Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

We don’t need a wall we need a bridge baby!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

that migrants flooding the border and not caring about proper procedure or law doesn't matter?

---

Can you quote Ms. Ocasio-Cortez saying specifically that any or all of those three things “do not matter?”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

Sure please show me. Thanks.

---

Asylum claims are a very specific kind of immigration.

Asylum can ONLY be claimed in the country you wish to obtain entry into. So, those wishing to come into the US must come to the US to claim asylum. It cannot be done in a different country and it doesn't make sense to.

Once you arrive, the asylum seeker(s) is given a credible fear screening. Because asylum can only be claimed in very specific circumstances, this is the point where many are denied entry into the United States. For an asylum claim to be credible, the individual seeking it must prove that they are being: (1) persecuted based on 5 enumerated protected groups, and (2) they have a credible fear that they will be killed if sent home. The 5 groups that can claim asylum are those persecuted for: their race, their religion, their nationality, their membership in a particular social group, or their political opinion. Claims outside of those reasons are rejected upon arrival. This includes seeking asylum for such things as economic or natural disaster reasons.

If their fear is credible, and with those parameters, they are given a court date to make their claim. They then can be and should be released into the US until their case is heard. Over 90% of them promptly return for their hearings where a largely unfair courtroom where the claim will most likely be rejected, and almost certainly rejected if you have no attorney.

So why should we not tell people like asylum seekers not to come?

1) Its literally life or death for them. They are only doing this because they face certain death at home and this is the only way to protect themselves and what is left of their families. I would think almost anyone here would do the same.

2) These are the type of immigrants you want in the country. They educate themselves and commit crimes at a fraction of the rate of native born Americans. They show up at their hearings because this is such a dire situation for them

3) It's the LAW. In this country, as in almost every country in the world, you are obligated to accept people at your border claiming asylum. This is one of the oldest laws on the planet and the legal standard is the same globally.

And again, this process can ONLY be done at the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I have posted what asylum is, including earlier today. asylum is not show up, claim asylum, and you're good.

---

Yes many are rejected. Now what are you criticizing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhino17

Asylum claims are a very specific kind of immigration.

Asylum can ONLY be claimed in the country you wish to obtain entry into. So, those wishing to come into the US must come to the US to claim asylum. It cannot be done in a different country and it doesn't make sense to.

Once you arrive, the asylum seeker(s) is given a credible fear screening. Because asylum can only be claimed in very specific circumstances, this is the point where many are denied entry into the United States. For an asylum claim to be credible, the individual seeking it must prove that they are being: (1) persecuted based on 5 enumerated protected groups, and (2) they have a credible fear that they will be killed if sent home. The 5 groups that can claim asylum are those persecuted for: their race, their religion, their nationality, their membership in a particular social group, or their political opinion. Claims outside of those reasons are rejected upon arrival. This includes seeking asylum for such things as economic or natural disaster reasons.

If their fear is credible, and with those parameters, they are given a court date to make their claim. They then can be and should be released into the US until their case is heard. Over 90% of them promptly return for their hearings where a largely unfair courtroom where the claim will most likely be rejected, and almost certainly rejected if you have no attorney.

So why should we not tell people like asylum seekers not to come?

1) Its literally life or death for them. They are only doing this because they face certain death at home and this is the only way to protect themselves and what is left of their families. I would think almost anyone here would do the same.

2) These are the type of immigrants you want in the country. They educate themselves and commit crimes at a fraction of the rate of native born Americans. They show up at their hearings because this is such a dire situation for them

3) It's the LAW. In this country, as in almost every country in the world, you are obligated to accept people at your border claiming asylum. This is one of the oldest laws on the planet and the legal standard is the same globally.

And again, this process can ONLY be done at the border.

---

Thanks. I truly appreciate this for all to see.

However

Special was not speaking of folks going to customs/border patrol and making their case. He's speaking of the thousands and thousands of folks that come here illegally via themselves, small groups, up to and including large caravans.

The Vice President was right in what she said about not coming. She was not speaking of those coming legally.

I will admit I didn't hear her whole speech, but the sound bites I did hear didn't make that distinction between illegal or legal. Just don't come as reported on "liberal" media news. I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

Can you quote Ms. Ocasio-Cortez saying specifically that any or all of those three things “do not matter?”

---

of course she's not going to specifically say that to those that support her.

with a crisis at the border and VP Harris saying do not come, AOC and other should be agreeing with that until something is done to better handle the crisis.

when AOC says "First, seeking asylum at any US border is a 100% legal method of arrival" she's ignoring that many of these immigrants are not going about asylum in the legal way.

despite objection, there is a way to claim asylum. it is not just show up anywhere.

as I already provided..

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/downloa...s-of-Entry.pdf

Quote:

---

Immigration law allows individuals to apply for asylum in the United States who are fleeing their country and seeking protection based on “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Individuals can present themselves for asylum at ports of entry before U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhino17

Asylum claims are a very specific kind of immigration.

Asylum can ONLY be claimed in the country you wish to obtain entry into. So, those wishing to come into the US must come to the US to claim asylum. It cannot be done in a different country and it doesn't make sense to.

Once you arrive, the asylum seeker(s) is given a credible fear screening. Because asylum can only be claimed in very specific circumstances, this is the point where many are denied entry into the United States. For an asylum claim to be credible, the individual seeking it must prove that they are being: (1) persecuted based on 5 enumerated protected groups, and (2) they have a credible fear that they will be killed if sent home. The 5 groups that can claim asylum are those persecuted for: their race, their religion, their nationality, their membership in a particular social group, or their political opinion. Claims outside of those reasons are rejected upon arrival. This includes seeking asylum for such things as economic or natural disaster reasons.

If their fear is credible, and with those parameters, they are given a court date to make their claim. They then can be and should be released into the US until their case is heard. Over 90% of them promptly return for their hearings where a largely unfair courtroom where the claim will most likely be rejected, and almost certainly rejected if you have no attorney.

So why should we not tell people like asylum seekers not to come?

1) Its literally life or death for them. They are only doing this because they face certain death at home and this is the only way to protect themselves and what is left of their families. I would think almost anyone here would do the same.

2) These are the type of immigrants you want in the country. They educate themselves and commit crimes at a fraction of the rate of native born Americans. They show up at their hearings because this is such a dire situation for them

3) It's the LAW. In this country, as in almost every country in the world, you are obligated to accept people at your border claiming asylum. This is one of the oldest laws on the planet and the legal standard is the same globally.

And again, this process can ONLY be done at the border.

---

Several points here………

This " 90% of them promptly return for their hearings" figure is debatable. Different reports show different numbers and stats that are calculated in different ways.

First Bolded………it's not like anyone would ever lie about that. Right???? Let's be real here.

Second bolded……because we simply cannot afford them. Our country is a mess, This is a headache we do not need.

Third bolded……it's the law. We all get it. But just like things have changed in other areas of our social structure, maybe it's time to change "the law." "you are obligated to accept people at your border claiming asylum" nice law……I'm sure people in Finland, Iceland, Japan etc are more than happy to accept that rule. If all these countries have accepted this asylum ruling, why not make all countries accept having asylum seekers transported there??? Give each signatory a required amount of asylum seekers that they must accept. So when we have an overflow at our border (like now) we can transport some to other countries. If they want to get out of their present country, they should be happy no matter where they wind up within reason. At our southern border……why the US and nor Argentina or Chile??? (hmmm, I wonder why.)

We're getting screwed on this.

Where is the UN on this????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

of course she's not going to specifically say that to those that support her.

with a crisis at the border and VP Harris saying do not come, AOC and other should be agreeing with that until something is done to better handle the crisis.

when AOC says "First, seeking asylum at any US border is a 100% legal method of arrival" she's ignoring that many of these immigrants are not going about asylum in the legal way.

despite objection, there is a way to claim asylum. it is not just show up anywhere.

as I already provided..

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/downloa...s-of-Entry.pdf

---

So its not what she said it what she didn’t say. Like she didn’t tell us that some are rapists


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Several points here………

This " 90% of them promptly return for their hearings" figure is debatable. Different reports show different numbers and stats that are calculated in different ways.

First Bolded………it's not like anyone would ever lie about that. Right???? Let's be real here.

Second bolded……because we simply cannot afford them. Our country is a mess, This is a headache we do not need.

Third bolded……it's the law. We all get it. But just like things have changed in other areas of our social structure, maybe it's time to change "the law." "you are obligated to accept people at your border claiming asylum" nice law……I'm sure people in Finland, Iceland, Japan etc are more than happy to accept that rule. If all these countries have accepted this asylum ruling, why not make all countries accept having asylum seekers transported there??? Give each signatory a required amount of asylum seekers that they must accept. So when we have an overflow at our border (like now) we can transport some to other countries. If they want to get out of their present country, they should be happy no matter where they wind up within reason. At our southern border……why the US and nor Argentina or Chile??? (hmmm, I wonder why.)

We're getting screwed on this.

Where is the UN on this????

---

Can you share with us how you have came to the conclusion that all or even a majority of these people cost you anything? Logic, I know, not something you are big on, tells me that people who successfully make such a difficult trip then successfully
attain asylum status (another tough task) are probably going to be hard working productive members of our society


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManRam

Here's the quote you're crying about FNK. That you yourself shared.

"First, seeking asylum at any US border is a 100% legal method of arrival."

Either you dont know what asylum is, you are willingly misinterpreting what she said or...most likely...gas lighting us like always.

It is legal to seek asylum and all she is saying is that it is OK to seek asylum. End of story. Save your outrage.

---

It’s tough to know America’s immigration system when one isn’t from here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

It’s tough to know America’s immigration system when one isn’t from here.

---

Said only by those that do not understand that you don't have to be a resident of a country to know things about said country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

Can you share with us how you have came to the conclusion that all or even a majority of these people cost you anything? Logic, I know, not something you are big on, tells me that people who successfully make such a difficult trip then successfully
attain asylum status (another tough task) are probably going to be hard working productive members of our society


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Logic.

There are people here that need jobs………these people are taking those jobs. (And please don't tell me that Americans won't do these jobs………make them do it by cutting off all these freebies that the exist on.)

We have students here that need to get into college……these people are taking some of those seats.

The real bottom line (which many here continually miss) is that they are coming from problems that the US did not create. In its most simplistic form……the US is picking up someone else's tab. And we seem to be doing it more than almost all other countries. Paying for these people is not being fair to our people. Why aren't more countries taking these people in??? You know why……it's all the free stuff here.

What is real interesting here is that if the US went into Central and/or South America, had these governments removed with legitimately democratic governments set up that could support their populations……most of the people on this forum would jump all over "American Imperialism, American Colonialism." So you would rather have a place like Venezuela remain a shithole and have its people flee than have the US oust its government when it could be the richest country south of the Rio Grande.

And where do you draw the line??? Or do you draw a line at all??? Do we let them just keep rolling in??? Keep dragging 70 year old abuelas out of the Rio Grande??? In you little perspective, where do you (Ewing) draw the line???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Logic.

There are people here that need jobs………these people are taking those jobs. (And please don't tell me that Americans won't do these jobs………make them do it by cutting off all these freebies that the exist on.)

We have students here that need to get into college……these people are taking some of those seats.

The real bottom line (which many here continually miss) is that they are coming from problems that the US did not create. In its most simplistic form……the US is picking up someone else's tab. And we seem to be doing it more than almost all other countries. Paying for these people is not being fair to our people. Why aren't more countries taking these people in??? You know why……it's all the free stuff here.

What is real interesting here is that if the US went into Central and/or South America, had these governments removed with legitimately democratic governments set up that could support their populations……most of the people on this forum would jump all over "American Imperialism, American Colonialism." So you would rather have a place like Venezuela remain a shithole and have its people flee than have the US oust its government when it could be the richest country south of the Rio Grande.

And where do you draw the line??? Or do you draw a line at all??? Do we let them just keep rolling in??? Keep dragging 70 year old abuelas out of the Rio Grande??? In you little perspective, where do you (Ewing) draw the line???

---

you are going to hold it against these people when they get jobs and go to school AND consider yourself paying for them lol. That’s a new level. I don’t even know what you are talking about at the end (I’m sure you don’t either)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

you are going to hold it against these people when they get jobs and go to school AND consider yourself paying for them lol. That’s a new level. I don’t even know what you are talking about at the end (I’m sure you don’t either)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Geezus………

No, I hold it against these people for taking jbs and seats in college that our people shoud be getting. How can you not see that.

I hold it against the concept of the US paying for other people's problems that those people (the government of the originating country) shows no sign of even attempting to solve this problem. The attitude of "let the dumb Americans handle it."

Bolded……Here is what I said………

And where do you draw the line??? Or do you draw a line at all??? Do we let them just keep rolling in??? Keep dragging 70 year old abuelas out of the Rio Grande??? In you little perspective, where do you (Ewing) draw the line???

And you don't know what I am talking about??? (I'm sure you do, but don't want to answer.)