Replies to post #457988 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[zab]

Texas is insane, they take immigrants and ship them all over the country at the expense of the taxpayer.

Once again, you keep starting with the premise of illegal immigration, and you never stop and understand how immigration works in America. We are all tired of you not updating yourself to actual laws governing immigration.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-donald-trump-us-news-ap-top-news-az-state-wire-3b490335aa39487893e6ad745424f6ff

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have

Once again, each one of these immigrants deserves to be heard in a court. The wait is quite long, it could be better, but Republicans have no interest in fixing the system.

Elect more democrats, at least then they will get something done. In the meantime, I am still not concerned with an immigrant who has traveled a long distance to try and make a better life for themselves.

[sortagreen]

"Which tells me they are ok with the laws being broken by outside invaders into our Country"

Requesting asylum is legal

--------------------------
8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

U.S. Code
(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
----------------------------
Asylum is a protection grantable to foreign nationals already in the United States or arriving at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980. Asylum is technically a “discretionary” status, meaning that some individuals can be denied asylum even if they meet the definition of a refugee. For those individuals, a backstop form of protection known as “withholding of removal” may be available to protect them from harm if necessary.

As a signatory to the 1967 Protocol, and through U.S. immigration law, the United States has legal obligations to provide protection to those who qualify as refugees. The Refugee Act established two paths to obtain refugee status—either from abroad as a resettled refugee or in the United States as an asylum seeker.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states
--------------------------

[fuagf]

livefree_ordie, Yet again your views on personal positions of posters here are ill-conceived, unfair, or any other adjective you want to use to stress - yet again - that you are wrong. You are wrong to say posters here see the problem of undocumented refugees as a party associated issue. You have been given opinions the southern border situation is one which neither party has been able to solve over decades. Repeatedly. That reflects clear understanding it is a national American issue. Just as the refugee situation is a national issue for so many other countries worldwide. Of course, wealth inequity, violence and hardship create the situation. Bottom line is that you repeat statements such as your first two sentence below in spite of those accusations of yours being soundly and validly rebutted time and again. And you know, rebutted directly to you.

Then you also repeatedly make your ultra-partisan statements as your "Texas thank goodness at the absence of the Federal Government.." which is clearly incorrect. The Federal government is not absent in trying to address the problem. That is clear.

Further, also, screw your repeated bullshit, as far as i understand no poster here is in favor of illegal immigration. Understanding why refugees enter without having gone through the proper channels, so undocumented, does not mean being in favor of the illegality of it. Having some empathy with those who become "illegal aliens" within the U.S. (and or within so many other countries worldwide) does not mean 'being in favor of it.'

Most all posters here are open to argument. To correction. i say most simply because you (and some fellow trolls) apparently are not open to the fact that you are so fucking repeatedly wrong. Your:

"You see I do not see this as a Party associated issue but you all put it in your brain as such for some reason. It is an American issue no one by themselves own this issue but some among us promote this illegality and allow it to continue without penalty. Texas thank goodness at the absence of the Federal Government is attempting to protect itself and our Nation here. To me protection of America is everyone's job no one party's job we are all responsible and some folks are attempting to step up here to provide secure borders to protect us all from our demise.

So if I am understanding some on this board here about illegal immigration, they are in favor of it. Which tells me they are ok with the laws being broken by outside invaders into our Country. Which also tells me they lack any kind credibility in any statements that they make of fancy articles they post that they agree with related to this issue. Their point becomes moot when they agree with the process of coming here illegally. They are in favor of criminality and not following the process to come into our Country as unknowns. Those that actually fill out form I589 let the U.S. agencies know who they are and their family members and details of their upbringing where born, etc. etc."

How many times do you have to be told your extremist nativism is so wrongheaded --- Illegal Immigration Isn’t an “Invasion”

Overheated rhetoric is a ploy to treat migrants like enemy combatants.

August 27, 2021 • Commentary
By David J. Bier

This article appeared in Reason on August 27, 2021.

All links

When ideologues on the left and the right want to make a case for why the government really needs to crack down on something, they rhetorically elevate the offense. One example from the left is the desire to impose speech codes .. https://reason.com/2014/07/01/in-major-announcement-fire-says-it-will/ .. or hate speech laws .. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/08/no-us-not-need-european-style-hate-speech-laws-column/4157833002/ . “Words are violence,” some argue. After all, being rude can cause “stress” or “harm,” just like wielding a knife or gun.

[Insert: I would argue there are speech codes and there are speech codes.
Some dress codes, to my mind, are stupidly silly too. ]

The same lame bombast also infects the right. “It is an invasion, that’s not an overstatement,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson told his viewers last month, referring to illegal migration. The purpose of these rhetorical maneuvers is clear. If words are violence, then we should treat insults like assaults. If illegal migration is an invasion, border crossers should be treated like an enemy in a war.

