DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

Warp12 said:
Actually, I kind of do get to be that. Because, like most, I see my personal morality as superior to that of others.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase that. You don't get to flip flop between those roles and have anyone think you're worth listening to. What you think of yourself is your own issue.
 
Warp12 said:
I can call them whatever I like. I am allowed to have an opinion, you know. I am not claiming these migrants are "illegals" in the eyes of the law. Just that they should be.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is irrational and worthless, but it is your right to have it. It's my right to point out it is irrational and worthless.
 
lobosrul5 said:
. . .DeSantis had them lured to Florida, and then to Mass through means of false promises. And that, just might be, an actual federal crime.
Click to expand...

That is something I have wondered about. Since when did governors get to interrupt the federal process of immigration?
 
Two migrants shot while walking along rural road east of El Paso, Texas

One migrant is dead and another is injured following a shooting that took place Tuesday on a road in a rural area southeast of El Paso, Texas.

A New York Times report filed Thursday cites court documents stating the shooting was perpetrated by two men in a pickup truck who pulled up to a group of migrants gathered by a water tank near Sierra Blanca on Tuesday evening. The men allegedly approached the group and opened fire on them, striking two and killing one. Local authorities have arrested two men in connection with the shooting: Michael Shepppard, 60, a local jail warden, and his brother Mark Sheppard, also 60.
Click to expand...

I wonder who those two shooters voted for.
 
Warp12 said:
Welcome to a week ago. It has already been pointed out by stacyhs that they crossed illegally. I mean, like to the Nth degree.

What is this, Groundhog Day??
Click to expand...

When they applied for asylum, they went from illegal status to legal status. Your opinion that they are still "illegals" doesn't change the facts.
 
thaiboxerken said:
When they applied for asylum, they went from illegal status to legal status. Your opinion that they are still "illegals" doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...


It’s a bit more complicated than that, from the research I’ve done.

The law says that they can apply for asylum/refugee status, and once that is granted (after the hearings, not when they apply) they’re considered legal retroactively to the time of entry to the U.S.

We’ve also signed onto an international agreement that people who have applied for refugee/asylum status should not be deported until they determination is made. However, it’s not a self-executing treaty, meaning there’s no force of law…we’d have to pass s law to make that part of the legal code.

Entry to the U.S. at a non-designated entry point, or without proper documentation, is s crime under U.S. law.

So this is basically a situation where some in the U.S. are basically thumbing their nose to international agreements, our lawmakers are not enacting the laws to live up to that agreement, and several people with chips on their shoulder are using this loophole to have refugee/asylum seekers charged and deported.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.
 
thaiboxerken said:
When they applied for asylum, they went from illegal status to legal status. Your opinion that they are still "illegals" doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...

Based on numbers that I cited and the process details that newyorkguy cited it is clear the vast majority of asylum seekers are never even alleged to have entered illegally. Further, the judge they see only rules on their asylum application. He makes no determination of innocence/guilt. He's not even in the right branch of government to do that. And he doesn't "make them" legal, they were never alleged to be illegal in the first place (I'll add a small twist on this at the end of the post).

Hellbound said:
Entry to the U.S. at a non-designated entry point, or without proper documentation, is s crime under U.S. law.

So this is basically a situation where some in the U.S. are basically thumbing their nose to international agreements, our lawmakers are not enacting the laws to live up to that agreement, and several people with chips on their shoulder are using this loophole to have refugee/asylum seekers charged and deported.
Click to expand...
See the numbers I cited. Unless they are wrong it doesn't appear that immigration is enforcing that "crime" like people here have been insisting. It seems clear from the numbers that charge is being held for people who evade inspection or have other shadiness going on.

Since I just have the numbers I can't tell why immigration is doing this. They might be doing it because international law trumps US law. Or maybe they are doing it because it would be stupidly perverse to charge people who are sitting on the ground waiting in line for border patrol.

I only care about current situation at the moment, the situation was different under Trump but I'm not clear on the details.

BTW As I said above the asylum judge doesn't rule on any charges you might have from entering the country. That's a separate judge that relatively few people are facing now. If you go thought that process you are likely convicted (most plead guilty apparently). First time improper entry is a misdemeanor charge that might draw a fine or up to six months. It doesn't stop you from being admitted to the country. If the asylum judge grants your application you come in and you still have that misdemeanor on your record. A much later step might reverse that, but your initial hearing that lets you in doesn't. You're just a legal documented person who just happens to have a conviction on your record.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
See the numbers I cited. Unless they are wrong it doesn't appear that immigration is enforcing that "crime" like people here have been insisting. It seems clear from the numbers that charge is being held for people who evade inspection or have other shadiness going on.
Click to expand...

No, it’s not consistent. The ones coming in via authorized ports are already covered, for the most part. But even those coming in outside ports are supposed to not be deported, according to treaties we’ve agreed to. Most places they aren’t charged, but the law, as currently written, allows it (for those whose entry falls in the improper entry laws, which IIRC is basically those coming in outside an entry port). Which is why I used the word some in my post.

Basically, I agree with you. Asylum seekers that cross outside designated ports can be charged with improper entry, but most aren’t. And the agreements we signed say they shouldn’t be deported, but we haven’t passed the laws to enforce that yet.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.
 
So if we stipulate that it was a misdemeanor to cross the border in certain ways, people who did it committed a misdemeanor. But if they are not currently facing charges or fleeing prosecution, they are not committing it now. The misdemeanor is not who, or what, they are.

Considering the number of things we might have done in our lives (smoked a joint in college, carried a knife with a blade a centimeter too long, drank one too many beers one evening, etc. etc.?) I think it appropriate to remember that "illegal" is an adjective, not a noun of existential description - an ugly neologism even for those on whom you wish harm and humiliation.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Now it's all migrants? "Migrants" are definitely not confined to border towns and are mostly free people who can go anywhere they want. You've presented no evidence that they are even a burden.
Click to expand...

They are an economic boon, in fact.

Again I ask: Why do all republicans hate free-market economies?
 
arayder said:
That is something I have wondered about. Since when did governors get to interrupt the federal process of immigration?
Click to expand...

Norman Alexander said:
When they got ideas in their skulls that their nasty prejudices outweigh the imagined prejudices of those they are prejudiced against.
Click to expand...

Seriously, If DeSantis's stunt is okay, then why can't a governor interrupt a federal school lunch program he or she has proclaimed to be unfair, unconstitutional and dictatorial?
 
Last edited:
autumn1971 said:
They are an economic boon, in fact?
Click to expand...

Not only that, but they are willing to do will do the jobs that Americans refuse to do; Americans that would rather be on unemployment than do.

Fewer migrants >>> smaller harvest >>> low supply >>> food scarcity and high prices.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Not only that, but they are willing to do will do the jobs that Americans refuse to do; Americans that would rather be on unemployment than do.

Fewer migrants >>> smaller harvest >>> low supply >>> food scarcity and high prices.
Click to expand...

Let's be careful about stereotypes here. The migrants DeSantis targeted are primarily Venezuelan I believe? I posted citations earlier that show the US as being the beneficiary of a brain drain from Venezuela. My citations were a few years old but they showed Venezuelan migrants to be capable of jobs most Americans can't do.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Let's be careful about stereotypes here. The migrants DeSantis targeted are primarily Venezuelan I believe? I posted citations earlier that show the US as being the beneficiary of a brain drain from Venezuela. My citations were a few years old but they showed Venezuelan migrants to be capable of jobs most Americans can't do.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... if that is true, then that makes migrants even more of an economic boon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom