Trump's wall is a "manhood thing" - Pelosi

[tyrlaan]

Again I'm not talking about the right to claim asylum i'm talking about a court appointment inside the US. Like I said there's a big difference between an asylum claim being processed and getting a physical day in court inside the US.

Here, let me Google that for you:
(excerpt from - https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states)

What Is the Asylum Application Process?
There are two primary ways in which a person may apply for asylum in the United States: the affirmative process and the defensive process. Asylum seekers who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or enter the United States without inspection generally must apply through the defensive asylum process. Both processes require the asylum seeker to be physically present in the United States.

Affirmative Asylum: A person who is not in removal proceedings may affirmatively apply for asylum through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the USCIS asylum officer does not grant the asylum application and the applicant does not have a lawful immigration status, he or she is referred to the immigration court for removal proceedings, where he or she may renew the request for asylum through the defensive process and appear before an immigration judge.
Defensive Asylum: A person who is in removal proceedings may apply for asylum defensively by filing the application with an immigration judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the Department of Justice. In other words, asylum is applied for “as a defense against removal from the U.S.” Unlike the criminal court system, EOIR does not provide appointed counsel for individuals in immigration court, even if they are unable to retain an attorney on their own.
With or without counsel, an asylum seeker has the burden of proving that he or she meets the definition of a refugee. Asylum seekers often provide substantial evidence throughout the affirmative and defensive processes demonstrating either past persecution or that they have a “well-founded fear” of future persecution in their home country. However, the individual’s own testimony is usually critical to his or her asylum determination.

Certain factors bar individuals from asylum. With limited exceptions, individuals who fail to apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States will be barred from receiving asylum. Similarly, applicants who are found to pose a danger to the United States are barred from asylum.

[PC2]

Here, let me Google that for you:
(excerpt from - https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states)

What Is the Asylum Application Process?
There are two primary ways in which a person may apply for asylum in the United States: the affirmative process and the defensive process. Asylum seekers who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or enter the United States without inspection generally must apply through the defensive asylum process. Both processes require the asylum seeker to be physically present in the United States.

Affirmative Asylum: A person who is not in removal proceedings may affirmatively apply for asylum through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the USCIS asylum officer does not grant the asylum application and the applicant does not have a lawful immigration status, he or she is referred to the immigration court for removal proceedings, where he or she may renew the request for asylum through the defensive process and appear before an immigration judge.
Defensive Asylum: A person who is in removal proceedings may apply for asylum defensively by filing the application with an immigration judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the Department of Justice. In other words, asylum is applied for “as a defense against removal from the U.S.” Unlike the criminal court system, EOIR does not provide appointed counsel for individuals in immigration court, even if they are unable to retain an attorney on their own.
With or without counsel, an asylum seeker has the burden of proving that he or she meets the definition of a refugee. Asylum seekers often provide substantial evidence throughout the affirmative and defensive processes demonstrating either past persecution or that they have a “well-founded fear” of future persecution in their home country. However, the individual’s own testimony is usually critical to his or her asylum determination.

Certain factors bar individuals from asylum. With limited exceptions, individuals who fail to apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States will be barred from receiving asylum. Similarly, applicants who are found to pose a danger to the United States are barred from asylum.

The bolded part is what I was asking about. What that means is someone who physically walked north in Mexico and got near the border won't automatically qualify as an asylum seeker because they aren't physically making the claim from inside the US.

So yes obviously the people who made it past the border can apply for asylum and then be approved or rejected. But they are two separate categories.

[Post]

That was not your original contribution to this thread. What are you struggling with here?

This was my first post:

Making dick jokes about Trump makes everyone take you super serious.

You're trying to make up arguments for me for some reason.

[Thepersona]

There might be 1 or 2 legitimate asylum seekers, but the vast majority are aspiring illegals and economic migrants.

Citation needed

- - - Updated - - -

It seems you are once again arguing with some magical left wing with ideologies / statements you made up, get some help hopefully in drug form.

Is that Poster MO though. Its a form of derailing the original thread, which i also see being used by another poster here, the one that's being under siege by turnip jokes.

OT: what do you expect from the orange cascade... He's a 72 year old white (racist and misogynistic) male. Who has a trophy wife. I bet if he could, he would ride a coal roiler chevy silverado or ford f150.

[PC2]

Citation needed

I don't need a citation to prove the people at the border aren't asylum seekers, since they aren't automatically asylum seekers by default.

