|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Jan 5, 2024 10:34:46 GMT -5
Instead of your rabbit hole questions that only further your so-called pi$$ing match, how about you answer my question about Nehls? The fact that your statements are inaccurate at best and lies at the worst is really all that needs to be said. I answered your question directly several times and I'm not the one who dredged up your stupid assed back to school accusations. Did you address these questions regarding Nehls? Do you think, if he's the only one, that Nehls has enough influence to scuttle a deal?
Do you think his single nay vote will scuttle a deal?
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Jan 5, 2024 10:39:39 GMT -5
I answered your question directly several times and I'm not the one who dredged up your stupid assed back to school accusations. Did you address these questions regarding Nehls? Do you think, if he's the only one, that Nehls has enough influence to scuttle a deal?
Do you think his single nay vote will scuttle a deal? As I said, I don't think Nehls is the only Republican who would scuttle an immigration deal for political purposes in an election year. He is the one saying the quiet part out loud.
|
|
|
Post by longboards on Jan 5, 2024 11:06:03 GMT -5
Republicans were caught saying similar stuff about Obama supported legislation... No surprise here.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 5, 2024 11:11:28 GMT -5
Progressive or liberal Democrats should want this legislation to fail. It's bad!
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 5, 2024 11:45:04 GMT -5
Plane detained in France sheds light on Nicaragua’s role in US migrant crisis Flight contained 303 Indians en route to Central American country whose light visa requirements have attracted US-bound travelers The detention in France of a charter plane bound for Nicaragua has renewed attention on the Central American nation’s role as a springboard for migrants from across the world seeking to make their way to the United States. The flight, which left the United Arab Emirates on 21 December with 303 passengers of Indian nationality, was grounded during a refueling stop after an anonymous tip-off alleging human trafficking. Colombian authorities speak with a young boy at an airport setting. Two Guinean children abandoned in Bogotá airport as migrant routes shift Read more The passengers, however, were not being trafficked against their will, but rather attempting to migrate. Nicaragua is the closest country connected by land to the United States that does not impose strict entry requirements upon citizens of many nations who are barred from flying to other destinations without a visa. www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/01/france-detained-plane-nicaragua-us-migrants-crisis
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jan 5, 2024 12:14:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Jan 5, 2024 13:36:33 GMT -5
The only way to gain control of the current insanity is to only accept asylum request that are home country based, create economic zones within "more stable" countries such as Costa Rica and Colombia where asylum request can also be accepted and provide funds to these zones, zones for which administrations tend to be less corrupt.
This would eliminate the hazards of which current asylum seekers are subjected to and eliminate opportunities for coyote exploitation. It would keep international trade corridors open, maintain a large pool for farm labor, it would allow immigrants to escape their home country travails and it would lesson the burden on overrun border states and the cost they experience.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Jan 5, 2024 13:49:48 GMT -5
New EU rules for immigration:
"Asylum Migration Management Regulation: Establishing a new solidarity mechanism amongst Member States to balance the current system, where a few countries are responsible for the vast majority of asylum applications, and clear rules on responsibility for asylum applications."
Sounds like what US states need. As of now states like Texas and Arizona are taking the unfair brunt of applicants.
"Asylum Procedures Regulation: Making asylum, return and border procedures quicker and more effective."
Sounds like another element the US needs.
"Eurodac Regulation: Developing a common database gathering more accurate and complete data to detect unauthorised movements."
Yet another element the US needs
"Screening Regulation: Creating uniform rules concerning the identification of non-EU nationals upon their arrival, thus increasing the security within the Schengen area."
Again, a feature the US needs to perform better.
Germany took some further steps:
"The new Skilled Immigration Act (FEG) makes it easier for skilled workers with vocational training and individuals with practical knowledge to immigrate to Germany." Australia does something similar.
