ICE to hire contractor to transport 225,000 migrants to shelters across the US

Shad · May 18, 2019

Left Coast said:
As are the views of the agent who decides whether the asylum seeker even gets to have their case heard in court.

Yes. The claims can not pass a minimum of scrutiny thus are rejected

Apparently not, since so few of them are granted asylum.

Yes as most people are gaming the system with false claims

Since at least some of the people being granted asylum are from Central America, clearly in the view of some courts the gang violence being perpetrated there qualifies as targeted oppression.

No as that 13% is all claims across the global not merely CA. Citizens of CA nations are rejected outright outside natural disasters.

Left Coast · May 19, 2019

Shad said:
Yes as most people are gaming the system with false claims

If they're being constantly rejected, they're not "gaming" the system very effectively.

Also, having a claim that does not meet the legal criteria does not make it "false."

No as that 13% is all claims across the global not merely CA. Citizens of CA nations are rejected outright outside natural disasters.

First of all, do you work for immigration enforcement? Do you know what you're saying for a fact?

Second of all - wait a minute. So you're telling me that we grant people asylum when they're victims of natural disasters, but not fleeing for their lives from literally the most violent countries on the planet? That is sickening if true.

Central America’s Violent Northern Triangle

Shad · May 19, 2019

Left Coast said:
If they're being constantly rejected, they're not "gaming" the system very effectively.

Gaming the system is just illegals claiming asylum when caught by relevant agencies. Effectiveness varies. It may not work on agents but it sure worked on the liberal media

Also, having a claim that does not meet the legal criteria does not make it "false."

No it makes it false.

First of all, do you work for immigration enforcement? Do you know what you're saying for a fact?

Nope. You can easily look at stats from gov sites.

Second of all - wait a minute. So you're telling me that we grant people asylum when they're victims of natural disasters, but not fleeing for their lives from literally the most violent countries on the planet?

Yup. Crime isn't a cause for being a refugee. The crimes must be targeted such as attacking an ethnic group

That is sickening if true.

Not really as it would cause anyone that lives in crime ridden area to claim to be a refugee. Like people in Chicago and Detroit.

shmogie · May 19, 2019

tytlyf said:
They didn't break any laws, these are asylum seekers showing up at ports of entry. Entirely legal.
Are you confusing the 2 types of immigrants?

No, and thousands of them cross the border, at a plethora of places along the border.

Ports of entry are irrelevant to them.

Left Coast · May 19, 2019

Shad said:
No it makes it false.

Failing to meet the legal criteria for asylum does not make their story/reason for immigrating untrue.

Nope. You can easily look at stats from gov sites.

Yea, looking and not finding support your claim. It appears that there is precedent in asylum law for understanding that gang violence is one form of oppression that applies under the definition of refugee. It also appears that women and children in particular are winning cases because gangs often specifically target them because they are women and children, which also qualifies them for asylum under the definition. So no, Central Americans' asylum applications are not "rejected outright" if they apply for a reason other than natural disaster.

https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/

Women on the Run

Not really as it would cause anyone that lives in crime ridden area to claim to be a refugee. Like people in Chicago and Detroit.

Refugees are people who flee their country because there is no where safe in their country to go, which is not the case for residents of Chicago or Detroit. Otherwise they would be mass emigrating to Canada right now.

Also, the homicide rates in El Salvador and Honduras are higher than either city.

Chicago homicide rate compared: Most big cities don't recover from spikes right away

Baltimore homicide rate is on a record high, deadlier than Detroit and Chicago

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Shad · May 20, 2019

Left Coast said:
Failing to meet the legal criteria for asylum does not make their story/reason for immigrating untrue.

It makes their asylum claim false.

Yea, looking and not finding support your claim. It appears that there is precedent in asylum law for understanding that gang violence is one form of oppression that applies under the definition of refugee.

Nope. Look up UN standards and US standards.

It also appears that women and children in particular are winning cases because gangs often specifically target them because they are women and children, which also qualifies them for asylum under the definition. So no, Central Americans' asylum applications are not "rejected outright" if they apply for a reason other than natural disaster.

https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/

Click to expand...

Ignores the criteria for asylum. There rest if a fluff piece to stir emotions while also ignoring they are safe in Mexico. Next!

Women on the Run

Click to expand...

Ignores it owns standards over and over again. I do not care what the UN hypocritically says

Refugees are people who flee their country because there is no where safe in their country to go, which is not the case for residents of Chicago or Detroit. Otherwise they would be mass emigrating to Canada right now.

Still not refugees and there are still safe places in those nations and Mexico.

Also, the homicide rates in El Salvador and Honduras are higher than either city.

Chicago homicide rate compared: Most big cities don't recover from spikes right away

Click to expand...

