|
|
| They can, quite literally, be both......... This is what's known as a false dichotomy. |
|
| |
|
| Of course they can. But are they? What are they running from that qualifies them to be asylum seekers? |
|
| |
|
| Well, I dunno, why don't you go ask them? In all seriousness though, my niece has heard many absolutely horrific stories.
Edited by Pofarmer 6/18/2025 17:45
|
|
| |
|
Central Alberta | dtfi4547 - 6/17/2025 09:18
The difference between a cult and a political party --- Is due Process and the understanding that we are a country of laws not Men.
but nobody expects people in cults to understand that.
I don't know if it has a name, but I call it "flat earth syndrome." It's when ignorance and hate combine to create strange and irrational beliefs.
Those who seek to prove their confirmation bias, will do so, but those with common sense do not. Unfortunately, it seems that the fallacies are outnumbering the common sense. All we can do it wait for the truth to eventually see the light of day. |
|
| |
|
| To explore some of the reasons people leave their homes
https://www.asylumspeakers.com/learn/why-people-flee-the-five-main-reasons-behind-migration
"Imagine being forced to leave everything you know and love - your home, your family, your friends - just to stay alive, or find a future that is safe, free and fair."
More:
https://phr.org/story/fleeing-for-their-lives-sexual-and-gender-based-violence/#10
https://cwsglobal.org/blog/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants-whats-the-difference/
And now we are also betraying Afghans who helped our forces in Afghanistan. Why would anyone help us in the future.
https://apnews.com/article/refugees-trump-immigration-executive-orders-resettlement-afghans-2a673e3a01ff6fa5006ef47f50dba158
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/12/nx-s1-5406198/trump-immigration-afghanistan-taliban
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0l97ee2xmo
https://www.newsweek.com/afghanistan-tps-cancelation-trump-administration-south-african-refugees-2073439 This one is especially galling.
What happened to the republican MAGA party? Reagan wouldn't recognize it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2020/06/10/where-ronald-reagan-american-beacon-hill-editorials-debates/5338955002/ "Wendy R. Sherman, USA TODAY: “I was privileged to be a U.S. diplomat in two administrations, traveling the world to protect and advance our interests. The moral authority of America, the beacon on the hill that President Ronald Reagan spoke of, was an essential part of that interest. ... Today, we are leaderless and voiceless from the White House, at home and abroad, even as the voices of our citizens in the street, here and abroad, are loud and strong. ... Voices from the pope to the prime minister of Canada challenged President Donald Trump and questioned whether the United States still possessed any moral authority.” This is from Trump's first term and he unrestrained in his second term.
I suspect we will see more attempted illegal immigration due to the axing of USAID and other foreign aid programs.
Edit to add: https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-detains-us-army-interpreter-at-rou... "The man, who reportedly risked his life to aid American troops in Afghanistan for three years, was placed in handcuffs by a pair of immigration officers who concealed their faces with neck gaiters."
Edited by H3f 6/18/2025 22:08
|
|
| |
|
| Biden didn't "step down" he was left with no other choice by the Dimrats. Biden was so self aware he shook hands with people who weren't there and talked to dead people. |
|
| |
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/06/12/crypto-now-acco...
"Then there is the $TRUMP memecoin, launched days before the inauguration. The coin has kicked off an estimated $315 million in fees and dollar-tied crypto to the president, or about $200 million after taxes. Trump also holds a stash of tokens worth an estimated $430 million. Total everything, and the president’s crypto ventures account for roughly 60% of his net worth today."
https://thenetworths.com/donald-trump-net-worth/
2016 $3.7 billion Forbes estimates during the presidential campaign
2020 $2.5 billion Pandemic-era valuation: real estate hit hard
2022 $2.6 billion Modest recovery post-presidency
2024 $3.1 billion Pre-Truth Social IPO
2025 $5.1 billion Post-IPO and crypto expansion (Forbes & Bloomberg)
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-has-trump-made-white-...
"The Trump family and another business entity have made more than $350 million in trading fees for his meme coin alone, according to an estimate by Chainalysis, a blockchain data platform. The top 220 holders of Trump's token spent an average of over $1 million to secure a seat at a private gala hosted at Trump's DC-area golf club. According to the coin's site, a company controlled by the president's family and another entity control 80% of the coins.
Trump did not report any $Trump token-related income on his disclosure, likely because his meme token was not announced until January 2025. The disclosure covers the 2024 calendar year."
|
|
| |
|
perryton, tx | I would believe that you’ve been a straight ticket D voter since 2016 and most likely before that despite your claims otherwise. |
|
| |
|
| If it was me that said that you would say you got zero. Nothing. Nada. Or maybe got proof to back up your claim? You don’t know what you think you do.
