Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevil" data-source="post: 77604526" data-attributes="member: 277368"><p>OK, not sure why you are bringing baggage like that into a conversation with me. I couldn't care less if folk are right or left. </p><p>I find it really weird that you say "when I've tossed out the idea that asylum should be conducted under the <strong><em>pretense</em></strong> of"</p><p>It immediately shows that you aren't being genuine in your "conversation" but instead are a "bad actor"</p><p></p><p>No one is suggesting Open Borders, and no one is arguing that the asylum qualification criteria be changed. (well, maybe someone is, but it isn't the BIG issue).</p><p></p><p>The following</p><p>"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."</p><p>Does not mean open borders like you strangely tried to make out.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Very weird that you are saying this. I have no idea how you can come to this very strange conclusion.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Um, what?!</p><p></p><p>Article 13 is an entirely different topic.</p><p>Article 13 is about a country controlling it's own citizens passage across the country's own border.</p><p></p><p>If you live in a free world country, you will find that you don't need permission, don't need visa in order to leave your own country, and you don't need permission, don't need Visa in order to enter your own country.</p><p>I think you are being rather silly here. Please try to engage with best efforts rather than being silly or unnecessarily argumentative or combative.</p><p></p><p>Article 13 has got nothing to do with accepting of non citizens on grounds of asylum.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is just so weird.</p><p>It is the foreign country that decides who they let in. But the host country cannot stop their citizens from leaving.</p><p>Two different administrations. Try not to conflate.</p><p></p><p>LOL, WHAT! very silly logic and very incorrect interpretations of Article 13 and Article 14 which are different topics.</p><p></p><p>I understand that fans of Tucker, or Ingrahm are worries about the USA culture shifting from white Christian. It might actually happen one day too. But so what?</p><p></p><p>It's not language that many on the USA right are afraid of.</p><p></p><p>That document is just a framework. It doesn't spell out everything. Your country has a right to vet who comes in. Has a right to ask for proof of persecution and danger.</p><p></p><p>Well, perhaps cross that bridge when you come to it. Right now, USA does not have a problem anything like what you were suggesting.</p><p>Net migration has been on the negatives for most recent years and this year is very slightly positive. You don't have a problem with needing to up your infrastructure to cope.</p><p></p><p>US citizens can freely leave USA, refer to article 13 which no doubt is supported by USA law.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Good luck with this line of thinking. I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Please remember pragmatism, not stoic idealism</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevil, post: 77604526, member: 277368"] OK, not sure why you are bringing baggage like that into a conversation with me. I couldn't care less if folk are right or left. I find it really weird that you say "when I've tossed out the idea that asylum should be conducted under the [B][I]pretense[/I][/B] of" It immediately shows that you aren't being genuine in your "conversation" but instead are a "bad actor" No one is suggesting Open Borders, and no one is arguing that the asylum qualification criteria be changed. (well, maybe someone is, but it isn't the BIG issue). The following "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Does not mean open borders like you strangely tried to make out. Very weird that you are saying this. I have no idea how you can come to this very strange conclusion. Um, what?! Article 13 is an entirely different topic. Article 13 is about a country controlling it's own citizens passage across the country's own border. If you live in a free world country, you will find that you don't need permission, don't need visa in order to leave your own country, and you don't need permission, don't need Visa in order to enter your own country. I think you are being rather silly here. Please try to engage with best efforts rather than being silly or unnecessarily argumentative or combative. Article 13 has got nothing to do with accepting of non citizens on grounds of asylum. This is just so weird. It is the foreign country that decides who they let in. But the host country cannot stop their citizens from leaving. Two different administrations. Try not to conflate. LOL, WHAT! very silly logic and very incorrect interpretations of Article 13 and Article 14 which are different topics. I understand that fans of Tucker, or Ingrahm are worries about the USA culture shifting from white Christian. It might actually happen one day too. But so what? It's not language that many on the USA right are afraid of. That document is just a framework. It doesn't spell out everything. Your country has a right to vet who comes in. Has a right to ask for proof of persecution and danger. Well, perhaps cross that bridge when you come to it. Right now, USA does not have a problem anything like what you were suggesting. Net migration has been on the negatives for most recent years and this year is very slightly positive. You don't have a problem with needing to up your infrastructure to cope. US citizens can freely leave USA, refer to article 13 which no doubt is supported by USA law. Good luck with this line of thinking. I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Please remember pragmatism, not stoic idealism [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution
Top
Bottom