Baltimore homicide rate is on a record high, deadlier than Detroit and Chicago

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Rates are irrelevant. Crime is not a criteria unless based on race or ethnic group.

Left Coast · May 20, 2019

Shad said:
Nope. Look up UN standards and US standards.

Yep. I did. If you want to actually support your views with evidence, I'll happily view it.

Ignores the criteria for asylum. There rest if a fluff piece to stir emotions while also ignoring they are safe in Mexico. Next!

False, it specifically cites the criteria and explains its application in case law. Next!

Ignores it owns standards over and over again. I do not care what the UN hypocritically says

You literally just said I should look up the UN standard. Your position looks increasingly baseless.

Still not refugees and there are still safe places in those nations and Mexico.

False. The fact that there are other countries in the world where they could be safe is irrelevant to whether they meet the criteria here. And no, clearly in the view of at least some agents and judges there are not safe places to go in their home countries.

Rates are irrelevant. Crime is not a criteria unless based on race or ethnic group.

Then don't bring up silly irrational comparisons like Chicago if they're irrelevant.

And no, racial/ethnic persecution is not the only type that applies.

Come back with actual evidence if you plan to reply again.

Shad · May 20, 2019

Left Coast said:
Yep. I did. If you want to actually support your views with evidence, I'll happily view it.

UN: https://www.unhcr.org/4d93528a9.pdf

Crime is only a factor if the applicant has committed one or is targeted due to race, religion and politics. Living in a bad neighborhood is not a criteria.

US: [USC03] 8 USC 1101: Definitions

Same as above

False, it specifically cites the criteria and explains its application in case law. Next!

Wrong. It says judges made those refugees into a "social" group to bypass the criteria. It even links the laws and says

U.S. asylum law applies to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Those fleeing generalized crime and violence in their home country do not easily fit into these categories. Nevertheless, at times U.S. immigration judges have interpreted this law so as to grant asylum to Central American migrants who can demonstrate “a well-founded fear of persecution” within the standards described above, or who qualify for protection under the UN Convention Against Torture.

Ergo activist judges, nothing more.

You literally just said I should look up the UN standard. Your position looks increasingly baseless.

Yes now look at those standards I linked.

False. The fact that there are other countries in the world where they could be safe is irrelevant to whether they meet the criteria here. And no, clearly in the view of at least some agents and judges there are not safe places to go in their home countries.

Most do not meet the criteria by law. By passing through a safe nation by UN standards, Mexico, it shows they are after economic immigration, nothing more.

Is the bold "here" a link? If so it is not working on my end.

Then don't bring up silly irrational comparisons like Chicago if they're irrelevant.

It is comparable as normal crime is not a consideration by law.

And no, racial/ethnic persecution is not the only type that applies.

Neither does it apply to CA claims.

Come back with actual evidence if you plan to reply again.

You were just too lazy to look up two sets of standards in Google. Nothing more.

Links provided.

Left Coast · May 21, 2019

Shad said:
UN: https://www.unhcr.org/4d93528a9.pdf

Crime is only a factor if the applicant has committed one or is targeted due to race, religion and politics. Living in a bad neighborhood is not a criteria.

US: [USC03] 8 USC 1101: Definitions

Same as above

No no, I understand the definitions of the terms on paper. Your claim was about what is actually happening out there, on the ground, in courts of law. These citations do not establish that.

Wrong. It says judges made those refugees into a "social" group to bypass the criteria. It even links the laws and says

U.S. asylum law applies to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Those fleeing generalized crime and violence in their home country do not easily fit into these categories. Nevertheless, at times U.S. immigration judges have interpreted this law so as to grant asylum to Central American migrants who can demonstrate “a well-founded fear of persecution” within the standards described above, or who qualify for protection under the UN Convention Against Torture.

Ergo activist judges, nothing more.

LOL ok now we're getting somewhere.

So migrants from CA are being granted asylum for reasons other than natural disaster - you just don't like that. Got it.

Most do not meet the criteria by law. By passing through a safe nation by UN standards, Mexico, it shows they are after economic immigration, nothing more.

Clearly, agents and judges actually on the ground doing the work and applying the law in real life cases don't agree with you.

It is comparable as normal crime is not a consideration by law.

Jesus.

I pointed out the double standard of admitting people as refugees for natural disasters but not for rampant gang violence.

You replied by claiming that then we'd have to accept people from Chicago and Detroit as refugees.

I pointed out why that claim was irrational on three counts: a) they're already citizens, b) they live in a country with lots of safer places to go, and c) the violence is much worse in CA.

You replied that rates of violence are irrelevant.

I replied that if that's so you shouldn't have brought it up.

Having to explain not only my own position but also how you need to establish yours is becoming quite tedious.

