We should have known about Ralph Northam's yearbooks long ago

[coins4commies]

Its a major strawman.  Not one person ever defended the death threats made on Covington kids. You only know about deaths threats from some fringe elements and act like its the media and mainstream left that made them.

Actually many liberals, including some in the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party were calling for violence against these kids.

I'll admit I was wrong when I see it then.

[1714506994]

1714506994

[1714506994]

1714506994

[1714506994]

1714506994

[1714506994]

1714506994

[1714506994]

1714506994

[TECSHARE]

Its a major strawman.  Not one person ever defended the death threats made on Covington kids. You only know about deaths threats from some fringe elements and act like its the media and mainstream left that made them.

Actually many liberals, including some in the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party were calling for violence against these kids.

I'll admit I was wrong when I see it then.

It is hard to see things when you don't even bother looking...

[GreenBits]

So, once again, what is stopping them from applying at a port of entry? Crossing the border any place other than an authorized checkpoint is a crime regardless of your endless equivocation.

Like, what is not clear about this? Are you pretending not to understand this to not admit you were wrong? Point of entry = border checkpoint. Any place you can apply for asylum, is within the borders of the US. You cannot seek asylum without coming into the US. They come to the points of entry, we hold them. And apparently, even if they did sneak across the border, they would still be correctly applying for asylum.

This is not fake news. I am purposely using non biased, official sources to point out a fact. What I'm saying is real. You can read it yourself. You speak English fine, what gives? I have never ran up against this type of cognitive dissonance before.

@Spendulus, I thought so myself (the majority of border crossings were out in the desert, next to a random cactus), until I took a look at the actual DHS brief from 2017, via a Washington post article. I trust very little people tell me, so I read the brief myself. To save you some time, start at page 15 if you read it (it's a snoozefest)
The Wapo article is right. More people actually cross "legally" than illegally.
I will say, clearly they dont know who they dont catch, but among those they do have records for, far more come through a point of entry than those that say fuck it and sneak in.

Let me cite the Wapo article and the brief:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0914_estimates-of-border-security.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/most-immigrants-who-enter-the-country-do-so-legally-federal-data-show/

But illegal border crossings represent a relatively small share of the number of people who enter the country, legally or otherwise, in any given year, according to the Department of Homeland Security's data.

A September 2017 Office of Immigration Statistics data brief estimated that in fiscal year 2016, the latest year for which complete data is available, there were 170,000 successful illegal border crossings occurring outside of authorized ports of entry. That's down roughly 90 percent since 2000, and it's about one-seventh of the roughly 1.2 million immigrants who obtained lawful permanent resident status via a green card, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

You don't seem to know what the meaning of an ad hominem is, so please stop using that term, at least until you understand what it means.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
adverb
1.
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem" (IRONIC!!)

This is way off subject anyway. It is almost like you know you can't win a debate about the topic at hand so you need to keep bringing up countless other red herrings to argue about to distract from this.

You are in a Northam thread talking with me about this. If you look back, I only mentioned this to show how I dont differentiate members of classes. You refuted me, saying crossing a border for asylum is illegal, and I corrected you, with cited material. LOL, why dont you 'bold' the on topic parts again for us?

After all, you can't have anyone looking too close at how these double standards are applied to "your team" with zero accountability, and how violence is excused against "the other".

Yep. Democrats are sainted angels, and they all smell like roses 🙄

[TECSHARE]

So, once again, what is stopping them from applying at a port of entry? Crossing the border any place other than an authorized checkpoint is a crime regardless of your endless equivocation.

Like, what is not clear about this? Are you pretending not to understand this to not admit you were wrong? Point of entry = border checkpoint. Any place you can apply for asylum, is within the borders of the US. You cannot seek asylum without coming into the US. They come to the points of entry, we hold them. And apparently, even if they did sneak across the border, they would still be correctly applying for asylum.

This is not fake news. I am purposely using non biased, official sources to point out a fact. What I'm saying is real. You can read it yourself. You speak English fine, what gives? I have never ran up against this type of cognitive dissonance before.

@Spendulus, I thought so myself (the majority of border crossings were out in the desert, next to a random cactus), until I took a look at the actual DHS brief from 2017, via a Washington post article. I trust very little people tell me, so I read the brief myself. To save you some time, start at page 15 if you read it (it's a snoozefest)
The Wapo article is right. More people actually cross "legally" than illegally.
I will say, clearly they dont know who they dont catch, but among those they do have records for, far more come through a point of entry than those that say fuck it and sneak in.

