• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump to use desaster relief funds

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
esmith said:
From your link:
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.

If they are not physically present in the United States.....If they are in Mexico, trying to get across the border, they are not physically in the United States.
Click to expand...
And read it again. Once they are in a port of entry they can declare asylum. We cannot shut down the ports of entry, that is where citizens go to reenter the country too. You cannot keep out asylum seekers. All you can do is to give them a hearing and then deny their entry after the hearing.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
esmith said:
I suggest you re-evaluate.
The constitutional debates over the military prison at Guantánamo Bay - National Constitution Center
Click to expand...
How does that support your claim? If anything it supports me. To justify their continued I incarceration they had to refer to the constitution. In other words they still have rights otherwise the constitution would not have been referred to. And you ignored the specific Supreme Court case that sinks your claim and was mentioned in the article. Here is the Wiki page on that case:

Rasul v. Bush - Wikipedia

Scalia agreed with you but he was in the minority.

I love it when my opponent provides the article that refutes his claim.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
How does that support your claim? If anything it supports me. To justify their continued I incarceration they had to refer to the constitution. In other words they still have rights otherwise the constitution would not have been referred to. And you ignored the specific Supreme Court case that sinks your claim and was mentioned in the article. Here is the Wiki page on that case:

Rasul v. Bush - Wikipedia

Scalia agreed with you but he was in the minority.

I love it when my opponent provides the article that refutes his claim.
Click to expand...
I forgot to say that you were right in that post, but it is still an ongoing discussion that can be re-addressed at a latter date.
So go ahead and ding me if you want, I've got a pretty thick skin unlike others here and elsewhere.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
esmith said:
I forgot to say that you were right in that post, but it is still an ongoing discussion that can be re-addressed at a latter date.
So go ahead and ding me if you want, I've got a pretty thick skin unlike others here and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

No, a simple admission is fine. But your post said "I suggest you reevaluate" implying that your source showed that I was wrong when in fact it confirmed my claim. But as long as we both admit that even prisoners of war on Gitmo still have constitutional rights we are good.

By the way, Trump did not suggest shutting down the borders. Even he wants asylum seekers to do it the right way. That is to go to a port of entry and register as such. He might want to deny most of them asylum, but at least he seemed willing to go through the process. Once a person crosses the border, which he has to for us to evaluate him or her, that person can apply for asylum. I personally think one should have a better shot if one does it legally. Crossing illegally and then demanding asylum indicates that it was not a good faith application to me.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, a simple admission is fine. But your post said "I suggest you reevaluate" implying that your source showed that I was wrong when in fact it confirmed my claim. But as long as we both admit that even prisoners of war on Gitmo still have constitutional rights we are good.

By the way, Trump did not suggest shutting down the borders. Even he wants asylum seekers to do it the right way. That is to go to a port of entry and register as such. He might want to deny most of them asylum, but at least he seemed willing to go through the process. Once a person crosses the border, which he has to for us to evaluate him or her, that person can apply for asylum. I personally think one should have a better shot if one does it legally. Crossing illegally and then demanding asylum indicates that it was not a good faith application to me.
Click to expand...

I agree that someone illegally crossing the border then asking for asylum is not doing so in good faith; However, there are those that disagree and think anyone should be able to cross our borders and still request asylum. Everyone has their own opinion and probably can not be changed.
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
ImmortalFlame said:
The words you highlighted have absolutely no relation to your response whatsoever.

"He is obligated to treat people who arrive at our borders in humane ways"
is NOT the same as saying
"He is obligated to open our borders to an influx of people without documentation".

This is an obvious attempt at a straw man. Please debate in good faith and respond to the arguments actually being made.
Click to expand...

ImmortalFlame said:
Lying in order to protect your lies doesn't make you look good. You wrote:

"As far as I know (which isn't much) there is no law that says we have to open our borders to an influx of people without proper documentation. If so please provide said law or treaty."

In other words, you didn't ask what law or treaty "obligated Trump to treat people who arrive at our borders in a humane way", you asked what law or treaty "obligated to open our borders to an influx of people without proper documentation".

So don't try and act sarcastic with me when your dishonesty is on full display and even a cursory glance at your previous posts make this obvious. Don't test my patience, or I'll continue to point out your lying.
Click to expand...

ImmortalFlame said:
Thank you.


That doesn't justify deliberately misrepresenting someone else's post in order to straw man their argument and divert attention away from the actual point being made.
Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:
This for one:

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
Click to expand...
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


@esmith , see also: Family separation, U.S. treaties and asylum obligations: What’s legal? – Center for Public Integrity
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Nous said:
The article linked to in #71 explains Trump's most egregious violations of the laws.
Click to expand...

The President has not violated any law. A court order is not a law!
I thought you knew that Congress passes bills that become law if signed by the President or the Senate by overriding a veto. That is except a "pocket veto".

from your link
"The U.N. can raise concerns about non-compliance,” she said, “but has no control over how (countries) interpret their obligations.”
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
metis said:
Apparently you're totally unaware of his fines in 2016 because of his Trump University and misuse of campaign funds fiascos. And maybe it's best to do some homework before spouting what you did, and here's a good place to start: Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
@metis I would suggest you read what was being discussed when I said he has not broken any laws before you post something. Clearly you didn't or you would have not done so.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
esmith said:
@metis I would suggest you read what was being discussed when I said he has not broken any laws before you post something. Clearly you didn't or you would have not done so.
Click to expand...
I did not notice that the context of what you wrote was just dealing with the detention at our southern border, but whether or not he may have broken any laws there is not reflected in any court case-- at least as of yet. However, since "innocent until proven guilty" must be applied, I'll not go any further.

However, with that being said, why would you support a president who has a long record of violating laws and who lies so much? How can you as a vet ignore Putin's threat and Donald's bromance with him? How can you support his leaving of Syria or his willingness to leave NATO? I would think that most vets really don't trust a former KGB official who loves to invade other countries and work against American and our allies' interests? .
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
metis said:
I did not notice that the context of what you wrote was just dealing with the detention at our southern border, but whether or not he may have broken any laws there is not reflected in any court case-- at least as of yet. However, since "innocent until proven guilty" must be applied, I'll not go any further.

However, with that being said, why would you support a president who has a long record of violating laws and who lies so much? How can you as a vet ignore Putin's threat and Donald's bromance with him? How can you support his leaving of Syria or his willingness to leave NATO? I would think that most vets really don't trust a former KGB official who loves to invade other countries and work against American and our allies' interests? .
Click to expand...
Actually the reason I support him is that what he has done as President vice what he did or may have done prior to becoming President. I don't think the majority of politicians hands are clean in that respect, both past and present.

Now I do believe that his leaving policy on leaving troops in Syria has been reversed has it not? However, I do think that the absence of a foreign presence in Syria other than Russia and Iran could leave to problems. Saying that I think the Kurdish in Syria should be protected, but do we want to engage in military action against the Turkish military if they attack those Kurds?

Was his threat to leave NATO a ploy to get the member nations of NATO to up their ante in NATO? I don't know.

Do you think we should have military bases throughout the world or should we bring all the military back to the U.S.? I think it is of importance to have a forward deployed presence. Once you remove them it may be next to impossible to get them back if they are needed. There is a lot of water between the US and anywhere we might need a military response.

Do I trust the present President of Russia? The answer is no. But I do think we have to try and work with them to forestall any possibility of an event which would result in armed conflict with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top