Neither does it apply to CA claims.

Again, not according to the folks whose job it is to actually apply the law on the ground.

You were just too lazy to look up two sets of standards in Google. Nothing more.

Links provided.

Lol no, not too lazy. Just knew that wasn't what was needed to establish your case. Which you still haven't, because it wasn't true.

I'll give you one more reply before I move on.

tytlyf · May 21, 2019

shmogie said:
No, and thousands of them cross the border, at a plethora of places along the border.

Ports of entry are irrelevant to them.

Read the title of the thread. You're confusing the migrants.

shmogie · May 21, 2019

tytlyf said:
Read the title of the thread. You're confusing the migrants.

No, I am not. Central American alleged asylum seekers are crossing the border all along the border. Thousands of them. They then seek the BP and claim asylum.

tytlyf · May 21, 2019

shmogie said:
No, I am not. Central American alleged asylum seekers are crossing the border all along the border. Thousands of them. They then seek the BP and claim asylum.

Then they're doing it wrong. The majority and these 'caravans' are at ports of entry. Which is legal.

shmogie · May 21, 2019

tytlyf said:
Then they're doing it wrong. The majority and these 'caravans' are at ports of entry. Which is legal.

Yes, they are doing it wrong, but it really doesn´t make any difference because being wrong means nothing. Show up, claim asylum, claim a child as yours ( one third of these people claim a child that isn´t theirs) spend twenty days in conditions probably better than where you came from, get released, and you are in, forever.

Shad · May 22, 2019

Left Coast said:
No no, I understand the definitions of the terms on paper. Your claim was about what is actually happening out there, on the ground, in courts of law. These citations do not establish that.

Of course. Evidence establishes a claim

So migrants from CA are being granted asylum for reasons other than natural disaster - you just don't like that. Got it.

No I disagree on how judges created a social grouping in order for US laws to be applicable. Ergo interpretation I disagree with

Clearly, agents and judges actually on the ground doing the work and applying the law in real life cases don't agree with you.

Nope as per your own source they have to created a social group

I pointed out the double standard of admitting people as refugees for natural disasters but not for rampant gang violence.

No you didn't. You just pretended that both were the same and complained about it. Crime is preventable and avoidable. Most natural disasters are not.

You replied by claiming that then we'd have to accept people from Chicago and Detroit as refugees.

Yes as crime is not a factor unless targeted.

I pointed out why that claim was irrational on three counts: a) they're already citizens, b) they live in a country with lots of safer places to go, and c) the violence is much worse in CA.

All 3 CA nations have safe areas. Just go to where the rich live.

You replied that rates of violence are irrelevant.

Yes as rate is not a factor in UN and US standards.

I replied that if that's so you shouldn't have brought it up.

I brought it up as crime is not a factor unless targeted. Living in a rough neighborhood is not criteria for status

Having to explain not only my own position but also how you need to establish yours is becoming quite tedious.

You can save yourself time by not posting your strawman.

Again, not according to the folks whose job it is to actually apply the law on the ground.

Activist judges come and go. They are interpreting in order to use the law, nothing more. Your own source proved it is interpretation of law not what the law says.

Lol no, not too lazy. Just knew that wasn't what was needed to establish your case. Which you still haven't, because it wasn't true.

No you are lazy as you could of easily used Google. I provided the links thus established my point. Non-targeted crime is not in either standard.

I'll give you one more reply before I move on.

Yawn. Go read the US and UN standard and find victim of any crime as a criteria. Until you do all you have are activist judges creating social groups, nothing more.

Left Coast · May 22, 2019

Shad said:
Of course. Evidence establishes a claim

Lol you didn't present evidence for your claim.

No I disagree on how judges created a social grouping in order for US laws to be applicable. Ergo interpretation I disagree with

Correct which is not the same as it not happening, which is what you claimed.

Nope as per your own source they have to created a social group

Yep and they do, per the people who actually work in the court system.

No you didn't. You just pretended that both were the same and complained about it. Crime is preventable and avoidable. Most natural disasters are not.

Not by the individuals affected by them.

All 3 CA nations have safe areas. Just go to where the rich live.

LOL you're just making stuff up. Actually read these testimonies of the migrants in the UN report. They move, they get followed. Try again.

Yes as rate is not a factor in UN and US standards.

Then don't bring up dumb comparisons. Jesus this isn't hard to grasp bud.

You can save yourself time by not posting your strawman.

You really need to learn the difference between claim and evidence.

Activist judges come and go. They are interpreting in order to use the law, nothing more. Your own source proved it is interpretation of law not what the law says.

FFS this is like talking to a fundamentalist. There are disagreements in every area of law in how to interpret what the law says and apply it in particular cases. Your ad hominem of judges whose decisions you don't like is irrelevant. Your claim that CA migrant cases are automatically rejected apart from natural disasters is false.

