Jump to content

Birth right citizenship


AuCivilEng1

Recommended Posts

Some people have difficulty differentiating between "immigrants" and ILLEGAL immigrants......the latter of which are the issue.  Guess we need to explain that every time the subject is posted.

Otherwise,  I doubt there is a single prospective "legal" immigrant headed this was on the great migration that is under way.  

Legal immigrants are welcome...glad to have them and I appreciate the fact that they respect the laws of our country and do things the right way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply
25 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Some people have difficulty differentiating between "immigrants" and ILLEGAL immigrants......the latter of which are the issue.  Guess we need to explain that every time the subject is posted.

Otherwise,  I doubt there is a single prospective "legal" immigrant headed this was on the great migration that is under way.  

Legal immigrants are welcome...glad to have them and I appreciate the fact that they respect the laws of our country and do things the right way. 

But also, it's important to point out that this caravan is a group of refugees seeking asylum. And you have to apply for asylum at a port of entry. Some of them will be (should be) accepted, some will be turned away. But the legal process begins with showing up at the border.

Check out step one of the official U.S. government asylum process. "STEP ONE: ARRIVE IN THE U.S."

The repeated use of the words "invasion" and "invaders" by Fox News, the President of the United States, and others, is a deliberate fearmongering tactic being used for political gain.  Similarly dismissing them as illegals tries to cast them in a light that is not warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But also, it's important to point out that this caravan is a group of refugees seeking asylum. And you have to apply for asylum at a port of entry. Some of them will be (should be) accepted, some will be turned away. But the legal process begins with showing up at the border.

Check out step one of the official U.S. government asylum process. "STEP ONE: ARRIVE IN THE U.S."

The repeated use of the words "invasion" and "invaders" by Fox News, the President of the United States, and others, is a deliberate fearmongering tactic being used for political gain.  Similarly dismissing them as illegals tries to cast them in a light that is not warranted.

The real travesty and where we need to focus things is the naturalization process itself.  It needs to be redesigned, streamlined and made efficient and effective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bigbird said:

The real travesty and where we need to focus things is the naturalization process itself.  It needs to be redesigned, streamlined and made efficient and effective. 

That is right on. The question. The question is why doesn't it get done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But also, it's important to point out that this caravan is a group of refugees seeking asylum. And you have to apply for asylum at a port of entry. Some of them will be (should be) accepted, some will be turned away. But the legal process begins with showing up at the border.

Check out step one of the official U.S. government asylum process. "STEP ONE: ARRIVE IN THE U.S."

The repeated use of the words "invasion" and "invaders" by Fox News, the President of the United States, and others, is a deliberate fearmongering tactic being used for political gain.  Similarly dismissing them as illegals tries to cast them in a light that is not warranted.

A group of this size will take months to process through the boarder. I don't mean that in bad or good way - just stating the truth from my experience. Just earlier this year, someone could literally be waiting at the boarder for a month. Best way to apply for Asylum is to fly over on a tourist visa, then submit a petition, including withholding of removal, after that. Once your application is pending, you do not accrue unlawful presence. Unfortunately, the "caravan" immigrants did not have that option. 

My guess is that even after applying, the pending period for many will exceed at least two years. This is going to be a product of security clearance issues, especially for those with prior military training. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How many of them already have refugee status? 

 

Not sure what you’re asking but I wasn’t using the term in a legal sense. Just making the point that people coming to present themselves at a border crossing point for asylum aren’t “invaders” or “illegals.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Not sure what you’re asking but I wasn’t using the term in a legal sense. Just making the point that people coming to present themselves at a border crossing point for asylum aren’t “invaders” or “illegals.”

I was genuinely asking from curiosity. I am sure a vast portion meets the definition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I was genuinely asking from curiosity. I am sure a vast portion meets the definition. 

I honestly have no idea. My guess is a lot of them would (at least under any previous administration) qualify. But the way DJT has been banging the drum about them, I think they’ll deny as many as they can possibly get away with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

From a neutral standpoint, the President's lack of articulation as it pertains to drastic measures he seemingly desires to accomplish is perhaps more detrimental than the desire itself. Anyone capable of replacing unconstrained emotion with objectivity can respect, listen, and respond with matched calculation to a well-articulated proposition, notwithstanding its accompanying irreconcilability with one's own view.  

It’s more than a lack of articulation. It’s a fundamental lack of constitutional knowledge and how government works.  We can argue until we are blue in the face about his rhetoric but his ignorance about such matters should frighten us all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How ironic. jkjk ;)

But ok. Thanks for "correcting" my opinion on this matter. 

