DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[Warp12]

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujm9y0q3v1ba2fb/Goalposts2.gif?raw=1[/qimg]

Just as I predicted, the posts are getting more idiotic and unfounded. This happens in other threads, but it seems worse in this one for some reason. I think it's because it is so hard for some to admit that these migrants crossed into the US illegally.

Because at no point am I asserting that the law deems these migrants illegal after they have sought asylum. Nor am I claiming that those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry are illegals.

The only shifting of the goalposts has been the sudden assertion that the latest debate has something to do with asylum seekers in total, even those who enter through a legal port of entry.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, I'm not saying US immigration law is anti-refugee or anti-immigration. Not at all. I'm also agreeing with you that application for asylum necessarily involves illegal entry. So just settle, petal.

No, asked if you thought "I" was anti-immigration/asylum, not the US immigration.

I raised other countries and the UN discussion simply to show that the USA does not operate in isolation of other countries with its treatment of asylum seekers. Nor has it been consistent or even logical, from time to time.

This is true.

For example, the treatment of asylum seekers who arrive by plane seems to be somewhat different than those at the southern border. Should I as an Australian arrive on a flight at LAX and apply for asylum at the passport control, I would probably not be granted it despite being white, English-speaking, non-criminal, non-poor, and well educated and employable. It would be refused because there is no possibility of refoulment should the application be refused. Also, good joke, koala bear, kangaroo, move along, have a nice day.

How is an asylum seeker treated differently at the border than at a US airport? Being Australian, you couldn't use it being a TPS nor could you likely be found to be in danger politically, etc*. It would have to do with that and not because you arrived by plane. If someone arrived at LAX from Venezuela and said they wanted to apply for asylum, they be treated the same way as if they'd arrived at a border port of entry.

* On the other hand, I'd grant you asylum considering all the dangerous snakes, spiders, crocodiles, etc that inhabit Oz!

And yet someone just like me is "an illegal" and gets deported...https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-deported-over-little-known-entry-requirement

He should not have been treated like that, especially the cavity search, but as the saying goes 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. The Australian TV show 'Border Patrol' shows many people being refused entry and put on the next plane back to their country due to not bringing sufficient support funds or failing to follow some other entry requirement. I'm not accusing Mr. Dunn of doing anything intentionally wrong, but rules is rules.

So it seems there is more dependence on who is doing the processing and how narky they feel like being. Given the brown, poor Venezuelans are being considered by some as "illegals" by simply crossing the wrong border, that gives lie to the capricious nature of US border policing and who is involved.

Entrance to Australia is determined by Border Patrol agents, too. How is that different? Can they not be feeling 'narky' that day? The "brown, poor Venezuelans" are NOT "being considered by some as "illegals" by simply crossing the wrong border" but because they entered illegally by not going through a port of entry. They are "illegal" until and if they apply for asylum. But I get your point about some thinking they should still be considered illegal. I think women should have autonomy over their own bodies, but that means diddley-squat if the law says otherwise.

 

[arayder]

Why is it "let's see the evidence in court, and whatever the outcome so be it" for a politician, but you're perfectly ready to condemn the asylum seeker's presumed crimes?

Mudpeople.

It's worth noting that DeSantis' situation is decidedly different from that of the asylum seekers.

This could go badly for him, possibly ending his political career. But he will likely land on his entitled feet.

But the asylum seekers are mostly between a rock and hard place. Their lives back home have been ruined. They haven't got much and they are carrying whatever it is on their backs.

But it seems our society is chuck full of people who want us to ignore the call to welcome the stranger and help the needy. These folks call on us focus instead on partisan political games.

I think we all know that is wrong.

 

[arayder]

Just as I predicted, the posts are getting more idiotic and unfounded. This happens in other threads, but it seems worse in this one for some reason. I think it's because it is so hard for some to admit that these migrants crossed into the US illegally.

The only shifting of the goalposts has been the sudden assertion that the debate has something to do with asylum seekers in total, even those who enter through a legal port of entry.

You can play "the professor" if you want, but I ain't buying it.

You have done nothing here but excuse the criminality of your political idols and, in the most mean spirited way possible, attempt to assign criminality to people who are simply exercising the basic human right to migrate.

 

[smartcooky]

You can play "the professor" if you want, but I ain't buying it.

You have done nothing here but excuse the criminality of your political idols and, in the most mean spirited way possible, attempt to assign criminality to people who are simply exercising the basic human right to migrate.

Now, help me out here. I wonder what the obvious, visual difference is between these two groups of people!?

 

[smartcooky]

<irrelevant rubbish snipped>

The only shifting of the goalposts has been the sudden assertion that the debate has something to do with asylum seekers in total, even those who enter through a legal port of entry.

The title of this thread is "DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt", therefore, this discussion is about the political stunt DeSantis pulled, in which involved lying to asylum seekers, loading them onto an aircraft and shipping them to Massachussetts.

 

[Warp12]

The title of this thread is "DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt", therefore, this discussion is about the political stunt DeSantis pulled, in which involved lying to asylum seekers, loading them onto an aircraft and shipping them to Massachussetts.

You have taken my comment out of context. You seem to have not been following the thread for days, nor are you aware of what the most recent debate has been about. Not much I can add to that, really. I suggest taking some time to catch up.

Because, otherwise, your commentary seems entirely detached from the current discussion/debate. And it is certainly misrepresenting such. The recent debate has consistently been about the illegality of the border crossing by these migrants.

 

[arayder]

You can play "the professor" if you want, but I ain't buying it.

You have done nothing here but excuse the criminality of your political idols and, in the most mean spirited way possible, attempt to assign criminality to people who are simply exercising the basic human right to migrate.

Now, help me out here. I wonder what the obvious, visual difference is between these two groups of people!?

One group (the political idols) play endless political games.

The other group (the asylum seekers) struggles to to maintain their lives and families.

. . .oh. . .one group in primarily fat, rich white Republicans and the other group is Latinos whose primary goal is to make sure their kids don't starve before they get to the U.S. border.

. . .is that what you were asking?

 

[smartcooky]

One group (the political idols) play endless political games.

The other group (the asylum seekers) struggles to to maintain their lives and families.

. . .oh. . .one group in primarily fat, rich white Republicans and the other group is Latinos whose primary goal is to make sure their kids don't starve before they get to the U.S. border.

. . .is that what you were asking?

Yes, and well answered... with truth!!

You have taken my comment out of context. You seem to have not been following the thread for days, nor are you aware of what the most recent debate has been about. Not much I can add to that, really. I suggest taking some time to catch up.

Because, otherwise, your commentary seems entirely detached from the current discussion/debate. And it is certainly misrepresenting such. The recent debate has consistently been about the illegality of the border crossing by these migrants.

I don't care what the debate "evolved to", and in any case, it evolved to what it appears to be now because you dragged it in that direction to suit your own narrative.

 

[arayder]

You have taken my comment out of context. You seem to have not been following the thread for days, nor are you aware of what the most recent debate has been about. Not much I can add to that, really. I suggest taking some time to catch up.

Because, otherwise, your commentary seems entirely detached from the current discussion/debate. And it is certainly misrepresenting such. The recent debate has consistently been about the illegality of the border crossing by these migrants.

Translation: "The Professor" is cornered and thinks he might get out of the jam by pretending he can grade your essay.

 

[Norman Alexander]

How is an asylum seeker treated differently at the border than at a US airport? Being Australian, you couldn't use it being a TPS nor could you likely be found to be in danger politically, etc*. It would have to do with that and not because you arrived by plane. If someone arrived at LAX from Venezuela and said they wanted to apply for asylum, they be treated the same way as if they'd arrived at a border port of entry.

Nope, definitely not the case. They would not be put in cages and potentially have their children separated from them. Nor would they be sent back to Mexico/Caracas on the next flight "until their application is due to be heard". Granted, they would not be simply waved through either. But it would not be the same treatment that is meted out to wetbacks.

He should not have been treated like that, especially the cavity search, but as the saying goes 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. The Australian TV show 'Border Patrol' shows many people being refused entry and put on the next plane back to their country due to not bringing sufficient support funds or failing to follow some other entry requirement. I'm not accusing Mr. Dunn of doing anything intentionally wrong, but rules is rules.

Sure, but that was an entirely arbitrary and frankly capricious decision. Thousands of tourists, Australian and otherwise, have successfully transited the USA to a third country via airports. I have done so myself - UK to Canada via JFK. So how did they go through and this case did not? because some US border person decided it at that time. They seemed to pick one person who was technically in breach, and...made an example of them?? And the same goes for people arriving at the southern border. They are at the mercy of how some border security person feels when they got out of bed this morning.

Entrance to Australia is determined by Border Patrol agents, too. How is that different? Can they not be feeling 'narky' that day?

Correct, as do most countries. And actually, no, they should not be capricious. They need to follow our laws strictly. Just that our laws have been, until recently, set by a bunch would-be fascists who were perhaps models for DeSantis. Meet Peter Dutton, former Minister for Home Affairs and (former) head honcho of Border Force.

The "brown, poor Venezuelans" are NOT "being considered by some as "illegals" by simply crossing the wrong border" but because they entered illegally by not going through a port of entry. They are "illegal" until and if they apply for asylum. But I get your point about some thinking they should still be considered illegal. I think women should have autonomy over their own bodies, but that means diddley-squat if the law says otherwise.

All agreed. We have our own equivalent to these people - Border Force, and our government's actions have been (until recently when we changed them) even more heinous than the US. Makes DeSantis look tame. PLEASE don't get like this.

What is offshore processing?

Since 13 August 2012, Australia has resumed sending people who came by boat to Australia seeking asylum [equivalent to southern border asylum seekers] to Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea under a policy of offshore processing. Since 19 July 2013, the Australian Government’s policy is that no one in this group will ever be resettled in Australia, even if they are recognised as refugees.

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/

I certainly don't think the US is a solo or even the worst exponent of anti-immigrant exploitation.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nope, definitely not the case. They would not be put in cages and potentially have their children separated from them. Nor would they be sent back to Mexico/Caracas on the next flight "until their application is due to be heard". Granted, they would not be simply waved through either. But it would not be the same treatment that is meted out to wetbacks.

You're not reading carefully.

A person arriving via a US airport had to have a passport/visa to get on the plane at its point of origin which is the crucial difference.

Notice I said, "If someone arrived at LAX from Venezuela and said they wanted to apply for asylum, they be treated the same way as if they'd arrived at a border port of entry." That means they had a passport/visa and arrived legally... meaning they are not a 'wetback'.

Sure, but that was an entirely arbitrary and frankly capricious decision. Thousands of tourists, Australian and otherwise, have successfully transited the USA to a third country via airports. I have done so myself - UK to Canada via JFK. So how did they go through and this case did not? because some US border person decided it at that time. They seemed to pick one person who was technically in breach, and...made an example of them?? And the same goes for people arriving at the southern border. They are at the mercy of how some border security person feels when they got out of bed this morning.

How was that an "entirely arbitrary and frankly capricious decision"? Mr. Dunn failed to follow the requirements per US law. How did you and they go through, and he did not? I'd say because you and they followed the legal requirements. Did you have a return flight booked? If so, that met the requirement. There is no indication that Dunn had a return flight booked. Sorry, but you are really stretching to find an excuse here by making assumptions not based evidence.

Take a look at this similar story of an Aussie being denied entry. It:https://www.traveller.com.au/warnin...xico,,10-month wait for visas to enter the US

Correct, as do most countries. And actually, no, they should not be capricious. They need to follow our laws strictly. Just that our laws have been, until recently, set by a bunch would-be fascists who were perhaps models for DeSantis. Meet Peter Dutton, former Minister for Home Affairs and (former) head honcho of Border Force.

All agreed. We have our own equivalent to these people - Border Force, and our government's actions have been (until recently when we changed them) even more heinous than the US. Makes DeSantis look tame. PLEASE don't get like this.https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/

I certainly don't think the US is a solo or even the worst exponent of anti-immigrant exploitation.

Again, you're assuming that border agents are being "capricious" which is an assumption not based on evidence but on your own personal bias.

 

[Norman Alexander]

You're not reading carefully.

And you are not understanding.

A person arriving via a US airport had to have a passport/visa to get on the plane at its point of origin which is the crucial difference.

No, they won't always. Some points of departure involve zero or very lax passport control. In some cases, they simply bribe their way on. Some intended asylum seekers will simply hide or even flush their "boarding passports" in flight - false documents, and present to passport control on arrival with no documentation. See also "refugee travel documents" for people with no passports.

Notice I said, "If someone arrived at LAX from Venezuela and said they wanted to apply for asylum, they be treated the same way as if they'd arrived at a border port of entry." That means they had a passport/visa and arrived legally... meaning they are not a 'wetback'.

Nope. See above.

How was that an "entirely arbitrary and frankly capricious decision"? Mr. Dunn failed to follow the requirements per US law. How did you and they go through, and he did not? I'd say because you and they followed the legal requirements. Did you have a return flight booked? If so, that met the requirement. There is no indication that Dunn had a return flight booked. Sorry, but you are really stretching to find an excuse here by making assumptions not based evidence.

As I said, this happens many times daily with zero problem. Has done for years. I traveled from UK to Toronto via JFK, with no return flight booked. It was for work also. Not a problem.

Take a look at this similar story of an Aussie being denied entry. It:https://www.traveller.com.au/warnin...xico,,10-month wait for visas to enter the US

Yup. One of hundreds of instances of this being fine previously. Just this once some border security official decided to pull it up.

Again, you're assuming that border agents are being "capricious" which is an assumption not based on evidence but on your own personal bias.

Nope. In almost every case I have dealt with US border security, they have been polite, efficient and friendly. Helpful, even. No problems for me at all. But then, as I said, I'm a white male Caucasian. How could I possibly be a socialist librul tree-hugging gun-grabbing visa over-stayer!

 

[Upchurch]

Hey, here's some more news:

(NSFW-ish)

 

[smartcooky]

Hey, here's some more news:

(NSFW-ish)

OK, that was hilarious - made my morning.

It was also full of well-researched truth. I might have to subscribe to this channel.

 

[Upchurch]

OK, that was hilarious - made my morning.

It was also full of well-researched truth. I might have to subscribe to this channel.

Cody’s Showdy is surprisingly well balanced without “both sides”-ing.

 

[Stacyhs]

And you are not understanding.

Quote:
A person arriving via a US airport had to have a passport/visa to get on the plane at its point of origin which is the crucial difference.

No, they won't always. Some points of departure involve zero or very lax passport control. In some cases, they simply bribe their way on. Some intended asylum seekers will simply hide or even flush their "boarding passports" in flight - false documents, and present to passport control on arrival with no documentation.

I'm understanding just fine.
That's quite a claim you made. Do you have any supporting evidence for it? What airports have zero passport control? Do you have examples of people just bribing their way onto an international flight? Or flushing their boarding documents during flight?

See also "refugee travel documents" for people with no passports.

If you read your own link, the person does have a passport of sorts: it's an official document that acts in place of a passport that allows for international travel that is obtained from the country of residence when the refugee cannot get a passport from his own country. As the traveler has official documentation that allows him to travel internationally that is accepted as such by the US, then my point still stands: they had proper documentation.

Quote:
Notice I said, "If someone arrived at LAX from Venezuela and said they wanted to apply for asylum, they be treated the same way as if they'd arrived at a border port of entry." That means they had a passport/visa and arrived legally... meaning they are not a 'wetback'.

Nope. See above.

Yep. See above.

As I said, this happens many times daily with zero problem. Has done for years. I traveled from UK to Toronto via JFK, with no return flight booked. It was for work also. Not a problem.

How do you know this? You're making claims for which I've seen no evidence and you've presented nothing. How do you know how many or how often people are turned back for this or another reason?

Yup. One of hundreds of instances of this being fine previously. Just this once some border security official decided to pull it up.

"Hundreds of instances"? Again, you're making claims with no evidence. Additionally, my article clearly states, "The house-sitter said there are multiple online discussion threads devoted to the topic, and exercising discretion about intentions to house-sit at border controls is an unspoken rule within the community.

"People who have been doing it for a long time have got their procedures for going through immigration down pat. It's not necessarily lying about why they're there, but it's not fully disclosing," the person said.

Savvy housesitters have honed ways to pass through immigration points without raising alarm."

Nope. In almost every case I have dealt with US border security, they have been polite, efficient and friendly. Helpful, even. No problems for me at all. But then, as I said, I'm a white male Caucasian. How could I possibly be a socialist librul tree-hugging gun-grabbing visa over-stayer!

Look, you are speaking of your own experience. You don't know how often others are turned away for not meeting US requirements. The fact is Dunn failed to do so. So did Gourley. She violated ESTA rules. As the article states, "All travellers are responsible for ensuring they meet the entry and residency requirements of countries they visit". The border agents weren't "capricious" or "arbitrary". They were, in fact, following the law.

 

[Venom]

The stunt did NOT backfire unless Fox News viewers somehow stopped agreeing it was a good thing.

 

[Stacyhs]

After Hurricane Ian's destruction, maybe DeSantis can offer some real FL asylum seekers free tickets out of the state. He might get a few takers.

 

[lobosrul5]

The stunt did NOT backfire unless Fox News viewers somehow stopped agreeing it was a good thing.

If the purpose was to rile up the base then it worked. If it was to convince any swing voters to vote Republican... I think it majorly backfired.