Let me cite the Wapo article and the brief:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0914_estimates-of-border-security.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/most-immigrants-who-enter-the-country-do-so-legally-federal-data-show/

But illegal border crossings represent a relatively small share of the number of people who enter the country, legally or otherwise, in any given year, according to the Department of Homeland Security's data.

A September 2017 Office of Immigration Statistics data brief estimated that in fiscal year 2016, the latest year for which complete data is available, there were 170,000 successful illegal border crossings occurring outside of authorized ports of entry. That's down roughly 90 percent since 2000, and it's about one-seventh of the roughly 1.2 million immigrants who obtained lawful permanent resident status via a green card, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

You don't seem to know what the meaning of an ad hominem is, so please stop using that term, at least until you understand what it means.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
adverb
1.
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem" (IRONIC!!)

This is way off subject anyway. It is almost like you know you can't win a debate about the topic at hand so you need to keep bringing up countless other red herrings to argue about to distract from this.

You are in a Northam thread talking with me about this. If you look back, I only mentioned this to show how I dont differentiate members of classes. You refuted me, saying crossing a border for asylum is illegal, and I corrected you, with cited material. LOL, why dont you 'bold' the on topic parts again for us?

After all, you can't have anyone looking too close at how these double standards are applied to "your team" with zero accountability, and how violence is excused against "the other".

Yep. Democrats are sainted angels, and they all smell like roses 🙄

You are purposely conflating the difference between crossing the border illegally and legally going to a point of entry. They are not the same thing no matter how much you equivocate. The point being it is not a requirement to illegally enter the country to file for asylum. Nothing is wrong with enforcing border policy no matter how many appeals to emotion you make about it.

You make claims that more people cross illegally than illegally. Tell me, how do you measure illegal undocumented crossings? Even if you can your argument is invalid. It is like saying most robberies are muggings and not pickpockets, so we shouldn't bother stopping pickpockets.

I am not interested in your virtue signalling about classes. I am interested in having an on topic discussion about this event and how it clearly demonstrates double standards you and others hold as you excuse violence for imaginary face and hat related crimes.




That is not a complete definition... nor was what I said an ad hominem attack. Pointing out your ignorance on a subject with reasoning and supporting evidence is a counter argument at least.

[GreenBits]

We agree to disagree then. I cant be more clear about this, and I'm clearly not making this up, it's literally from the government, not even Obama era officials. The things I cite directly are literal definitions and facts from the current White House regarding immigration, I understand if there is a disconnect between reality and what the WH regularly says.

I'm done with this. We aren't making ground, and I believe you think I have more personal interest invested in this than I actually do. To be crystal clear, I am for firmer border policy. I am against the wall. I believe that folks that come here seeking asylum should be afforded due process. And I believe those that come here outside of that very simple process (come to the border, turn yourself in) should be deported immediately without due process. They are invading, it is the prerogative of any State to remove those that would subvert legal process to gain entry. They have shown an inherent non conformance with our rule of law by attempting to enter illegally, which is a terrible start to being among us. I am saying, very clearly, that the majority of folks that come here do so legally. And to do that, they would have to walk up to the border, and enter the country at a point of entry. Which is exactly what the majority of the folks in these caravans have done.

The law is broken, is what we should be talking about. But as I have said, I'm done because for some reason, I have failed to provide you sufficient evidence. I believe that the statistics put out by the current administration support my assertion. Not trying to advance any agenda here; I'm not about to sway opinions here. The majority of voices in this forum are conservative. And this forum is obscure; it's a source of information about bitcoin. Not politics. No one comes here to get their political opinions. And I dont affiliate with liberal policies as much as you seem to think. I'm actually a moderate, I know that seems rare nowadays, but the majority of us are. The world is much more grey that black and white.

Please speak your peace, and lets move on from this. No one really gives a fuck what I think concerning this, and my opinions will not sway policy. I'm simply a talking head, and I grow tired of this mental exercise with you.

This was kinda fun, up until we stopped communicating which each other. I am eager to respond to your post in the abortion thread, I will address it a little later after I catch up on my work. Thank you for your attentions and time in our debate, and have a blessed weekend (what little remains!)

[Spendulus]

....
@Spendulus, I thought so myself (the majority of border crossings were out in the desert, next to a random cactus), until I took a look at the actual DHS brief from 2017, via a Washington post article. I trust very little people tell me, so I read the brief myself. To save you some time, start at page 15 if you read it (it's a snoozefest)
The Wapo article is right. More people actually cross "legally" than illegally.
I will say, clearly they dont know who they dont catch, but among those they do have records for, far more come through a point of entry than those that say fuck it and sneak in.

