• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts

Asylum claims have been addressed by courts. There are limits to what the Trump administration can do (get away with).

Does that mean that Mr. Trump has actually ruled out the use of water bombers?
 
++ How do Trumps proposals to violate US law and treaty law put America first?

I assume you're referring to the immigration laws. If so he's trying to side step laws that are idiotic remember
Eisenhower’s & Kennedy's America was a nation of 160 million with a
European Christian core and a culture uniquely its own. The USA was a country then. What will hold this country together
if we don't control both legal & illegal immigration.It will become a stew of 450 million
of every creed culture & color from every country on earth.
It's in Trump's hands to keep the uSA a country if he doesn't succeed this area will merely become a geographic location.

More than a century ago Teddy Roosevelt became a prophet stating 'The way of bringing this nation
to ruin, of preventing all possibility of it continuing to be a nation at all, would be
to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.' 'What Roosevelt warned us against we have become.'
How wrong is it to take no provision for the likely darknes that looms ahead!
 
Last edited:
I assume you're referring to the immigration laws. If so he's trying to side step laws that are idiotic remember
Eisenhower’s & Kennedy's America was a nation of 160 million with a
European Christian core and a culture uniquely its own. The USA was a country then. What will hold this country together
if we don't control both legal & illegal immigration.It will become a stew of 450 million
of every creed culture & color from every country on earth.
It's in Trump's hands to keep the uSA a country if he doesn't succeed this area will merely become a geographic location.

More than a century ago Teddy Roosevelt became a prophet stating 'The way of bringing this nation
to ruin, of preventing all possibility of it continuing to be a nation at all, would be
to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.' 'What Roosevelt warned us against we have become.'
How wrong is it to take no provision for the likely darknes that looms ahead!

You’re right. We never should have let those Irish, Italians and Jews in. And blacks? Fuggedabout it. Who let them in to ruin our precious WASP culture? Talk about “darkness that looms.” And Indians? Why wasn’t anyone guarding the Bering Strait back in the day? And don’t get me started on the “Heathen Chinee.”

Go rent “Blazing Saddles.” It will be good for your soul.
 
You’re right. We never should have let those Irish, Italians and Jews in. And blacks? Fuggedabout it. Who let them in to ruin our precious WASP culture? Talk about “darkness that looms.” And Indians? Why wasn’t anyone guarding the Bering Strait back in the day? And don’t get me started on the “Heathen Chinee.”

Go rent “Blazing Saddles.” It will be good for your soul.

Did you see my avatar, a rendering of 'Red Eagle' war chief of the Creek Nation who had the wear
with all and the girth of being to battle the US army and Andrew jackson toe to toe until his quest for power
& glory was ended at Horseshoe Bend. One of the five men I most admire born on American soil.

I was charitable enough to answer your 2 previous questions. I consider your replies & posts as
peculiar. don't moralize! BTW I saw BS when it came out in theatre in 1974. Move along!


The Hon. N. H. Claiborne, in his Notes on the War written
while feelings of animosities were still fresh
against "Red Eagle, gives the following glowing, though by no
means partial sketch of his character: "Fortune bestowed on
Weatherford (his father was Scottish), genius, eloquence, and courage. The first of
these qualities enabled him to conceive great designs; the
last to execute them; while eloquence, bold, impressive, and figurative,
furnished him with a passport to the favor of his countrymen and followers.
 
Last edited:
Did you see my avatar, a rendering of 'Red Eagle' war chief of the Creek Nation who had the wear
with all and the girth of being to battle the US army and Andrew jackson toe to toe until his quest for power
& glory was ended at Horseshoe Bend. One of the five men I most admire born on American soil.

I was charitable enough to answer your 2 previous questions. I consider your replies & posts as
peculiar. don't moralize! BTW I saw BS when it came out in theatre in 1974. Move along!


The Hon. N. H. Claiborne, in his Notes on the War written
while feelings of animosities were still fresh
against "Red Eagle, gives the following glowing, though by no
means partial sketch of his character: "Fortune bestowed on
Weatherford (his father was Scottish), genius, eloquence, and courage. The first of
these qualities enabled him to conceive great designs; the
last to execute them; while eloquence, bold, impressive, and figurative,
furnished him with a passport to the favor of his countrymen and followers.

Hey, I am not the one who sees US civilization dying. Just tried to remind you that we have seen this “we’re losing America” stuff before. Goes back to before the Civil War, to the Know Nothings.
 
Where did you see me saying that I was opposed to "detaining" persons seeking refugee and/or asylee status under ANY conditions of detention?

It might have been...
You said:
locking asylum seekers up in cages/cells as if they had actually been convicted of crimes is likely going a bit too far.
But as said by both of us...camps might be better.
Fact is though, detention needs to be standard operating procedure. Cages...camps...whatever it takes.
 
Since the vast majority of US "points of entry" are actually located INSIDE the territorial boundaries of the United States of America, exactly how does one present oneself to one of them WITHOUT "entering" the United States of America?


8 USC §1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of-

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Thus "improper entry" is a CIVIL and not a criminal offence. Not only that, but there is no "penal sanction" attached to "improper entry". That means that holding someone in custody, unless they post a bail bond in excess of the maximum penalty that can be imposed is highly likely to be unconstitutional.

THAT is the passage they are using as a loophole? it says right there we can lawfully hold them for 6 months if first offense OR up to 2 years if second or more.

how does that equate to we have to release them to the interior and not a holding facility to wait their turn if they choose to do so?
 
Last edited:
The people of Japanese extraction, some of whom were third and fourth generation "natural born" Americans, were treated better than the people were in the Nazi murder factories. To call those murder factories "concentration camps" insults the memories of everyone who was slaughtered in them (because there was no actual intent to slaughter, wholesale, anyone sent to the original "concentration camps").

true but the Japanese thing was still bad due to the fact that they were american citizens AND we were singling out a certain race. the illegal aliens are not citizens and we mean to act fairly to them all, BUT they have to wait their turn.
 
I assume you're referring to the immigration laws. If so he's trying to side step laws that are idiotic remember
Eisenhower’s & Kennedy's America was a nation of 160 million with a
European Christian core and a culture uniquely its own. The USA was a country then. What will hold this country together
if we don't control both legal & illegal immigration.It will become a stew of 450 million
of every creed culture & color from every country on earth.
It's in Trump's hands to keep the uSA a country if he doesn't succeed this area will merely become a geographic location.

More than a century ago Teddy Roosevelt became a prophet stating 'The way of bringing this nation
to ruin, of preventing all possibility of it continuing to be a nation at all, would be
to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.' 'What Roosevelt warned us against we have become.'
How wrong is it to take no provision for the likely darknes that looms ahead!

Why not be totally honest and say that the ONLY immigrants that will be acceptable to the US government are those that are:

  1. "White"
    • (DNA tested to ensure "racial purity" for at least four generations);
  2. "European"
    • (political background checks to ensure no support for any political party any further "left" than the "Democrats" of the US);
  3. "Heterosexual"
    • (must provide proof of actually having ZERO deviance from 100% heterosexuality);
  4. "Christian"
    • (must belong to "mainstream" and/or "fundamentalist" divisions ["Jews" accepted as "Honourary Christians" provided that they don't make their women wear things that look like Hijabs]);
  5. "Anglophone"
    • (must actually be able to speak a version of English that is understandable to someone with a US Grade 3 education);
  6. "Educated"
    • (must have certified original copies of all educational records and must have attended ONLY schools that have been approved by the US government to be totally free of "socialist influence" and/or to "teach in conformity with the Bible");
  7. "Self-supporting"
    • (must have enough money to live on for the entire period between immigration and obtaining citizenship without working);
    and
  8. "Willing 'to work"
    • (must agree to take jobs that no American wants REGARDLESS of degree of qualifications or level of education);

or did I miss any?
 
It might have been...

But as said by both of us...camps might be better.
Fact is though, detention needs to be standard operating procedure. Cages...camps...whatever it takes.

Please try reading for comprehension.

Please learn the difference between "opposed to "detaining" persons seeking refugee and/or asylee status under ANY conditions" and opposed to opposed to "detaining" persons seeking refugee and/or asylee status under ALL conditions".

Strike a happy medium between "Ellis Island" and "Club Med For Families" for the "Applicant Holding Areas" and I have absolutely no objection to "keeping asylum and refuge seekers where their presence at any determination hearings can be assured". In fact, most of the labour of running those AHAs could be drawn from their own populations (and be paid the appropriate local wages).
 
THAT is the passage they are using as a loophole? it says right there we can lawfully hold them for 6 months if first offense OR up to 2 years if second or more.

Once you realize that there is a difference AT LAW between "enters" and "crosses the US border" things will get much clearer for you.

how does that equate to we have to release them to the interior and not a holding facility to wait their turn if they choose to do so?

Good question.

Now why don't you ask someone who says it does rather than asking me?
 
Please try reading for comprehension.

Please learn the difference between "opposed to "detaining" persons seeking refugee and/or asylee status under ANY conditions" and opposed to opposed to "detaining" persons seeking refugee and/or asylee status under ALL conditions".

Strike a happy medium between "Ellis Island" and "Club Med For Families" for the "Applicant Holding Areas" and I have absolutely no objection to "keeping asylum and refuge seekers where their presence at any determination hearings can be assured". In fact, most of the labour of running those AHAs could be drawn from their own populations (and be paid the appropriate local wages).

ANY/ALL...ya know...I believe there are some pretty good hair treatments out there for split hairs.

A These people are flooding the border. They know gawd-damn well what they are doing.
Something akin to large prison camps would be sufficient.
 
As opposed to turning 78,000 people a month with no assets lose on the communities with no support.

Lord knows the leftist cities dont want them.
 
true but the Japanese thing was still bad due to the fact that they were american citizens AND we were singling out a certain race. the illegal aliens are not citizens and we mean to act fairly to them all, BUT they have to wait their turn.

True, being "beaten near 1/2 to death" IS "better" than being "beaten near 3/4s to death".
 
ANY/ALL...ya know...I believe there are some pretty good hair treatments out there for split hairs.

A These people are flooding the border. They know gawd-damn well what they are doing.
Something akin to large prison camps would be sufficient.

Depending on how flexible you are going to be on that "akin" we could well be in agreement. If you are talking about "striped uniforms", three to a bed "hot bunking", 1,000 calories a day rations, guards with whips and clubs having total freedom to "encourage order", we are most definitely going to be in disagreement.
 
As opposed to turning 78,000 people a month with no assets lose on the communities with no support.

Lord knows the leftist cities dont want them.

Did you know that the minute "those people" become "public charges" their application can be rejected?
 
Did you know that the minute "those people" become "public charges" their application can be rejected?
What I know is that under the current system we are literally relaeasing hundreds of thousands of homeless people from other countries onto our streets.

"Those people" are illegal immigrants. They are not asylum seekers. They lost asylum status the moment they refused Mexicos support. They are illegal immigrants and should be bagged, tagged, and sent home on a bus. The BEST system they could put in place right now would be to change the law to state that ANYONE that has entered the US illegally will lose any legal immigration status for life.


Of course...Canada could absorb them all.
 
What I know is that under the current system we are literally relaeasing hundreds of thousands of homeless people from other countries onto our streets.

Since it isn't true, I didn't know it.

"Those people" are illegal immigrants. They are not asylum seekers. They lost asylum status the moment they refused Mexicos support.

I do suggest that you actually learn something about the law before expounding on it.

They are illegal immigrants and should be bagged, tagged, and sent home on a bus.

If released into the United States of America they are NOT "illegal immigrants", they are persons whose immigration status has not yet been determined.

The BEST system they could put in place right now would be to change the law to state that ANYONE that has entered the US illegally will lose any legal immigration status for life.

Quite right, and the sudden removal of 30,000,000(ish) people from the United States of America wouldn't cause even a ripple in the US economy.


Of course...Canada could absorb them all.

Where did you ever see me saying that?

What I have said is that Canada accepts MORE refugees than the United States of America, in both ABSOLUTE and PROPORTIONAL terms and that just happens to be a fact.

I do not dispute that the United States of America accepts more IMMIGRANTS than Canada does.

However, the Canadian government intends "taking in" approximately 333,000 immigrants per year for the next three years while the US immigrant population "grows" by approximately 800,000 per year. [The difference between the two terms is that the US government includes "children born to non-citizen immigrants" in its calculation of "immigrants" while the Canadian government only counts the people who actually come to Canada - but I'm not going to quibble over something that makes the US performance look good.]

Since the US population is (roughly) 10 times the size of Canada's and the US GDP is roughly 10 times higher than Canada's, if the US was to accept "immigrants" in an amount that was PROPORTIONATELY EQUAL to the number that Canada accepts, the US would have to have it's immigrant population "grow" by around 3,330,000 per year (or at roughly 416.25% of the rate that it does "grow" by).
 
Last edited:
Depending on how flexible you are going to be on that "akin" we could well be in agreement. If you are talking about "striped uniforms", three to a bed "hot bunking", 1,000 calories a day rations, guards with whips and clubs having total freedom to "encourage order", we are most definitely going to be in disagreement.

Well since I don't think the facilities should be an outdoor jail, and more a holding area, we are in agreement.
 
Well since I don't think the facilities should be an outdoor jail, and more a holding area, we are in agreement.

Other than arguing whether they should be "Motel 6" or "Executive Inn and Suites" quality, very likely so.
 
Back
Top Bottom