No you are lazy as you could of easily used Google. I provided the links thus established my point. Non-targeted crime is not in either standard.

Yes, I know. Agents and judges actually doing the work on the ground agree with migrants that the violence they're fleeing is targeted.

Yawn. Go read the US and UN standard and find victim of any crime as a criteria. Until you do all you have are activist judges creating social groups, nothing more.

Yawn, didn't claim they were victims of just any old crime. Judges don't "create" social groups, they identify people as part of them.
Your original claim was baseless and your explanations have been false and irrational throughout. Later bud, better luck next time. You can have the last word if you want.

Shad · May 27, 2019

Left Coast said:
Lol you didn't present evidence for your claim.

It was not requested. The evidence was in your own source which you didn't read, again. Try again son

Correct which is not the same as it not happening, which is what you claimed.

Except you claimed it was law when your own source showed it was interpretation of law. Try again son.

Yep and they do, per the people who actually work in the court system.

Yet you claimed law. Your own source refuted you. Try again son.

Not by the individuals affected by them.

Wrong.

LOL you're just making stuff up. Actually read these testimonies of the migrants in the UN report. They move, they get followed. Try again.

Wrong again. You think none of the 3 nations have an upper class with upper class residents and neighbourhoods?

Then don't bring up dumb comparisons. Jesus this isn't hard to grasp bud.

I didn't compare rates. I pointed out crime unless directed for specific purposes are not criteria for refugee status.

You really need to learn the difference between claim and evidence.

You posted a strawman. I pointed it out. Try again son.

FFS this is like talking to a fundamentalist. There are disagreements in every area of law in how to interpret what the law says and apply it in particular cases. Your ad hominem of judges whose decisions you don't like is irrelevant. Your claim that CA migrant cases are automatically rejected apart from natural disasters is false.

Ergo you just admitted it was interpretation of law not law itself. You have conceded your point.

Activist judge is not an ad hominem. It is pointing out what they are, nothing more.

Yes, I know. Agents and judges actually doing the work on the ground agree with migrants that the violence they're fleeing is targeted.

By manufacturing a social grouping as per your own source? Hilarious.

Yawn, didn't claim they were victims of just any old crime. Judges don't "create" social groups, they identify people as part of them.

Your own source refutes this point. Again not reading your own sources, again. Hilarious.

Your original claim was baseless and your explanations have been false and irrational throughout.

Your own source refutes your claims and supported my points. Try again son. Maybe read more next time.

SkepticThinker · May 29, 2019

Enoch07 said:
They also have no go zones where immigrants ignore the countries laws and police will not even enter. They also have issues with immigrant rape gangs that do not get convicted because it's ok to rape in that immigrants culture.

Stopping these things from happening in your country isn't xenophobic. Forcing 3rd world immigrants to assimilate to western liberal values isn't racist. Ffs it's just civility. What's wrong with expecting civility?

Why the Muslim 'No-Go-Zone' Myth Won't Die
Paris Mayor Plans to Sue Fox Over False Reports of ‘No-Go Zones’
FACT CHECK: Sharia Law Muslim 'No-Go' Zones?
Debunking Maps of Alleged "Islamic No Go Zones" in London - bellingcat
New US ambassador to Netherlands regularly made unsubstantiated 'no-go zones' claims, speculated 15% of Muslims could be jihadists - CNNPolitics

Enoch07 · May 29, 2019

SkepticThinker said:
Why the Muslim 'No-Go-Zone' Myth Won't Die
Paris Mayor Plans to Sue Fox Over False Reports of ‘No-Go Zones’
FACT CHECK: Sharia Law Muslim 'No-Go' Zones?
Debunking Maps of Alleged "Islamic No Go Zones" in London - bellingcat
New US ambassador to Netherlands regularly made unsubstantiated 'no-go zones' claims, speculated 15% of Muslims could be jihadists - CNNPolitics

Here is Angela Merkel Chancellor of Germany. She is a far far left politician who once snatched her own countries flag out of a fellow politicians hand because she despises patriotism. Here she admits no go zones are a problem and they need to be handled.

ICE to hire contractor to transport 225,000 migrants to shelters across the US

Shad

Veteran Member

Left Coast

This Is Water

Shad

Veteran Member

shmogie

Well-Known Member

Left Coast

This Is Water

Shad

Veteran Member

Left Coast

This Is Water

Shad

Veteran Member

Left Coast

This Is Water

tytlyf

Not Religious

shmogie

Well-Known Member

tytlyf

Not Religious

shmogie

Well-Known Member

Shad

Veteran Member

Left Coast

This Is Water

Shad

Veteran Member

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.