Something the US needs to refine.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 5, 2024 14:20:46 GMT -5
The only way to gain control of the current insanity is to only accept asylum request that are home country based, create economic zones within "more stable" countries such as Costa Rica and Colombia where asylum request can also be accepted and provide funds to these zones, zones for which administrations tend to be less corrupt. This would eliminate the hazards of which current asylum seekers are subjected to and eliminate opportunities for coyote exploitation. It would keep international trade corridors open, maintain a large pool for farm labor, it would allow immigrants to escape their home country travails and it would lesson the burden on overrun border states and the cost they experience. It would also violate federal law.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Jan 5, 2024 14:50:46 GMT -5
The only way to gain control of the current insanity is to only accept asylum request that are home country based, create economic zones within "more stable" countries such as Costa Rica and Colombia where asylum request can also be accepted and provide funds to these zones, zones for which administrations tend to be less corrupt. This would eliminate the hazards of which current asylum seekers are subjected to and eliminate opportunities for coyote exploitation. It would keep international trade corridors open, maintain a large pool for farm labor, it would allow immigrants to escape their home country travails and it would lesson the burden on overrun border states and the cost they experience. It would also violate federal law. Isn't that what they are currently negotiating or did I miss something.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 5, 2024 15:27:44 GMT -5
It would also violate federal law. Isn't that what they are currently negotiating or did I miss something. I haven't seen anything to suggest Congress is going to withdraw from the 1967 protocol, so no.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Jan 5, 2024 15:59:47 GMT -5
Isn't that what they are currently negotiating or did I miss something. I haven't seen anything to suggest Congress is going to withdraw from the 1967 protocol, so no. First off, the US has to change it's law requiring refugees be on US soil whether at a port, airport or river bank. Secondly, the fact the refugee must be “outside” his or her country of origin (1967) could be handled with a law requiring application be done in an Economic zone outside the US or only at certain ports of entry (title 42).
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 5, 2024 16:04:28 GMT -5
I haven't seen anything to suggest Congress is going to withdraw from the 1967 protocol, so no. First off, the US has to change it's law requiring refugees be on US soil whether at a port, airport or river bank. Secondly, the fact the refugee must be “outside” his or her country of origin (1967) could be handled with a law requiring application be done in an Economic zone outside the US. The first part would violate international treaty obligations and therefore violate existing federal law. The second is irrelevant for asylum seekers because once an asylum seeker presents themselves for a claim on US soil, their claim must be adjudicated. With refugees and asylum seekers, we are talking about the most vulnerable people imaginable. Outside of our very clear legal obligations, we have a moral obligation to treat these people with kindness and respect.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Jan 5, 2024 16:17:47 GMT -5
First off, the US has to change it's law requiring refugees be on US soil whether at a port, airport or river bank. Secondly, the fact the refugee must be “outside” his or her country of origin (1967) could be handled with a law requiring application be done in an Economic zone outside the US. The first part would violate international treaty obligations and therefore violate existing federal law. The second is irrelevant for asylum seekers because once an asylum seeker presents themselves for a claim on US soil, their claim must be adjudicated. With refugees and asylum seekers, we are talking about the most vulnerable people imaginable. Outside of our very clear legal obligations, we have a moral obligation to treat these people with kindness and respect. International treaties renegotiated, imagine that. Again, being on US soil requirements can be modified. Moral obligation would be to ship birth control to countries with run away birth rates. Moral obligation would be to stop people from putting their lives at greater risk through insane migration routes when not necessary. Moral obligation would be to put an end to the causes of misery in the countries they flee from and not jeopardize our own quality of life. Moral obligation would be to eliminate the demand in our country for drugs, and in doing so eliminate the NARCO gangs these people are fleeing from. Moral obligation would be to eliminate human trafficking through immigration corridors. Moral obligation would be to teach the Latin farmers better farming practices, habitat preservation and better ecological practices.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 5, 2024 16:36:52 GMT -5
The first part would violate international treaty obligations and therefore violate existing federal law. The second is irrelevant for asylum seekers because once an asylum seeker presents themselves for a claim on US soil, their claim must be adjudicated. With refugees and asylum seekers, we are talking about the most vulnerable people imaginable. Outside of our very clear legal obligations, we have a moral obligation to treat these people with kindness and respect. International treaties renegotiated, imagine that. Again, being on US soil requirements can be modified. Moral obligation would be to ship birth control to countries with run away birth rates. Moral obligation would be to stop people from putting their lives at greater risk through insane migration routes when not necessary. Moral obligation would be to put an end to the causes of misery in the countries they flee from and not jeopardize our own quality of life. Moral obligation would be to eliminate the demand in our country for drugs, and in doing so eliminate the NARCO gangs these people are fleeing from. Moral obligation would be to eliminate human trafficking through immigration corridors. Moral obligation would be to teach the Latin farmers better farming practices, habitat preservation and better ecological practices. Your fascination with birth rates is very normal.
|
|