ADVERTISEMENT

Biden considering new executive action to restrict asylum at the border, sources say

Who is getting my tax dollars this time?

Depends on what kind of trick Bozo is going to perform here,.. Guarantee that when the complete story becomes available, it will somehow involve spending your tax dollars to purchase votes..
 
I used f*ck not re. Is lib**rd ok? Seems to get thrown around regularly with no anguish.
Shawn is pretty fair game with his disdain for the that word in general. Just FYI. I don't find it offensive in any of its forms myself, including the hard r.
 
Depends on what kind of trick Bozo is going to perform here,.. Guarantee that when the complete story becomes available, it will somehow involve spending your tax dollars to purchase votes..

With that level of cynicism, everything could be construed as simply buying votes.
 
Did they come through a legal port of entry in your line of questioning?
That is not a requirement under the statute. Title 8 provides a party can request asylum at a port of entry or inside the country.

The many Cubans that your party relies on for republican vote in south Florida immigrated under the similar dry foot policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
That is not a requirement under the statute. Title 8 provides a party can request asylum at a port of entry or inside the country.

The many Cubans that your party relies on for republican vote in south Florida immigrated under the similar dry foot policy.
If they are in the country illegally and did not come through a port of entry in the first place then yes, they broke the law. Allowing an individual to seek asylum inside the country does not give clearance to illegally enter the country outside of a port of entry. Nice try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkman34
If they are in the country illegally and did not come through a port of entry in the first place then yes, they broke the law. Allowing an individual to seek asylum inside the country does not give clearance to illegally enter the country outside of a port of entry. Nice try.
I understand that is your uneducated opinion of what the law should be, but it not the law. Making it to the US and turning yourself into authority requesting asylum is the law. That statute was changed with the bipartisan bill...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
I understand that is your uneducated opinion of what the law should be, but it not the law. Making it to the US and turning yourself into authority requesting asylum is the law. That statute was changed with the bipartisan bill...
The bill that didn't get signed into law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkman34
I understand that is your uneducated opinion of what the law should be, but it not the law. Making it to the US and turning yourself into authority requesting asylum is the law. That statute was changed with the bipartisan bill...


You're simply wrong and uneducated lol
 
Making it to the US and turning yourself into authority requesting asylum is the law.

This is correct,.. However, as with all legislation the administration in power is given broad latitude in determining how, and to what extent, any given law will be enforced, (i.e. federal marijuana laws),.. Regarding asylum though, numerous past administrations have required newly arriving applicants to make their claim at an official US port of entry,.. not to just set foot on US soil.
 
This is correct,.. However, as with all legislation the administration in power is given broad latitude in determining how, and to what extent, any given law will be enforced, (i.e. federal marijuana laws),.. Regarding asylum, numerous past administrations have required newly arriving applicants to make their claim at an official US port of entry,.. not to just set foot on US soil.
The Trump administrations EO was overturned in Court. I am not aware of a similar EO coming from earlier administrations invoking the “detrimental to US” exception. It’s possible- just not aware
 
The one that even some Democrats are against, that gives triple the money to Ukraine to protect their country, than towards protecting our own, and that still allows up to 5,000 people per day into the US? That one?
You realize the feds were not sending actual cash to the Ukraine, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
I used f*ck not re. Is lib**rd ok? Seems to get thrown around regularly with no anguish.
I call it out when I see it. Most that use that word are on ignore though. If that justifies you using it in your mind, keep being your cool self then. I hope you don’t use the word irl.
 
Ive said in other threads that biden could give republicans what they want and they would still bitch
Biden won't give Republicans what they want unless it's on his terms and timeline. As a Senator, Biden was relatively moderate. I'm not sure what happened to him. I had high hopes we'd get that Biden in 2020. I was really wrong.
 
Biden won't give Republicans what they want unless it's on his terms and timeline. As a Senator, Biden was relatively moderate. I'm not sure what happened to him. I had high hopes we'd get that Biden in 2020. I was really wrong.
You think Biden's isn't a moderate?
 
I call it out when I see it. Most that use that word are on ignore though. If that justifies you using it in your mind, keep being your cool self then. I hope you don’t use the word irl.
Nope. Just the occasional slip when trolling in call of duty lobbies like it’s 2 decades ago. When certain things were “socially acceptable” to say. Teen habits die hard. Speaking of which, the stuff sitcoms and shows said back in the day 😱, immediately cancelled now a days.
 
The one that even some Democrats are against, that gives triple the money to Ukraine to protect their country, than towards protecting our own, and that still allows up to 5,000 people per day into the US? That one?
Yes that bipartisan bill deserves a vote
 
According to fact check only 15-20% qualify for asylum, so you tell me, what laws do the others, who stay, break?
 
My bad, it is Rachel Levine, then the bald lipstick guy. It is a diverse cabinet otherwise as well, which in and of itself is fine, but if they place diversity over merit, it's a net negative.
What applicants were more qualified and why?
 
What applicants were more qualified and why?
speculation on my part, but when its pushed and celebrated that they were going to have a diverse cabinet, is it not reasonable to think they picked based on diversity and not qualifications? I may be wrong.
 
I love when FACTS use OPINIONS.
-Remain in Mexico barely worked and many of those who were removed were victims of horrible crimes.

As opposed to those who are victims of horrible crimes on their way here after being told to surge the border by our president.

You know what "barely works" means? It means "Works".

That three pointer barely went in! Oh...so it's three points for my team? Cool.
 
If only there were some bipartisan bill for the border that could be brought to a vote..
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT