DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[arayder]

Because "illegals" aren't defined by their race. They are defined by their method of entry into the country. I don't care what race they are, or where they hail from.

There is no such thing as the "illegal" race.

Nice try. . .not.

When we recall your screeds expressing your fear of people's of other races, religions and cultures seeming to overwhelm American society it isn't hard to see where you are coming from with your rants about dirty, decease carrying latino immigrants.

 

[arayder]

But we were not debating values. We were debating facts.

The argument of facts, regarding the illegality of the crossings, stands on my side, clearly. The argument of "values" is a much more subjective matter, isn't it? Pleas for compassion have their place, just not in a debate about facts.

You can spare us the haughty lectures about how you think you won the last debate.

I can't speak of the others here, but I don't need a lecture from you.

 

[wareyin]

Because "illegals" aren't defined by their race. They are defined by their method of entry into the country. I don't care what race they are, or where they hail from.

There is no such thing as the "illegal" race.

1) no, people aren't defined by a possible misdemeanor they might have committed in a legally grey area.
2) the focus on the brown people coming from south of the border rather than the lily white people from Canada or the vast majority of people here illegally who overstayed a visa demonstrates that yes, for you it is strictly about race.

 

[Hellbound]

1) no, people aren't defined by a possible misdemeanor they might have committed in a legally grey area.
2) the focus on the brown people coming from south of the border rather than the lily white people from Canada or the vast majority of people here illegally who overstayed a visa demonstrates that yes, for you it is strictly about race.

If you cross the wrong street in Stanstead, Quebec and Derby Line, Vermont you should be charged with illegal entry and deported!

 

[Warp12]

1) no, people aren't defined by a possible misdemeanor they might have committed in a legally grey area.

We generally define "illegals" as those who have crossed the border via unauthorized means. There are things that can take place afterwards, such as seeking asylum, that might make their residence here legal. Those are the facts, I'm afraid.

Now sure, we can make lots of emotional arguments about why they aren't "lesser humans", but no matter how awesome they may be as individuals, that would not affect their status.

 

[Warp12]

If you cross the wrong street in Stanstead, Quebec and Derby Line, Vermont you should be charged with illegal entry and deported!

Yeah, that is exactly the same as crossing a river to gain illegal entry.

 

[wareyin]

We generally define "illegals" as those who have crossed the border via unauthorized means.

No, "we" don't. This isn't Stormfront.

If we're now defining a person as illegal solely on the basis of possibly having committed a misdemeanor then we're all illegal.

There are things that can take place afterwards, such as seeking asylum, that might make their residence here legal. Those are the facts, I'm afraid.

Now sure, we can make lots of emotional arguments about why they aren't "lesser humans", but no matter how awesome they may be as individuals, that would not affect their status.

You've already stated that DeSantis' victims status was as legal asylum seekers, but you still want to refer to them as "illegals".

 

[Warp12]

You've already stated that DeSantis' victims status was as legal asylum seekers, but you still want to refer to them as "illegals".

I guess you haven't been following the discussion very closely.

Because I am not saying that these Venezuelans do not fall under a special exception. I am not saying they are technically here illegally. It is my opinion that the law sucks. As I have already mentioned. In Warp12's view, they are still illegals...but that is just my feeling on the matter. I know the law does not agree.

First off, I am not claiming they are here illegally now, by the letter of the law. They are now asylum seekers.

So what of it? I don't think they should be crossing illegally, and the government seems to agree, as they seem to prosecute plenty of asylum seekers on that charge. I don't think they should be granted a special exception to that allows them to cross illegally, but avoid deportation. Sue me.

 

[wareyin]

I guess you haven't been following the discussion very closely.






So what of it? I don't think they should be crossing illegally, and the government seems to agree, as they seem to prosecute plenty of asylum seekers on that charge. I don't think they should be granted a special exception to that allows them to cross illegally, but avoid deportation. Sue me.

On the contrary, I summed up your claims perfectly: you don't care about their legal status one whit, but want to call them "illegals" anyway. And given your eyerolls about Canadians (or Americans) who also cross a border possibly illegally being "illegals", you're demonstrating further that to you it is all about the race of the border crosser rather than the crossing of the border, the legality of the crossing, or the method of entry.

 

[Warp12]

And given your eyerolls about Canadians (or Americans) who also cross a border possibly illegally being "illegals", you're demonstrating further that to you it is all about the race of the border crosser rather than the crossing of the border, the legality of the crossing, or the method of entry.

That is what you came up with, from the following exchange?

If you cross the wrong street in Stanstead, Quebec and Derby Line, Vermont you should be charged with illegal entry and deported!

Yeah, that is exactly the same as crossing a river to gain illegal entry.

Humorous, to say the least. Obviously your argument is so idiotic as to not invite further debate on the "race" issue.

 

[sackett]

For fun, Google "DeSantis legal problems" and enjoy.

He seems to think that breaking laws establishes his credentials out there on the right wing. Now whatever could've given him that idea?

 

[wareyin]

That is what you came up with, from the following exchange?






Humorous, to say the least. Obviously your argument is so idiotic as to not invite further debate on the "race" issue.

Man, this conservative tactic of 'you got "x" from me saying "x"??!?!' sure is a doozy, isn't it?

But no need to keep hammering home how inseparable your idea of "illegals" is from race. You made that point from the get go.

 

[arayder]

You've already stated that DeSantis' victims status was as legal asylum seekers, but you still want to refer to them as "illegals".

I guess you haven't been following the discussion very closely.

Oh, please. We all see that you have rejiggered the law and the facts to make it seem the asylum seekers are in some sort of illegal status that would warrant them being sent home in one of your box cars from hell.

If you are going to make up a separate reality for yourself you ought to be able to do better than this.

 

[smartcooky]

Because "illegals" aren't defined by their race. They are defined by their method of entry into the country. I don't care what race they are, or where they hail from.

There is no such thing as the "illegal" race.

1) no, people aren't defined by a possible misdemeanor they might have committed in a legally grey area.
2) the focus on the brown people coming from south of the border rather than the lily white people from Canada or the vast majority of people here illegally who overstayed a visa demonstrates that yes, for you it is strictly about race.

Indeed

Beebe Plain: Canada/USA Border town.............................. ..........................................Nogales: Mexico/USA Border town

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yeah, I've heard the jails fill up for Illegal Entry cases when kids organize street soccer in Beebe Plain. Some kids reach felony re-entry levels by first quarter.

Traffic stop in Beebe: Sir you crossed the yellow line, I need your drivers license, registration, proof of insurance, and valid claim of asylum.

 

[RolandRat]

You do get that just because laws may get ignored under certain circumstances doesn't mean those laws go away.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You do get that just because laws may get ignored under certain circumstances doesn't mean those laws go away.

Please clarify. What law is being "ignored" and what are you responding to?

 

[Stacyhs]

Wrong


https://www.diffen.com/difference/Consulate_vs_Embassy

Jurisdiction: Even though embassies and consulates are located in another country, they are legally considered territory of the country they represent.​

But I wasn't there to seek asylum anyway, so you point and link quotes are moot

I didn't say you were there to seek asylum. You said it was US territory. It is not. I included the asylum info to demonstrate why a person cannot apply for asylum at an embassy or consulate which it clearly states: because it's not US soil and asylum can only be requested on US soil or at a port of entry.

Your source is "Diffen" a website that makes comparisons and it is wrong. My source was NOLO, a legal source website. Here is the same information from the US government:

This source is the US Embassy and Consulates

3) Are the U.S. Embassy and the Consulates General considered American soil?
To dispel a common myth – no, they are not! U.S. foreign service posts are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

There seems to be some confusion of between "territory" and the immunity that embassies/consulates have. No one, not even the host country, may enter either without their express permission which is why someone can seek protection there such as Julian Assange did in the Ecuadora embassy. But the Ecaudor embassy is not Nicaraguan territory.

If a non-citizen woman gives birth in an embassy or consulate, that baby is not automatically a US citizen because it was not born on US territory.

Is an Embassy on Foreign Soil the Sovereign Territory of the Host Country or the Embassy’s Country?

Is the embassy territory sovereign territory? Hopefully by now you have an idea of the answer, which is no.
In story 1, my friend did not jump for joy on Argentine soil, in story 2, the baby does not become a US citizen, and in story 3, US sovereign territory was not attacked, but the US mission was.

Does the embassy enjoy immunity though? Absolutely!
It is this immunity that most likely confuses folks when it comes to sovereignty. The mission is protected and is considered US property, but the territory does not belong to the US (or any other country with an embassy). Again, the Vienna Convention does not state that the property belongs to the embassy’s country.

 

[Stacyhs]

They can accept asylum applicants. I give you Julian Assange and the Ecuadorian embassy.

The USA wants to have their cake and eat it too by claiming US embassies are not " US territory" when it is convenient to them.

No, they cannot accept asylum applicants. You are confusing two separate things.

From Politifact:

No, immigrants cannot apply for asylum at U.S. embassies or consulates abroad

Individuals can make asylum claims at U.S. ports of entry, but can they also make those claims at "any embassy or consulate abroad"?

No. Asylum claims must be made within the United States.

"A U.S. consulate or embassy is clearly outside the U.S., so you can’t apply for asylum at a U.S. consulate or embassy," said Stephen H. Legomsky, an emeritus professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis who served as chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from 2011 to 2013.
Going to a U.S. embassy or consulate does not count as being physically present in the United States for purposes of the asylum statute, said Deborah Anker, a clinical professor of law, founder and director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program at Harvard Law School.

As for Julian Assange, the London police could not enter the embassy due to its immunity from being searched, not because it is Ecuadorian territory.

Assange sought extraterritorial asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London in June 2012 when an arrest warrant was issued against him in Sweden for accusations of sexual assault.

Extraterritorial asylum – which is asylum granted outside the territory of the state itself – is indeed a contested practice in international law and the UK had been quite accommodating in recognising what is, in essence, a subpractice of Latin American states within international law.

https://www.business-standard.com/a...-embassy-what-happens-now-119041200449_1.html

 

[Stacyhs]

I think I have to agree with RY here. I see it more like self-defense being an excuse for shooting someone, as an example. Yes, murder is a crime, but if you shot someone who was trying to stab you, it's considered justified (not a crime).

I'd view "illegally" crossing the border to request asylum as similarly justified in the law.
But IANAL, etc, etc. Just tossing in a couple cents.

You're comparing apples and oranges.
Killing someone in self-defense is not a crime in the first place as declared by an actual law.
Crossing the border without inspection, even to legally then apply for asylum, is not protected by law.