no, I'm not against the temporary ruling... but the Trump team better get the third country agreement done quickly with Mexico, and the Triangle countries, or the admin may lose their case working through the courts now... they could get shot down because it is presently not legal,without this third country agreement.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Third Country Asylum Decision, How Big a Deal?
- Thread starter william the wie
- Start date
oh dear goodness you think I should go back and look at a link you posted 8 hours ago and assume that's where your posts now came from??oh dear goodness...Everything you posted is worthless without a link.in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.
Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK
in post 11 above
Last edited:
Yeah.....fuck you.oh dear goodness...Everything you posted is worthless without a link.in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.
Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK
in post 11 above
It is Mud y'know....
- Banned
- #24
As far as I understand the law, you can't walk through another country and say you need asylum here from the country you left. You're supposed to get asylum in the neighbor country of the one you fled.no, I'm not against the temporary ruling... but the Trump team better get the third country agreement done quickly with Mexico, and the Triangle countries, or the admin may lose their case working through the courts now... they could get shot down because it is presently not legal,without this third country agreement.OK, I really didn't read much about it. I heard "Trump won again", I said "that's good" and drove on.
When 2 of the 4 lunatics sided with him, you know it was a bad ruling. I'm going to guess you aren't thrilled with the result, but please watch this for some perspective.
Further, I think you know this "asylum" excuse is complete bullshit. People need asylum from North Korea, that's why they have fences to keep people in. Governments south of our border are delighted to get rid of these people for a reason, why would we want to take them?
.
How ya gonna apply if ya can't get IN ?...The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum...
As far as I understand the law, you can't walk through another country and say you need asylum here from the country you left. You're supposed to get asylum in the neighbor country of the one you fled.no, I'm not against the temporary ruling... but the Trump team better get the third country agreement done quickly with Mexico, and the Triangle countries, or the admin may lose their case working through the courts now... they could get shot down because it is presently not legal,without this third country agreement.OK, I really didn't read much about it. I heard "Trump won again", I said "that's good" and drove on.
When 2 of the 4 lunatics sided with him, you know it was a bad ruling. I'm going to guess you aren't thrilled with the result, but please watch this for some perspective.
Further, I think you know this "asylum" excuse is complete bullshit. People need asylum from North Korea, that's why they have fences to keep people in. Governments south of our border are delighted to get rid of these people for a reason, why would we want to take them?
.
once the admin gets a SIGNED, Safe Third country Agreement, then it becomes legal, right now it is not.... the administration is working on it...
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.”
The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement.
A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada.
The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama
no Pete, I do not think most of these people coming here are bad people.... they simply want a better, safer life for themselves and their kids, than their own f-d up gvt and country can provide....
that does not mean I want to let everyone of them in....
I simply can empathize and put myself in to their shoes and know, deep in my gut, I too would want a better chance in life for my kids and would likely make the thousand mile trip with my family, if I were in their shoes.... that's a complement, to us... the USA....
Americans really do not appreciate how great our country, really is.... compared to near elsewhere, imho.....
fences/walls do not stop anyone from getting in, they simply slow the crossers down, giving border patrol enough time to capture them... is what border patrol claims.How ya gonna apply if ya can't get IN ?...The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum...
one big toe on our soil, they get to apply for asylum if they are seeking such...
it was only 2 posts up from yours when you first asked....my mistake, I thought you had read it already and was just being a pain in the ass, (as usual)oh dear goodness you think I should go back and look at a link you posted 8 hours ago and assume that's where your posts now came from??oh dear goodness...Everything you posted is worthless without a link.in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.
Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK
in post 11 above
...your way of keeping the debate/the argument going kind of thingy....
30% of Mexico's GDP is money sent from illegals and legal Mexican nationals living in America.As far as I understand the law, you can't walk through another country and say you need asylum here from the country you left. You're supposed to get asylum in the neighbor country of the one you fled.no, I'm not against the temporary ruling... but the Trump team better get the third country agreement done quickly with Mexico, and the Triangle countries, or the admin may lose their case working through the courts now... they could get shot down because it is presently not legal,without this third country agreement.OK, I really didn't read much about it. I heard "Trump won again", I said "that's good" and drove on.
