Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Gavagai]

Your question has been answered multiple times in general here. The preferred alternative is to increase funding and personal for the immigration court system.

It is not an answer to my question. You say that you want more money and I ask what you want to be done with this money - specifically in respect to people illegally crossing the border with children.
(As a side point: these "asylum seekers" obviously and blatantly abuse the right to asylum which is very sad for me to observe, as a number of Russian dissenters, who were genuinely persecuted, asked and were granted political asylum in the USA. And now no difference is made between them and those who simply want to move from a place with a high crime rate to a place with a lower crime. I am not sure that those who call these people "asylum seekers" with a straight face understand much about the nature and history of the right to asylum. But this is unrelated to my question.)

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Look at all this worthless quibbling by weaselly cowards while the fascist movement is organizing around ethnic cleansing without even the modicum of due process.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Look at all this worthless quibbling by weaselly cowards while the fascist movement is organizing around ethnic cleansing without even the modicum of due process.

There's not enough time to degrade to stop 2024 unless a crisis is forced. There would be an interesting ethical discussion if it weren't for the fact that the DEMs still have the same brain-trust that punted on gay marriage in the 90's. They would still be horrible people anyway so there's no reason to not focus on avoiding losing. Latinos let you down in 2016 (Trump only increased the share of the white vote by 2% and Clinton caused the Latino vote to surge) but they won't in 2024. Them being much younger was a weakness in 2016 (voting) but it will be a strength in 2024 (demographics).

[scooter]

(As a side point: these "asylum seekers" obviously and blatantly abuse the right to asylum which is very sad for me to observe, as a number of Russian dissenters, who were genuinely persecuted, asked and were granted political asylum in the USA. And now no difference is made between them and those who simply want to move from a place with a high crime rate to a place with a lower crime. I am not sure that those who call these people "asylum seekers" with a straight face understand much about the nature and history of the right to asylum. But this is unrelated to my question.)

[citation needed]

[Gavagai]

(As a side point: these "asylum seekers" obviously and blatantly abuse the right to asylum which is very sad for me to observe, as a number of Russian dissenters, who were genuinely persecuted, asked and were granted political asylum in the USA. And now no difference is made between them and those who simply want to move from a place with a high crime rate to a place with a lower crime. I am not sure that those who call these people "asylum seekers" with a straight face understand much about the nature and history of the right to asylum. But this is unrelated to my question.)

[citation needed]

?

[scooter]

You made a lot of unsupported claims that denigrate people who have different backgrounds than you. I have a lot of contact with asylum seekers in the US. It's pretty obvious to me that you don't. If you have evidence to support your claims, present it.

[Gavagai]

You made a lot of unsupported claims that denigrate people who have different backgrounds than you. I have a lot of contact with asylum seekers in the US. It's pretty obvious to me that you don't. If you have evidence to support your claims, present it.

Unspecified. Which claims exactly do you want me to support? From what I see, it does not appear we have any major dispute over factual claims, we differ over evaluations. I do not think I have even made any controversial factual claims in this thread so far.

[AdrienIer]

You made a lot of unsupported claims that denigrate people who have different backgrounds than you. I have a lot of contact with asylum seekers in the US. It's pretty obvious to me that you don't. If you have evidence to support your claims, present it.

Unspecified. Which claims exactly do you want me to support? From what I see, it does not appear we have any major dispute over factual claims, we differ over evaluations. I do not think I have even made any controversial factual claims in this thread so far.

You claim that asylum seekers are faking, and that they're not worthy of being treated the way international law says they should be treated. That's rather controversial.

[Gavagai]

You claim that asylum seekers are faking, and that they're not worthy of being treated the way international law says they should be treated. That's rather controversial.

I claim none of that and the second part of your statement is not a factual claim which can be supported by a "citation".

[AdrienIer]

I claim none of that

Dude...

.
(As a side point: these "asylum seekers" obviously and blatantly abuse the right to asylum which is very sad for me to observe, as a number of Russian dissenters, who were genuinely persecuted, asked and were granted political asylum in the USA. And now no difference is made between them and those who simply want to move from a place with a high crime rate to a place with a lower crime. I am not sure that those who call these people "asylum seekers" with a straight face understand much about the nature and history of the right to asylum. But this is unrelated to my question.)