I’ll admit that I don’t have broad constitutional knowledge. But I damn sure have more than the POTUS. 

I wasn’t correcting you but rather responding to you. Not really sure why your side calls us the snowflakes. 💁🏼‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I honestly have no idea. My guess is a lot of them would (at least under any previous administration) qualify. But the way DJT has been banging the drum about them, I think they’ll deny as many as they can possibly get away with. 

 That's understandable. I can say this: denying refugee status is not as arbitrary as one might be led to suppose. As for asylum purposes, the interviewing officers themselves have a lot of discretion. I have no complaints about the ones I have encountered. The Fifth Circuit is a pretty generous jurisdiction, so maybe I am lucky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I’ll admit that I don’t have broad constitutional knowledge. But I damn sure have more than the POTUS. 

I wasn’t correcting you but rather responding to you. Not really sure why your side calls us the snowflakes. 💁🏼‍♀️

Messing with you. 

As for the "snowflakes" label, don't think too hard on it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Messing with you. 

As for the "snowflakes" label, don't think too hard on it. ;)

I actually like it. Snowflakes are cold and unique and beautiful. ❄️ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I’ll admit that I don’t have broad constitutional knowledge. But I damn sure have more than the POTUS. 

I wasn’t correcting you but rather responding to you. Not really sure why your side calls us the snowflakes. 💁🏼‍♀️

I'm not so sure Trump knows anymore about the U.S. government than a 14 year old civics student. But then again, a lot of people probably don't. It's frightening to think of how many citizens of this country don't even know the basic differences between the Senate and House or Reps. 

What's really sad is that there are probably tens of millions of "citizens" who know nothing about the government or history of this country and have or will never contribute anything of any meaning to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I’ll admit that I don’t have broad constitutional knowledge. But I damn sure have more than the POTUS. 

I wasn’t correcting you but rather responding to you. Not really sure why your side calls us the snowflakes. 💁🏼‍♀️

The snowflakes argument went out the window when they started blowing up $200 dollar coolers, coffee machines and Nike shoes, because the companies who make them don't agree with them philosophically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I'm not so sure Trump knows anymore about the U.S. government than a 14 year old civics student. But then again, a lot of people probably don't. It's frightening to think of how many citizens of this country don't even know the basic differences between the Senate and House or Reps. 

What's really sad is that there are probably tens of millions of "citizens" who know nothing about the government or history of this country and have or will never contribute anything of any meaning to it. 

I will never forget Feinstein's exchange with Scalia about the 14th Amendment. Boy that was unfortunate. Have you seen this? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I will never forget Feinstein's exchange with Scalia about the 14th Amendment. Boy that was unfortunate. Have you seen this? 

 

 

I haven't seen that. Feinstein was there when the 14th amendment was written, too. That's unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The repeated use of the words "invasion" and "invaders" by Fox News, the President of the United States, and others, is a deliberate fearmongering tactic being used for political gain.  Similarly dismissing them as illegals tries to cast them in a light that is not warranted.

Is a group of 7 or 8 thousand a bit out of the norm Titan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

The snowflakes argument went out the window when they started blowing up $200 dollar coolers, coffee machines and Nike shoes, because the company's who make them don't agree with them philosophically. 

Sure, all 22 of them that wanted to make youtube video or recognition from Hannity. Everyone I know still have their Kuerig, Yeti, and shoes. Haven't heard of sole doing what what you describe. Bet you have not either.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Is a group of 7 or 8 thousand a bit out of the norm Titan?

Sure.  But that doesn't change anything I said.  Why they are here or the process they are seeking to enter into doesn't change based on numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

The snowflakes argument went out the window when they started blowing up $200 dollar coolers, coffee machines and Nike shoes, because the companies who make them don't agree with them philosophically. 

Moments of sheer comedy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I'm not so sure Trump knows anymore about the U.S. government than a 14 year old civics student. But then again, a lot of people probably don't. It's frightening to think of how many citizens of this country don't even know the basic differences between the Senate and House or Reps. 

What's really sad is that there are probably tens of millions of "citizens" who know nothing about the government or history of this country and have or will never contribute anything of any meaning to it. 

Had an exchange with an acquaintance that went like this:

Her: You never give Trump credit for the good things he does.

Me: Alright, I’m willing to listen to you. What good things has he done?

Her: I don’t keep up with politics. 

Me: I do.

Then I explained why I was against this administration and their policies. 

She voted. But it bothers her more that I’m against her choice. The why I’m against her choice doesn’t matter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...