When 2 of the 4 lunatics sided with him, you know it was a bad ruling. I'm going to guess you aren't thrilled with the result, but please watch this for some perspective.
Further, I think you know this "asylum" excuse is complete bullshit. People need asylum from North Korea, that's why they have fences to keep people in. Governments south of our border are delighted to get rid of these people for a reason, why would we want to take them?
.
once the admin gets a SIGNED, Safe Third country Agreement, then it becomes legal, right now it is not.... the administration is working on it...
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.”
The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement.
A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada.
The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama
no Pete, I do not think most of these people coming here are bad people.... they simply want a better, safer life for themselves and their kids, than their own f-d up gvt and country can provide....
that does not mean I want to let everyone of them in....
I simply can empathize and put myself in to their shoes and know, deep in my gut, I too would want a better chance in life for my kids and would likely make the thousand mile trip with my family, if I were in their shoes.... that's a complement, to us... the USA....
Americans really do not appreciate how great our country, really is.... compared to near elsewhere, imho.....
Course if the country concerned is intentionally trying to help another country transport their people into our country so they can start sending our money into their country....how can you expect them to sign some silly agreement cutting their own throats?
I cannot assume that a link on one post applies to one posted hours later. I don't get paid to argue with people on USMB. I have a life outside of USMB....not to mention the fact that I'm busy posting on other threads at the same time.it was only 2 posts up from yours when you first asked....my mistake, I thought you had read it already and was just being a pain in the ass, (as usual)oh dear goodness you think I should go back and look at a link you posted 8 hours ago and assume that's where your posts now came from??oh dear goodness...Everything you posted is worthless without a link.in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.
Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK
in post 11 above
Well.....slowing them down is the purpose of a wall.....mkay?fences/walls do not stop anyone from getting in, they simply slow the crossers down, giving border patrol enough time to capture them... is what border patrol claims.How ya gonna apply if ya can't get IN ?...The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum...
one big toe on our soil, they get to apply for asylum if they are seeking such...
Also....just getting into the country doesn't solve the problem for illegals.
They now have a bigger chance of getting rejected. Immigration laws have loopholes that Democrats want open and other criminals are taking advantage of. Congress refuses to act and do their damned jobs....so Trump is doing it for them.
They're not gonna get that first toe in, if the Mexicans are stopping Central Americans at the Mexican southern border....one big toe on our soil, they get to apply for asylum if they are seeking such...
And, for those that make it, a tent or wooden barracks in a tightly guarded detention camp, and a tremendously accelerated shake-and-bake asylum request review.
And if that doesn't work, we change or repeal or repudiate the laws and treaties requiring us to grant asylum at all.
If they're going to abuse our generosity, or if they're coming in volumes too high to be in the national interest, we just close the door.
We hang a sign on the Statue of Liberty: "No Vacancy", or "Closed for Repairs - please check back with us at a later date."
And belly-laugh as LibTards piss and moan and wail and gnash their teeth and tear their hair shirts and pour earth over their heads and weep uncontrollably.
Sounds like great fun.
Last edited:
If they enter through a country considered safe, it make no difference. And btw, don't even pretend to dictate to others what is moral. Only a self-righteous ass would do so.actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....
I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
oh dear goodness you think I should go back and look at a link you posted 8 hours ago and assume that's where your posts now came from??
Why, yes. We do.
Typical neocon whacko. Always looking for excuses.
Terri4Trump
Gold Member
- Banned
- #35
Ds are generally ignoring SCOTUS on this one while the usual "This is the final nail in the coffin of the fascists" pack are not acting as if this is a big deal either. Why the deafening silence?
Its a deal. I'm not sure how big of a deal. It will take a little time to measure the impact on illegal alien crossings. It can only have a good impact. How much though? Who knows.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
fences/walls do not stop anyone from getting in, they simply slow the crossers down, giving border patrol enough time to capture them... is what border patrol claims.How ya gonna apply if ya can't get IN ?...The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum...
one big toe on our soil, they get to apply for asylum if they are seeking such...
It's a hell of a lot easier now because the US can call Mexico to see if such asylum seeker was offered asylum or applied for asylum in their country. If not, they turn them around to go home.
Fences and walls do work in every place they are tried, including places here in the US. Yes, they slow down some, but stop most of them.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
As far as I understand the law, you can't walk through another country and say you need asylum here from the country you left. You're supposed to get asylum in the neighbor country of the one you fled.no, I'm not against the temporary ruling... but the Trump team better get the third country agreement done quickly with Mexico, and the Triangle countries, or the admin may lose their case working through the courts now... they could get shot down because it is presently not legal,without this third country agreement.OK, I really didn't read much about it. I heard "Trump won again", I said "that's good" and drove on.
When 2 of the 4 lunatics sided with him, you know it was a bad ruling. I'm going to guess you aren't thrilled with the result, but please watch this for some perspective.
Further, I think you know this "asylum" excuse is complete bullshit. People need asylum from North Korea, that's why they have fences to keep people in. Governments south of our border are delighted to get rid of these people for a reason, why would we want to take them?
.
once the admin gets a SIGNED, Safe Third country Agreement, then it becomes legal, right now it is not.... the administration is working on it...
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.”
The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement.
A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada.
The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama
no Pete, I do not think most of these people coming here are bad people.... they simply want a better, safer life for themselves and their kids, than their own f-d up gvt and country can provide....
that does not mean I want to let everyone of them in....
I simply can empathize and put myself in to their shoes and know, deep in my gut, I too would want a better chance in life for my kids and would likely make the thousand mile trip with my family, if I were in their shoes.... that's a complement, to us... the USA....
Americans really do not appreciate how great our country, really is.... compared to near elsewhere, imho.....
Sure we appreciate how great our country is, and maybe it's time you do as well.
The Untied States allows nearly a million people every year to join our country and become citizens. This is on top of the green cards, VISA's, and work permits we issue to foreigners to take advantage of this great place we and our ancestors created.
Besides that, our tax dollars go to countries in the way of foreign aid; to help those countries that may not have the money to help themselves. That's 50 billion dollars a year which is pretty generous of a country that is over 21 trillion in debt. And besides what we taxpayers give to those countries, we have dozens if not hundreds of private charities that US citizens contribute money to in order to help those in need outside our country.
No civilized country in the entire world does more for other people than we do. And it's not like we were asking for a Thank You, but we don't want to be told by anybody here or outside our country we are not doing enough, because nobody does more for other people than the people of the United States.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....
I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.
Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
He made the order, and the court ruled that it sticks. You will not be eligible for asylum if you crossed into the US via another country that offered you asylum. Given the fact that the problem is on our southern border with Mexico, that means nobody is allowed in that crossed Mexico, offered asylum, and declined the offer.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....
I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Perhaps, but for right now, it's in effect. And this suit may take years to settle. In the meantime, Trump's initiative of getting Mexico to stop people crossing their country in the first place has outstanding results, and there is nothing a commie court can do to stop that.
August showed a 60% decrease in crossings compared to May. That's Making America Great again.
Mexico has to sign an agreement with the USA to offer all of them asylum, then we are all set.... the admin is working on that, but the fat lady ain't sung yet.... there has been no signed agreement yet.... from what I hear, they are getting close to it.in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....
I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.
The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.
Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
He made the order, and the court ruled that it sticks. You will not be eligible for asylum if you crossed into the US via another country that offered you asylum. Given the fact that the problem is on our southern border with Mexico, that means nobody is allowed in that crossed Mexico, offered asylum, and declined the offer.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 137
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 384
- Replies
- 129
- Views
- 949
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 93
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 7
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 41
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 92
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8004
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-