Let me cite the Wapo article and the brief:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0914_estimates-of-border-security.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/most-immigrants-who-enter-the-country-do-so-legally-federal-data-show/

Good data, but I don't need it. These people just come in one way or another and then stay. I've never seen someone "applying for asylum" at a crossing. I'm sure it happens, but it is not typical.

My opinion only, but I think the main reason crossings exist outside of the big towns, through the desert, is what's in it for the coyotes. If a coyote lead a dozen to say the Juarez crossing, he going to be nabbed because our guys are likely looking for him. If he leads them through the desert, he can load them up with drugs and make them mules, maybe rape a couple of them on the way.

By the way, the Border Patrol are pretty good at all this. They look at these people and have a feel for which are from Central America, vs Mexico. I'd definitely trust them to spot the troublemakers.

[TECSHARE]

We agree to disagree then. I cant be more clear about this, and I'm clearly not making this up, it's literally from the government, not even Obama era officials. The things I cite directly are literal definitions and facts from the current White House regarding immigration, I understand if there is a disconnect between reality and what the WH regularly says.

I'm done with this. We aren't making ground, and I believe you think I have more personal interest invested in this than I actually do. To be crystal clear, I am for firmer border policy. I am against the wall. I believe that folks that come here seeking asylum should be afforded due process. And I believe those that come here outside of that very simple process (come to the border, turn yourself in) should be deported immediately without due process. They are invading, it is the prerogative of any State to remove those that would subvert legal process to gain entry. They have shown an inherent non conformance with our rule of law by attempting to enter illegally, which is a terrible start to being among us. I am saying, very clearly, that the majority of folks that come here do so legally. And to do that, they would have to walk up to the border, and enter the country at a point of entry. Which is exactly what the majority of the folks in these caravans have done.

The law is broken, is what we should be talking about. But as I have said, I'm done because for some reason, I have failed to provide you sufficient evidence. I believe that the statistics put out by the current administration support my assertion. Not trying to advance any agenda here; I'm not about to sway opinions here. The majority of voices in this forum are conservative. And this forum is obscure; it's a source of information about bitcoin. Not politics. No one comes here to get their political opinions. And I dont affiliate with liberal policies as much as you seem to think. I'm actually a moderate, I know that seems rare nowadays, but the majority of us are. The world is much more grey that black and white.

Please speak your peace, and lets move on from this. No one really gives a fuck what I think concerning this, and my opinions will not sway policy. I'm simply a talking head, and I grow tired of this mental exercise with you.

This was kinda fun, up until we stopped communicating which each other. I am eager to respond to your post in the abortion thread, I will address it a little later after I catch up on my work. Thank you for your attentions and time in our debate, and have a blessed weekend (what little remains!)

I don't see any disconnect, and you yourself cited the facts that I stated from those same government sources. People can apply for asylum at a port of entry. This is a fact. it is illegal to cross the border without authorization at a designated checkpoint. This is a fact. "The majority come here legally" I already addressed. Not only can you not prove this conclusion, it is irrelevant. It is like saying robbery happens more in this town so lets not enforce against robberies in this town. Also where exactly are stats on undocumented illegal immigration collected if it is undocumented? Any numbers you have are at best an estimate. Now if you are done pretending I am being irrational and unwilling to listen to facts, care to discuss the topic?

I have seen more people than I can count that think of themselves as moderates or centrists, but the fact is The Overton Window has moved SO FAR left that former classic liberals are now described as far right. So you being "moderate" could be anywhere between moderate and Mao Tse Tung. While I doubt you are quite that far left, a lot of the rhetoric and talking points you use are in fact far left talking points and policies.

I give a fuck what you have to say. You could sway me. Unfortunately so far it seems you have been operating from assumption then building facts around that to make a case rather than understanding what you are presenting first and going from that position. If you don't want to butt heads with me, I understand, but if you are bringing contrary facts to the table I will integrate them. Unfortunately any contrary facts you have brought are inconsequential to the premise, even of these side issues you insist on diverging off into. I do feel we are still communicating, I just fear you didn't get the result you were hoping for here. Hopefully we can continue a discussion.

Unfortunately I fear this entire scenario is just an attempt at diverting from and ending any discussion of the double standards held for "liberals" and "conservatives" in the media and among some individuals. Wearing a hat in support of the president excuses harassment and threats of violent actions for the other, but openly racist acts on the left are excused with a whimper, not to mention all the violence and other various crimes often attributed to the right every time ANTIFA shows up and attacks for example.