcing the levels of scrutiny for applying for asylum is extortion?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

24 minutes ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

No.  We are discussing the absurdity of labeling folks illegal. An illegal citizen is not a thing. You are an alleged or convicted criminal. 

So if someone makes their 3rd border crossing with no documentation (which is a felony)  they are here legally ?  I am having a hard time following your logic 

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

9 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So if someone makes their 3rd border crossing with no documentation (which is a felony)  they are here legally ?  I am having a hard time following your logic 

No , that someone is not here legally, and in that case the same individual has been processed and seen a magistrate and determined to not to have the right to stay here.

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

16 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

If I am convicted of murder and appeal are you saying I am not a murderer? Can my kids stay with me in maximum security until I exhaust all my appeals? I will even post an optic of an alleged child crying due to the inaccurate portrayal  of the situation by the photographer?

 

Are you so blinded by hatred of our current government that you believe children separated from their parents while in commission of a crime is abduction? Or that enforcing the levels of scrutiny for applying for asylum is extortion?

Blinded by hatred is strong language.  You don't know me and I don't know you so I will let that go to the side on account of the passionate nature of the topic. Terms like extortion and abduction are charged, just as the label illegal for refugees is. If someone took my child under any circumstances, I would risk the use of that language to make a point.

 

I don't equate violent criminals accused, convicted, on appeal or released with these families, that's what they are at the end of the day, families and I don't think you do either.