[tyrlaan]

The bolded part is what I was asking about. What that means is someone who physically walked north in Mexico and got near the border won't automatically qualify as an asylum seeker because they aren't physically making the claim from inside the US.

So yes obviously the people who made it past the border can apply for asylum and then be approved or rejected. But they are two separate categories.

So what's your point exactly? If someone plans to seek asylum, they need to enter the US. Do you recommend teleportation instead of walking to the border so they can cross it?

Are you trying to promote the idea that were should just stop allowing people to seek asylum?

[Thepersona]

I don't need a citation to prove the people at the border aren't asylum seekers, since they aren't automatically asylum seekers by default.

Citation needed[/SIZE]

You know that a person can claim asylum when they present at the border?

[PC2]

So what's your point exactly? If someone plans to seek asylum, they need to enter the US. Do you recommend teleportation instead of walking to the border so they can cross it?

Are you trying to promote the idea that were should just stop allowing people to seek asylum?

Remember the caravan of migrants that traveled to the border? What I'm saying is most of them aren't asylum seekers because they aren't physically inside the US.

Obviously they should go to the US consulate in Mexico and send an application from there.

- - - Updated - - -

Citation needed[/SIZE]

You know that a person can claim asylum when they present at the border?

Yes of course, anyone could claim asylum from any location.

[Thepersona]

Remember the caravan of migrants that traveled to the border? What I'm saying is they aren't asylum seekers because they are physically inside the US.

Obviously they should go to the US consulate in Mexico and send an application from there.

You can ask for asylum while inside the border of the US. What you're saying is not only false, but it merits an endless pinocchio

[PC2]

You can ask for asylum while inside the border of the US. What you're saying is not only false, but it merits an endless pinocchio

Yeah inside the border. Of course.

Trump and the Mexico border wall is about the people south of the border who don't want to go through the legal process.

[tyrlaan]

Yeah inside the border. Of course.

Trump and the Mexico border wall is about the people south of the border who don't want to go through the legal process.

Part of the process is entering the US so they can claim asylum. They have literally done nothing illegal yet.

[PC2]

Part of the process is entering the US so they can claim asylum. They have literally done nothing illegal yet.

Well if Mexico starts murdering the caravan migrants or something like that then there would be grounds to let them all pass. But for now they need to head back to an immigration department in Mexico to file an application.

[Ripster42]

Well if Mexico starts murdering the caravan migrants or something like that then there would be grounds to let them all pass. But for now they need to head back to an immigration department in Mexico to file an application.

Literally not what the law says. They can cross anywhere, doesn't have to be a legal point of entry, and claim asylum. Stop being an ignoramus, I've already linked you a judge refuting exactly what you're saying.

[Fugus]

Literally not what the law says. They can cross anywhere, doesn't have to be a legal point of entry, and claim asylum. Stop being an ignoramus, I've already linked you a judge refuting exactly what you're saying.

Times like this, I gladly defer to my signature.

[PC2]

Literally not what the law says. They can cross anywhere, doesn't have to be a legal point of entry, and claim asylum. Stop being an ignoramus, I've already linked you a judge refuting exactly what you're saying.

Okay, I trust the law enforcement and judges to understand the law on this. I'm sure they are doing their jobs competently.

- - - Updated - - -

Times like this, I gladly defer to my signature.

Bad faith means you're trying to deceive people. How am I trying to deceive you?

Just because there's a handful of people who don't fit into your circle jerk that doesn't mean there is "bad faith".

[Rasulis]

Making dick jokes about Trump makes everyone take you super serious.

No. You take Nancy Pelosi seriously because Nancy Pelosi gets shit done. Ryan, Boehner, Hastert and Gingrich combined still don't come close to her.

[Korlok]

Times like this, I gladly defer to my signature.

You need to add Theo to it.

[Fugus]

You need to add Theo to it.

Been adding it as I see them on my screen again, so I don't bother with people who don't post that much anymore. Figure I will rotate the names of they come and go to keep the list small. Haven't come across his name too much recently. Half AFK a lot of the time recently. But I will probably do that when I actually come across his name again and I think about it.

[Healing Rain]

So Pelosi is saying only men support following the law and Constitution and only women support anarchy.

[Xeones]

So Pelosi is saying only men support following the law and Constitution and only women support anarchy.

Oh hey it's a drive by shit post.

Glad to see this makes as much sense as any of your other posts.