F*$king Gibberish: If we get more boats for the Coast Guard we can kill more wolves.
Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2018, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)
1) Beyond the obvious and heart wrenching attacks on American values and basic moral and religious beliefs the Trump administration separation of children from their mothers and fathers is a basic exercise in gibberish, and most media commentators and reporters are too ignorant or lazy to call the administration on presenting a line of argument that can best be called gibberish.
President Trump continues to spout nonsense that if we only had the wall then he wouldn't have to separate the children from the parents.
These are not undocumented workers or illegal drug smugglers who are trying to evade capture at the border by the Border Patrol. These are Asylum Seekers who are presenting themselves at the border to apply for asylum. The only reason that they are not approaching the US port is because access to the port is being manned by federal law enforcement agents who are telling them they cannot proceed because "facilities are full" (which is not a legal reason to prevent them from proceeding).
The Asylum Seekers are following US law. US law requires Asylum Seekers to apply at a Port of Entry
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-obtain-protection-us-embassy-consulate.html
Asylum is a form of legal protection available to certain people who cannot or would not feel safe if they tried to live in their home country, because of past persecution or the danger of future persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Unfortunately, U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry).
There is a common misconception that U.S. embassies and consulates are basically the same as U.S. soil. It is true that international law protects national embassies and consulates from being destroyed, entered, or searched (without permission) by the government of the country where they are located (the host country). However, this does not give those embassies or consulates the full status of being part of their home nation’s territory. Therefore, U.S. law does not consider asylum seekers at U.S. embassies and consulates to be “physically present in the United States” (or at a U.S. border or point of entry).
Physical barriers like fences or walls are created for those that are trying to avoid detection and enter the country illegally. Asylum seekers simply seek access to the port of entry so that they can make a lawful application of asylum. Rather than attempt to enter outside the port area ACLU and other legal parties should get an injunction stopping the illegal detouring of Asylum Seekers away from the Port of Entry.
In any case the wall or fence is implemented not for Asylum Seekers but for those who are trying to successfully gain a surreptitious entry.
When Trump says that a wall will prevent Asylum Seekers and obviate the need to separate children from their parents it has all of the logic of saying, "If you provide more boats for the Coast Guard it will assist in killing more wolves". It is gibberish and the media should confront him when he says it.
2) The second point that has been lost is that the Trump administration has so far implemented 4 other distinct programs to destroy families of non white immigrants, and the other three have nothing to do with the border:
a) 800,000 families under DACA
Removing protection under DACA for children that were brought to the country without documentation and have lived exemplary lives.
b) 280,000 El Salvadoran families
that were here legally under Temporary Protection Orders but who have had the TPO removed and will become illegal migrants in 2020
c) 60,000 Haitian families
also had TPOs who were cancelled
d) Ban on Muslim visa applications
These three groups, along with the war on Asylum applicants represent a systematic attack on groups that are largely people of color. The wall has nothing to do with these groups. When you see all 5 attacks on non white migrants it is obvious that this isn't about border security but about racial composition.
By the way several of my clients have told me that the new rules regarding zero tolerance against asylum seekers has created a demand for paper work the size of the Rocky Mountains which has had significant impact on the ability of the Border Patrol to man operations against cartel drug running and human trafficking in the more remote areas. Rather than improving security these actions against asylum seekers are seriously undermining security.
= new reply since forum marked as read