I don’t care much for politically correct language. I avoid the euphemism treadmill ..https://www.cato.org/blog/use-euphemisms-political-debate . Whether you call people who violate immigration law “illegal aliens,” “undocumented noncitizens,” or “unauthorized immigrants” doesn’t make much difference to me (or the law). But illegal migration is not an invasion any more than words are violence. The problem is the inaccuracy, not the politics.

Overheated rhetoric is a ploy to treat migrants
like enemy combatants.

The Constitution requires the federal government to protect against an “invasion”—what every court that has reviewed the question has interpreted to mean an “armed hostility from another political entity.” James Madison labeled invasion a “foreign hostility” or attack by one state on another, and the Constitutional Convention debates connected the power to repel invasions with the power to raise armies. All the widely used English dictionaries from the Founding confirm this understanding, and of course, the other uses of invasion in the Constitution have the same meaning.

Using the word invasion as a substitute for illegal migration is both offensive to anyone who’s lived through a real one and insulting to the intelligence of everyone else. If you can’t tell the difference between 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris today as tourists, it’s time to crack open a history book, not opine on immigration policy. Perhaps because they know the comparison to an invasion is so weak, nativists like former President Donald Trump ..https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/ .. also promulgate the risible conspiracy theory that foreign governments are “sending” the immigrants here.

Migration across the border may involve violations of U.S. laws, but the comparison to an invasion ends there. Border crossers aren’t coming to overthrow the government or take over the Capitol (unlike a few nativists this year .. https://www.cato.org/commentary/capitol-putsch-reminds-us-its-not-immigrants-undermining-our-institutions ). Indeed, it’s the U.S. government that is attempting to assail the migrants, not the other way around. People crossing the border actively try to avoid conflict with U.S. authorities either by 1) evading detection and peacefully moving to their destinations, or 2) intentionally seeking out U.S. agents to submit to the government’s legal procedures. Reporting from the frontlines of this supposed conquest, The Wall Street Journal described how some invaders were inquiring for directions to the closest “immigration office.”

An “invasion” isn’t just an overstatement. It’s a completely unserious attempt to demand extraordinary, military-?style measures to stop completely mundane actions like walking around a closed port of entry to file asylum paperwork or violating international labor market regulations in order to fill one of the 10 million job openings .. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSJOL .. in this country. But the goal of this nativist language warfare is nothing less than the removal of immigrant rights. “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country,” Trump tweeted .. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-says-illegal-immigrants-should-be-deported-with-no-judges-or-court-cases-idUSKBN1JK0OL .. in 2018. “When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came.”

The right labels leftists who shut down speech “snowflakes” because they cannot handle hearing certain words or ideas. But hysterically shouting “invasion” every time people seek safety or opportunity in this country reveals a similar fragility. Carlson apparently feels so threatened by these farmhands and families that he demands that they be met with military force. Citing the minuscule percentage .. https://www.cato.org/blog/criminal-border-patrol-apprehensions-are-down-along-border .. of migrants who are actually violent criminals as a reason to treat them all as invaders doesn’t change the absurdity of the argument—it demonstrates it.

But Carlson and Trump are not just wrong; they have it backward. Migration is the exact opposite of an invasion. Nearly all these so-?called invaders are coming to serve Americans. This supposed invasion will contribute to the strength and prosperity of the United States, not undermine it. This isn’t Santa Anna’s soldiers crossing the Rio Grande. It’s four kids with their mom reuniting with their dad at a farm outside of Atlanta. They’re not coming to blow us up or take our stuff—they’re coming to work with us, work for us, and buy our products. They want to be us, not conquer us. And that’s the most important point: A crackdown on migration does not vindicate the rights of Americans to be free from foreign attackers. Rather, it is a violation of our rights to associate, contract, and trade with peaceful people born in other countries.

The fact that these actions are so often illegal is lamentable. But Congress could pass a law tomorrow to legalize migration (as it in fact did for the first century of American history). The illegal part of illegal immigration is a problem easily solved by Congress. It does not warrant the suspension of habeas corpus or calling up militias to shoot the “invaders.”

Real invasions are met with violence .. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/11/business/media/el-paso-killer-conservative-media.html , and so it’s unsurprising to see this language repeated by a variety ..https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255237-anti-immigrant-activists-more-prone-to-terrorism-than-refugees .. of different nativists who have gone on to commit terrorist attacks. To reject these attacks—as assuredly nearly all nativists do—is to reject the premise on which they were based. There is no invasion. It’s just an overheated political analogy in pursuit of a policy outcome—if only the wielders of the word would admit that. If nativists have a good argument to make against liberalized immigration, let them make that argument instead of mangling the English language.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/illegal-immigration-isnt-invasion#

About the Author

David J. Bier
Associate Director, Immigration Studies

https://www.cato.org/commentary/illegal-immigration-isnt-invasion#