DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[newyorkguy]

What am I pushing back against?

 

[arayder]

As I have said repeatedly, this stunt by DeSantis is symbolic. And it is doing a good job of drawing attention to the way that Dem's are embracing criminal action at our border, apparently.

That's completely arse backwards.

DeSantis interfered with the lawfull immigration of the people he hoodwinked into getting on the bus to Martha's Vineyard.

You can roll around in the little misinformation bubble you have created for yourself. But the truth is you are wrong.

 

[sackett]

Here I sit, still waiting for somebody to quantify the harm done to the richest country that ever existed by immigrants, whether legal or illegal.

Or interlegal? Is that a category? A spectrum? Hey, where's Steersman when you need him?

 

[arayder]

Here I sit, still waiting for somebody to quantify the harm done to the richest country that ever existed by immigrants, whether legal or illegal.

Or interlegal? Is that a category? A spectrum? Hey, where's Steersman when you need him?

Judging by his age and location I suspect our impulse powered poster was around during the Mariel boat-lift* which has colored his thinking ever since.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

 

[catsmate]

Evidence for these three claims - you know what I'm going to say next...

Put up or shut up!

Given their unquestioning lapping up of anti-vaccine and anti-medicine nonsense, it's USAian Republicans who are "infectious" .

 

[catsmate]

Has this been evidenced?

Warpie doesn't do "evidence" , that would require thought and effort.

 

[arayder]

The ruse is to present your premise as your conclusion. That way when you are questioned about your conclusion you can just repeat your premise. . .and vis-versa.

 

[gnome]

Using whatever semantics you like... there is a fundamental difference between coming to seek asylum and coming in to reside clandestinely.

Why should they be discussed as if they have the same motivations, the same expected behavior, the same impact?

I suggest it is because opposition to illegal residents is well-engrained and it's easier to galvanize opposition around that to both populations by conflating the issue, than it is to sell that we should be preventing people from requesting asylum. It's a cynical trick not based in the reality of the situation.

An example of this is the focus on "sanctuary cities", a situation which applies to the second group but not generally the first. Nobody's set to deport asylum seekers if someone checks their status. They're already in the system awaiting their appropriate hearings.

 

[Myriad]

As I have said repeatedly, this stunt by DeSantis is symbolic. And it is doing a good job of drawing attention to the way that Dem's are embracing criminal action at our border, apparently.

Of course it's symbolic. As if it could possibly be anything else. The Republicans have no more desire to stop illegal immigration than the Democrats do, so they're limited to ineffectual ("symbolic" LOL) stunts.

 

[Stacyhs]

Below this statement are quotes from the Washington Examiner which is a right wing news outlet. The Examiner quotes the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. The Center for Immigration Studies is an anti-immigration think tank which the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a hate group. I don't find these to be "immigrant rights advocates."

You misread. Neither I nor the quote ever said that The Center for Immigration Studies IS an "immigrant rights advocates" group.

I'm well aware that the National Examiner is a right wing news outlet but the other multiple sources I quoted and cited were being handwaved away with the argument that it isn't clear that this quote from the New York Times means they entered illegally: "Venezuelans who had crossed the southwest border without authorization and had turned themselves in to border officials" (New York Times) . The response to that was "When that person says "without authorization" do they mean "no passport or visa"? If so, that doesn't make the person illegal." Apparently, RY is questioning if "without authorization" means "without permission". By its very definition, it means exactly that: "authorization: a document giving permission or authority" (Oxford Dictionary).

According to US Customs and Border Protection, 08/15/2022 :

"Under Title 8, those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and who are unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States (such as a valid asylum claim), will be quickly removed.

IOW: they entered illegally but can remain legally if they have a valid asylum claim. Nowhere does it mention exceptions for TPS countries like Venezuela.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Apparently, RY is questioning if "without authorization" means "without permission".

No, that would be stupid since those are definitionally the same.

I'm questioning whether "without authorization" equates to "illegal" (you should be able to tell because that's the word I used in quote you supplied from me). And it's apparent it doesn't. Your own quote establishes it's not a cause to deport you if you can establish a valid asylum claim.

 

[Stacyhs]

The Washington Examiner??? The paper that spread the "prayer rugs found on my border ranch" story. Good gawd.

But thanks for confirming the issue I'm asking about is debatable and doesn't have a clear answer yet. If you can't drop this how about taking it to a new thread (not promising I'll join)?

You brought the question up. I've answered it multiple times with citations. Is it that you don't understand or don't want to?

According to US Customs and Border Protection, 08/15/2022 :

Quote:
"Under Title 8, those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and who are unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States (such as a valid asylum claim), will be quickly removed."


IOW: they entered illegally but can remain legally if they have a valid asylum claim. Nowhere does it mention exceptions for TPS countries like Venezuela.

 

[smartcooky]

What exactly are you "pushing back" against? Reality?

First, it is painfully obvious that these individuals entered the country illegally. Because "unauthorized" is really not an ambiguous term. To most, anyway.

