New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives

[Linkedblade]

Even if they were illegal immigrants, this would be highly illegal. The fact that they're asylum seeking makes it blatantly illegal. Supporting this behavior really says a lot about you as a person.

- - - Updated - - -



People seeking asylum aren't criminals.

- - - Updated - - -



No. They can enter the US first then seek asylum.

- - - Updated - - -



That completely defeats the purpose of asylum. Seriously, did you even think before saying this shit? You expect people to just stay in a country where their people are being murdered and hope the US approves their asylum before they end up dead?

- - - Updated - - -



Why Mexico?

- - - Updated - - -



Those people weren't doing anything illegal so a citizen's arrest isn't valid.

- - - Updated - - -



assuming someone's race doesn't make you racist in all context and certainly not in this context.

- - - Updated - - -



Probably but the irony is that he doesn't have the first clue about how the law works. Exhibit A is this thread. Exhibit B-ZZZ is every single post he ever makes.

- - - Updated - - -



If you seeking asylum, it's not illegal.

Regardless theres no need to cross the border illegally. That's what that entire caravan did.

[-Nurot]

Seeking asylum makes it legal.

Well, technically, it's more like seeking asylum provides them the opportunity in court to prove that the crossing was permissible, as opposed to a misdemeanor offense.

[Draco-Onis]

I say you also talked about assassination training for Obama, Clinton, Soros.
That means that ALLEGEDLY you are exactly the same as that guy. You are the same level of "alledged" terrorist. That is what the word means.

Allegedly, means "without proof"


alleged
adjective
uk ​ /əˈledʒd/ us ​ /əˈledʒd/ formal
​said or thought by some people to be the stated bad or illegal thing, although you have no proof

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...nglish/alleged

If you want to say that to the FBI in the same context as this which is a crime go for it.

[-Nurot]

Even if it's not approved they're simply denied entry. It doesn't make their initial crossing illegal.

Some law experts would disagree with you.

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigrat...-america-legal

That's why they detain them for the misdemeanor offense of crossing illegally. If they fill out an asylum application that's taken into consideration. Once they get their court date (Sometimes they are even released until which time) they then get to state their case for asylum, if that's what they are applying for. If asylum is denied, they don't get charged with a misdemeanor, they just get the civil penalty which is deportation.

I'm not sure anyone actually ever gets criminal charges anyways, deportation is a civil procedure and they usually just do that procedure instead I assume. I figure, they say why waste time with the other if they'll just be deported?

https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/deportation/

Regardless, if they're seeking asylum they deserve the chance to prove it's legitimate, and more judges for quicker turn around times is really what this Trump created crisis needs more than anything.

---Update---

Upon some digging evidently as of the "zero tolerance" policy they've been criminally prosecuting everyone crossing illegally, even asylum seekers.

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/0...ons-on-border/

Zero tolerance is exactly what it sounds like: the government has been prosecuting every person apprehended by federal law enforcement who crosses into the U.S. without documentation to the fullest extent of the law—even if they are fleeing persecution and might have a legal right to asylum, and even if they are traveling with young children.
...
Under Presidents Bush and Obama, the Department of Justice also pursued an aggressive policy, known as “Operation Streamline,” to criminally prosecute people for the misdemeanor of illegal entry and the felony of illegal reentry. But the government generally did not refer parents traveling with their children for prosecution, and often declined to refer first-time border-crossers or asylum-seekers for prosecution.

[zenkai]

Thank you for clarifiying, I'm sure you will learn to avoid these pitfalls of the English language in time.
Everyone was new to it once.
Congrats on taking a fist step on the path, anyway.

You're the one who had problem with reading comprehension mate, pretending otherwise just highlights that.

[-Nurot]

For all intents and purposes, it is essentially not illegal. Holding them up at gun point should be.

Oh absolutely. Hopefully they throw the book at the leader, and hopefully they can find something to charge the rest of the terrorists with.

[Noradin]

You're the one who had problem with reading comprehension mate, pretending otherwise just highlights that.

You were the one having problems to properly express yourself... two can play this game.
Your post was ambiguous, everyone can see that.

It is not my problem that you changed your mind after you remembered you agenda and are now trying to reinterpret your own words to mean the opposite of what you wrote originally.

But since you insist I will revise my comment: I'm sad to hear that you are opposed to the law and in favour of armed kidnappings.

[Orbitus]

And now they have been evicted from the area they were at. The land was owned by Union Pacific, the railroad company. They should have all been fucking arrested, instead of being told they should have been moved.

[Hilhen7]

And now they have been evicted from the area they were at. The land was owned by Union Pacific, the railroad company. They should have all been fucking arrested, instead of being told they should have been moved.

Up to union pacific if they want to press charges for trespassing.

My guess is it would be a waste of time, so they didn't bother.

[Orbitus]

Up to union pacific if they want to press charges for trespassing.

My guess is it would be a waste of time, so they didn't bother.

No, I am talking about what they should be arresting them for. Impersonating an officer, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.

[Hilhen7]

No, I am talking about what they should be arresting them for. Impersonating an officer, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.

Oh my mistake, your referring to the armed gun men. Yes I agree.

[Weeps]

As long people migrate here legally, IDGAF.

Illegally? GTFO.

Overstay a Visa? GTFO.

This is coming from a liberal. I personally know 3 people who’ve overstayed their visa. They’re really nice people but they gotta do it right. That’s all I care about. Follow the rules.

[MasterOfNone]

Never said you were a racist considering your reaction being so triggered about it good job coming out I guess.

typical mmo logic. you infer racism by my post and i say im not racist. you turn that into good job on coming out as a racist. are you one of those people that cant be disagreed with or else x person is a racist bigot homophobe etc etc? kinda seems like you are....

[Weeps]

Overstaying a visa isn't always the fault of the person with the visa. Telling asylum seekers to get here legally defeats the entire purpose of seeking asylum.

Nah, you can request asylum legally. There’s protocol for it.

[Orbitus]

Nah, you can request asylum legally. There’s protocol for it.

Yep, and in most cases, it requires you to be on US soil.

[Weeps]

Yep, and in most cases, it requires you to be on US soil.

I have no problem with that. Just follow da rules, mon!

[Orbitus]

I have no problem with that. Just follow da rules, mon!

Which is what these people are doing, they aren't running when Border Patrol finds them. Hell, a lot of them, they cross the border and present themselves for asylum to the first border patrol they come across.

[Weeps]

Yeah, and part of that protocol is to first enter the US. Fuck you guys need to educate yourself.

If you would read what I said, I have never said they weren't welcome.

All I asked for immigrants to do... is follow da rules, mon. That's it.

You're attacking the wrong person here.

[Weeps]

How is your comment to my post relevant then? It suggests you were disagreeing with what I said.

Ok, hopefully I can clear up the confusion.

You said:

Telling asylum seekers to get here legally defeats the entire purpose of seeking asylum.

I disagreed by saying that there's a legal way for them to seek asylum. That's all. I'm not asking for asylum seekers to get here illegally, just do it through the proper channels and yes, that includes being on US soil.

We're in general agreement, just bickering over finer details. I'm just a stickler for rules, do it right and I have no problem with anything.

[xindralol]

Because the situation is plural chief. There is many problems at the border.

If you actually read what you wrote it’s clearly singular. If you meant to use the plural your text would have to be ‘increase’ without the ‘s’. Don’t embarrass yourself and just try to learn from it.