In all seriousness though there are many, many people that have went through absolutely horrific situations caused by some very, very bad “asylum seekers”.
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/19/2025 05:02
|
|
| |
|
| Yea I was quite sure the vast majority of asylum seekers being discussed in this thread didn’t come from situations like that and weren’t actually running from anything like those situations. |
|
| |
|
| Believe what you want. I couldn't stomach voting for Greitens for MO Governor or Trump. Both are Scheisters of the first order. After 2016 the R platform is just performative outrage and identity politics. They're running MO into the ground, and they'll do the same nationally. The Republican party lost me then. |
|
| |
|
| Is there anything "conservatives" aren't afraid of these days? |
|
| |
|
| On that note it is almost a certainty that the horrific stories your daughter heard, about ICE I assume due to the conversation but correct me if I’m wrong, would pale in comparison to the horrific stories of what some of these illegals have done to U.S. citizens. It is extremely unlikely that ICE agents actions are even in the same category as some of the illegals actions.
But hey, you know the stories she heard so share them here and we can decide for ourselves.
BTW, you are arguing on here because you are “afraid” that someone who entered the U.S. illegally to make a better life for themselves, worked hard, lived illegally in the U.S. for X amount of years where they quite likely lived a better lifestyle than where they came from, are now caught and not punished but simply sent home. And now you are mocking “conservatives” for being afraid of everything as a response to a post about some citizens being put in absolutely horrific situations at the hands of some illegals who should not even be in the U.S.
I just figured I’d point that out. LMAO |
|
| |
|
| And yet these are some of the people Trump's ICE are deporting.
The fact that ICE is showing up masked and without visible ID should be a concern for all citizens, not just undocumented.
Somewhat unrelated but worth a listen (16 minutes)
https://player.themoth.org/#/?actionType=ADD_AND_PLAY&storyId=364 |
|
| |
|
| It is entirely possible that it has happened. No system is perfect. There are innocent people sitting in jail now because a system that gets almost everything right still has some failures. It is also almost a certainty that incidents like you describe are isolated incidents. That doesn’t make it right but we do live in an imperfect world.
What is also virtually guaranteed is that the entire media system, as well as trumps opponents, are searching for and concentrating the public’s attention on any isolated story like that in an attempt to make the public believe that is the norm of ICE operations. It is not. But mistakes do and will happen.
At its base level what this argument is actually about is the speed of deportations. At the moment there are lots of people in the U.S. that aren’t supposed to be. Some of them are extremely dangerous. For the most part both sides agree on those points.
Where the two sides diverge is one side does not want any innocent person to fall through the cracks of the system and be treated unfairly. That is what the focus of their argument is. The other side is focused on making sure that none of the extremely dangerous illegals slip through the cracks and remain in the U.S.
In short, it is about the balance of these two objectives. In a perfect world both objectives would be achieved and both sides actually want that but unfortunately we live in an imperfect world. We see this in the justice system. There are always a few innocent people sitting in jails and there are always some criminals that walk away free. If the rules are made extreme enough to ensure no criminal will ever walk away there will be an increase in the number of innocent people in jails. If we make the rules more lax to ensure that no innocent person is jailed then more criminals will walk away.
In its base form this argument is actually about where that balance lies. In this case maybe it went too far. But then again maybe it didn’t go far enough. Each and every one of us will feel differently about where that balance lies.
Edit to add: Oh and about the masks. A few years back I was amazed when some businesses required masks to be worn. I mean some banks literally required masks to enter. Masks were literally the staple of criminals for many years and suddenly they were no longer a concern. The. I watched the people at both the trucker convoy and Jan 6th and extremely few of the people present were wearing masks. Then I watched the BLM riots and every other violent protest afterwards and virtually everyone was wearing masks. Quite a few of them were even in some type of uniform to signify they belonged to some group.
Now when one adds in that Tony Seruga has been compiling data about electronic devices present in these types of events. All of the violent events have one thing in common, a large percentage of these devices are present at multiple events. It does not matter where the events take place nor the cause, a large percentage of the same people are in attendance. I’ll leave it at that and you can draw your own conclusion.
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/19/2025 09:19
|
|
| |
|
Northern Nebraska | havin’funfarming - 6/19/2025 08:43
It is entirely possible that it has happened.
Not just possible it has been documented to have happened. |
|
| |
|
| "It is also almost a certainty that incidents like you describe are isolated incidents."
The use of blanket rescission of TPS (temporary protected status) demonstrates that it is not isolated incidents.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/12/dhs-terminating-temporary-protec...
"The TPS designation for the country (Afghanistan) expires on May 20, 2025, and the termination will be effective on July 14, 2025."
"Masks were literally the staple of criminals for many years and suddenly they were no longer a concern."
Now masks seem to be a staple of law enforcement along with nothing to indicate law enforcement. That indicates to me that they are arresting or detaining non criminals. If they were targeting criminals I suspect they would have identifying clothing to alleviate the risk of getting shot. Be honest: What is your first thought if a group of masked people suddenly surrounded you? If you had a gun would you use it?
Finally what is the purpose of masks worn by law enforcement? If it is to make it impossible to be identified, the question is WHY? Evidently they are not supplying a identification number either, again WHY? |
|
| |
|
| H3f - 6/19/2025 12:23
"It is also almost a certainty that incidents like you describe are isolated incidents."
The use of blanket rescission of TPS (temporary protected status ) demonstrates that it is not isolated incidents.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/12/dhs-terminating-temporary-protec...
"The TPS designation for the country (Afghanistan ) expires on May 20, 2025, and the termination will be effective on July 14, 2025."
"Masks were literally the staple of criminals for many years and suddenly they were no longer a concern."
Now masks seem to be a staple of law enforcement along with nothing to indicate law enforcement. That indicates to me that they are arresting or detaining non criminals. If they were targeting criminals I suspect they would have identifying clothing to alleviate the risk of getting shot. Be honest: What is your first thought if a group of masked people suddenly surrounded you? If you had a gun would you use it?
Finally what is the purpose of masks worn by law enforcement? If it is to make it impossible to be identified, the question is WHY? Evidently they are not supplying an identification number either, again WHY?
Who are you to say they are not just still afraid of Covid? Many here still are.
But unfortunately law enforcement hiding their identity and/or what they are doing has been common for a long time now and we have been forced to accept it. I don’t agree with it but it’s reality. They have often disabled security cameras. Thats what they did when they raided Mar-a-Lago. Why did they do that? Am I allowed to assume they were doing what they shouldn’t be doing also? If I did I’d be a conspiracy theorist because I have no proof. Why did they switch out the regular police that were getting along great with the Freedom convoy in Canada to stone cold agents with masks and no badge numbers? Should the peaceful protestors have turned violent when they didn’t know who they were? Why did they release so little footage of Jan 6th? They could have proven all of the violence they claimed against the protestors. Am I allowed to assume that means they are lying about what happened that day?
I understand the reasoning behind your complaint and I don’t like it either. But I’ve been down this road several times already. Claiming what you are now makes you a conspiracy theorist unless you have proof, just like it did when I voiced my concerns. I know how you feel. Everything can indicate guilt just like you say it does but if they are saying they aren’t doing anything wrong and you are still questioning their actions without proof you are just a conspiracy theorist. Welcome to that club.
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/19/2025 20:44
|
|
| |
|
| They did prove violence by several Jan 6th protesters. Trump pardoned them. With the republicans in control of the house and senate, they could release the tapes like mike Johnson said they would. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-gop-jan-6-video-release/ dated 12/21/23: "One month after GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana announced House Republicans would post nearly all 44,000 hours of Capitol security video from Jan. 6, 2021, to a public website,..." |
|
| |
|
| It sounds like the democrats don’t want it released. And of course they use the label of conspiracy theory, just like I said. Lol
“Republicans have lauded the efforts, arguing it will ensure "truth and transparency." But the plan is being blistered by some House Democrats, who warn the initiative is motivated by politics and conspiracy theories.”
The fact that the democrats don’t want it all public indicates that they are lying about what really happened that day.
Why can’t we both be allowed to assume wrongdoing based on the actions of the people involved in a coverup? It works both ways.
Edit to add: Some violence, sure. In a group that size there will almost always be a few that go a bit too far. But we also know that they had government operatives inside that group of protestors. The fact that they don’t release all the footage indicates that it was there operatives that were causing the violence that they then could blame on the true protestors. The fact that they will be blurring some of the faces in the footage they release also supports that because they would be trying to hide the identity of their undercover operatives. It all adds up that way actually.
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/20/2025 06:08
|
|
| |
|
Northern Nebraska | They broke into the capital of the United States of America. They are just lucky they were not killed on site.
Why they were not prosecuted in a timely manner is beyond me.
Edited by Hilltop Husker 6/20/2025 06:52
|
|
| |
|
| Well now you bring up a good point! They would not want to shoot their buddies if they were the ones orchestrating the optics they needed. Why didn’t they use more force to prevent what has been described as a “violent mob” from breaching the building? That is the place to make the stand, not after they gain access. Allowing them to gain access to some very sensitive areas sure did make the optics much worse than if it had been stopped at the doors. It would make sense to have the undercover agents inciting if not even leading the protestors into the building if they wanted to achieve that. It would also make sense that now it is necessary to blur the faces of their undercover operatives if they were in fact promoting entering the building and then leading them around. It is well known that the place is a maze and it would be very difficult for a normal citizen to find their way to the places they did. We have also seen unblurred footage of the Capitol police leading some of them around and even opening doors for them. That footage created quite a public outrage actually so between wanting to prevent that again and the need to keep the identity of undercover agents who are still likely active in the field secret makes sense. They did say that blurring the faces OF SOME people was necessary for their safety so that checks out also.
I am starting to like the freedom afforded by the democrat model for determining guilt! It is a very freeing way to reach a conclusion!
BTW, in case you haven’t caught on yet I am doing this to highlight how proof is required to even point out plausible questions of democrat behaviours compared to having plausible questions of republicans be the equivalent of guilt unless they can be proven innocent. Thank you for helping with that!
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/20/2025 10:13
|
|
| |
|
Scranton | You can't possibly be this dumb.
Did you not notice the tens of millions that crossed with ease during the biden years? Now look at the border 100 days after Trump entered office....and it happened in 17 as well. |
|
| |
|
| I'm actually not arguing that more people didn't enter under Biden. CATO institute(libertarians by the way) argue that it would have happened no matter who was in office. Too much pent up demand in the U.S. and too poor economic conditions south of us drove it. Not anything that Biden really did. And courts were finding most of Trumps orders unconstitutional anyway. Biden didn't end remain in Mexico, Courts did. I have no idea how "the border" is now under Trump. I just know the media isn't focusing on it anymore. Anyways, the argument was that what the Biden administration did wasn't lawful. How so? |
|
| |
|
Northern Nebraska | You know the exact opposite could be true. It could have all been a stunt orchestrated by Trump. To make you lose faith in the government.
Cuz that's the problem with making up a story like you are. Is that it's hard too stop a story once it's out, even if it's fiction
The entire Crux of your argument this whole entire time has been that because Democrats didn't give somebody due process that Republicans don't have to give somebody due process. The Democrats should be punished for preventing people from having due process and the Republicans should be punished for preventing people from having due process. That is a tenant of our society.
Edited by Hilltop Husker 6/20/2025 16:34
|
|
| |
|
| In case you didn’t notice, the poster who I was responding to made up a story about the republicans and assumed there must be guilt there. I just mirrored his procedures for assessing a situation and applied them to the opposite side. Obviously you see the issues with using that type of procedures but i noticed you didn’t comment about that, you only commented about me using the same logic. You are talking about treating people equally but you are not doing that yourself.
As I said before, I agree with you that ALL transgressions should be punished. Two wrongs don’t make a right. That doesn’t mean the first wrong should go unpunished though.
Basically what the crux of my argument actually is is that the same behaviour is viewed and treated differently depending on which side is doing it. You not calling him out, not having any issue with anything he said actually, is an example of that. We all need to be better people, not just republicans. |
|
| |
|
Northern Nebraska | Didn't read their posts. I only read yours. |
|
| |
|
| I would like to know where is the "made up story about the republicans" |
|
| |
|
| It is of the same type as my “made up story”. It wasn’t me that decided to use that terminology. I’m just using the same terminology.
You saw an action and explained it using reasoning that is quite plausible. Your “story” is entirely possible. I followed your lead and saw actions and explained it using reasoning that is quite plausible. My “story” is entirely possible.
I don’t have a problem with you telling a “story” using reasoning that seems possible. That is as long as I am afforded the same courtesy.
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/21/2025 12:47
|
|
| |
|
Central Alberta | You know, when you say stupid playground stuff like that, other kids may applaud what you say,
and you may think you are on the right side. But you will always be on the wrong side of history. |
|
| |
|
Northern Nebraska | Does it matter if it's entirely plausible if it's farcical? If you just made it up it doesn't matter, but we're talking about things that actually happened.
There's photographic evidence.
Edited by Hilltop Husker 6/21/2025 14:32
|
|
| |
|
| Almost everything I mentioned is also factual, just like almost everything he mentioned is factual. The conclusion drawn from these facts is equally farcical. Either both sides can make up plausible “stories” or neither side should.
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/21/2025 15:53
|
|
| |
|
| I did not make up a story about republicans. I did present a hypothetical worst case situation that masked law officers could lead to. That has nothing to do with democrats or republicans, only the ability to recognize law enforcement as law enforcement. |
|
| |
|
| You are correct. I should have said republican controlled law officers instead of republicans. I might have also made the mistake of saying democrats instead of something like democrat controlled law officers. |
|
| |
Well I guess Illegal isn't illegal if