But, let's pretend they didn't, just for fun. There are still tens of thousands being apprehended each month, entering illegally. And, at least at some points, those with special exceptions make up nearly half of them. And the administration embraces these illegals upon capture.

At the end of day, whether the MV Venezuelans entered legally or not (they didn't), they are small potatoes compared to the number of illegals with exceptions that are swarming our border.

As I have said repeatedly, this stunt by DeSantis is symbolic. And it is doing a good job of drawing attention to the way that Dem's are embracing criminal action at our border, apparently.

Can you please explain the procedure that an asylum seeker would need to follow if they are not permitted to enter the US at all in order to seek asylum. Perhaps you think they should apply for asylum while in their own country, and wait there for 6 months while their application is processed, when any attempt to do so would involve dealing with their own authorities, an act is very likely to get them killed?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

"Under Title 8, those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and who are unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States (such as a valid asylum claim), will be quickly removed."

IOW: they entered illegally but can remain legally if they have a valid asylum claim. Nowhere does it mention exceptions for TPS countries like Venezuela.

Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate and stupid. It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum. You've demonstrated an absurd reading of that sentence.

You're not even attaching that to the requirement that they enter outside of a checkpoint. Isn't it obvious that you are reading that sentence incorrectly? Your interpretation would make it impossible to request asylum anywhere except an embassy.

At this point it's not even clear that the requirement to enter at a checkpoint isn't trumped by the asylum laws.

If this is such a slam dunk then find a good argument.

 

[smartcooky]

No, that would be stupid since those are definitionally the same.

I'm questioning whether "without authorization" equates to "illegal" (you should be able to tell because that's the word I used in quote you supplied from me). And it's apparent it doesn't. Your own quote establishes it's not a cause to deport you if you can establish a valid asylum claim.

Correct. It is not illegal to cross a border from one country to another without authorization; but it is illegal to do so and stay there unless you are applying for asylum.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Can you please explain the procedure that an asylum seeker would need to follow if they are not permitted to enter the US at all in order to seek asylum.

Yeah. I was typing a similar question to the other person on this bandwagon while you were typing that (and I see you've seen that).

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the people we are discussing* are not illegal in any sense of the word and that it doesn't even depend on entering at a checkpoint. The simple reason I have for that is that the only judgement I see coming from a judge is that they are legally in the country while their asylum claim is judged (for 18 months as I understand it). The process I see is investigation followed by declaration of demonstrated legal status. No intermediate "you're illegal until proved otherwise" stage as far as I can tell.

You've got the normal presumption of innocence during the investigation and for that matter I don't even know if they are charged with anything during the investigation.

* "People we are discussing" = people who make their asylum claim at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Warp12]

Yeah. I was typing a similar question to the other person on this bandwagon while you were typing that (and I see you've seen that).

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the people we are discussing* are not illegal in any sense of the word and that it doesn't even depend on entering at a checkpoint. The simple reason I have for that is that the only judgement I see coming from a judge is that they are legally in the country while their asylum claim is judged (for 18 months as I understand it). The process I see is investigation followed by declaration of demonstrated legal status. No intermediate "you're illegal until proved otherwise" stage as far as I can tell.

You've got the normal presumption of innocence during the investigation and for that matter I don't even know if they are charged with anything during the investigation.

* "People we are discussing" = people who make their asylum claim at the earliest opportunity.

Yeah, it's like totally legal for immigrants to cross a river, navigate a tunnel, or scale a wall to enter into the US. As long as they have a special exception, no problem.

Why don't we think for a second here. What if they don't get caught and they go about their merry way, without seeking asylum? Is it illegal then? Of course. So, any non-prosecution hinges on events that take place after they have already broken the law. It is a misdemeanor for the first offense, btw.

The first offense is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-nationals from eluding inspection by immigration officers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_entry

I mean, this is supposed to be a forum of "critical thought". This is just embarrassing.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Do you fade out before reading to the end of a post? See my last sentence.

Why don't we think for a second here. What if they don't get caught and they go about their merry way, without seeking asylum? Is it illegal then? Of course.

That's stupid. Are you illegal for the few seconds it might take you to get your passport out at the border?

BTW in regards to "if they don't get caught". Look at the video I cited earlier. The people in that video headed directly to the border patrol and some sat down in front of them. It looks like they even waited on the correct side of the border.

 

[arayder]

His cold cold heart our impulse powered poster doesn't seem able to fathom that people and families could be so ravaged by violence, conflict and persecution in their home countries that their only choice is to flee to the safety of a more stable country.

To him these cases are just "sob stories" told by deceased riff raft who are trying to game the system.

I sense a bit of projection.

 

[Warp12]

Do you fade out before reading to the end of a post? See my last sentence.


That's stupid. Are you illegal for the few seconds it might take you to get your passport out at the border?

BTW in regards to "if they don't get caught". Look at the video I cited earlier. The people in that video headed directly to the border patrol and some sat down in front of them. It looks like they even waited on the correct side fo the border.

You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.

The first offense is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-nationals from eluding inspection by immigration officers.

Good Lord. Like I said, embarrassing. Clearly you won't let facts deter you. Carry on.