Trump’s border czar says any illegal immigrant can be deported: ‘We’ll eventually get to you’

[Oompa Loompa]

This is what makes Christianity so exasperating.

Christians choose to think contextually when it suits them, and textually-only when it suit them, according to their personal disposition - which is increasingly politics driven.

Not saying you are doing it. But observing discussions over a long stretch, you can see this in action.

Within the Christian community, there are varying levels of biblical literacy and hermeneutical knowledge. Furthermore, there are numerous denominations with differing interpretations. Although we have our core tenants and doctrines, most find themselves in a "let's agree to disagree" scenario.

 

[wing2000]

Except Trump who kept them in Mexico.

Published 4:42 PM MST, April 2, 2019
Share
EL PASO, Texas (AP) — The surge of migrant families arriving at the southern border has led the Trump administration to dramatically expand a practice President Donald Trump has long mocked as “catch and release.”
With immigrant processing and holding centers overwhelmed, the administration is busing people hundreds of miles inland and releasing them at Greyhound stations and churches in cities like Albuquerque, San Antonio and Phoenix because towns close to the border already have more than they can handle.
....

Since Dec. 21, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has set free more than 125,000 people who came into the U.S. as families.

https://apnews.com/article/san-antonio-donald-trump-us-news-ap-top-news-immigration-ed3d75ce348d4be3bc7fdf02bc43e1d6

 

[Vambram]

Nevertheless what I said remains true.

Only from a liberal point of view, in my opinion.

 

[Vambram]

I'm sorry, maybe you should reread the words of Jesus. Start with the Sermon on the Mount and the Beattitudes. Jesus took to task those who were literally the adherents of their laws; repeatedly. You couldn't get more lawless than the people who were of the law wanting to snuff you out.

The USA simply does not have the infinite amount of resources necessary to keep on keeping on with the unstainable policy of allowing millions upon millions of immigrants to come into our nation. No nation on earth ought to be expected to sustain the large amounts of massive illegal immigration. It is simply impossible to do so. The USA does not have the resources necessary to allow this problem to continue.

 

[Say it aint so]

Only from a liberal point of view, in my opinion.

You didn't dispute anything I said. You just "nevethelessed" to a point not germane.

 

[Say it aint so]

The USA simply does not have the infinite amount of resources necessary to keep on keeping on with the unstainable policy of allowing millions upon millions of immigrants to come into our nation. No nation on earth ought to be expected to sustain the large amounts of massive illegal immigration. It is simply impossible to do so. The USA does not have the resources necessary to allow this problem to continue.

The number of actual illegals have gone down since the peak in the early 2000s. No one is sustaining illegals. Again, who are being sustained are asylum seekers and those with temporary status. Those people who, as they wait their processing, get temporary work permits and do the jobs Americans don't do. Those people American businesses actually depend on, and frankly without them our economy would come to a screeching halt. You guys keep on mixing up illegals and those who are here legally, and I think it's on purpose.

 

[Vambram]

The number of actual illegals have gone down since the peak in the early 2000s. No one is sustaining illegals. Again, who are being sustained are asylum seekers and those with temporary status. Those people who, as they wait their processing, get temporary work permits and do the jobs Americans don't do. Those people American businesses actually depend on, and frankly without them our economy would come to a screeching halt You guys keep on mixing up illegals and those who are here legally, and I think it's on purpose.

What we have here in the disagreements of the discussion is the definition of terms. What some believe are asylum seekers others believe are illegal immigrants especially when we are looking at millions upon millions upon millions of these immigrants in the last few years. The very idea that our national economy is easily and profitably absorbing these multiple millions of "asylum seekers" is an globalist doctrine which a significant majority of American voters have strongly rejected. If the majority of Americans wanted to continue the immigration asylum policies of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, then Kamala Harris would have won the election back in November.

 

[Say it aint so]

What we have here in the disagreements of the discussion is the definition of terms. What some believe are asylum seekers others believe are illegal immigrants especially when we are looking at millions upon millions upon millions of these immigrants in the last few years. The very idea that our national economy is easily and profitably absorbing these multiple millions of "asylum seekers" is an globalist doctrine which a significant majority of American voters have strongly rejected. If the majority of Americans wanted to continue the immigration asylum policies of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, then Kamala Harris would have won the election back in November.

We assign terms to words so when in discussion, what is being discussed can be universally understood.
To take a term used for X, but knowing misuse it to mean "Y" is disingenuous.
To knowingly use that disingenuousness to make an argument, just means one is making a disingenious argument.

 

[Vambram]

We assign terms to words so when in discussion, what is being discussed can be universally understood.
To take a term used for X, but knowing misuse it to mean "Y" is disingenuous.
To knowing use that disingenuousness to make an argument just means one is making a disingenious argument.

No. I am not making a disingenuous argument. Instead, I wrote that one of the reasons for the strong disagreements on both sides of this issue is how each side defines the words or phrases in the discussion. We are talking about different points of view which by nature defines terms differently but NOT in a disingenuous manner.

 

[Say it aint so]

No. I am not making a disingenuous argument. Instead, I wrote that one of the reasons for the strong disagreements on both sides of this issue is how each side defines the words or phrases in the discussion. We are talking about different points of view which by nature defines terms differently but NOT in a disingenuous manner.

No, you are misusing words.
You are doing it knowingly.
Asylum is a legal process.
Those who are here under that status are here legally.
There are no alternative facts.
You are in fact bearing false witness, and you do it without hesitation.

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

 

[Vambram]

No, you are misusing words.
You are doing it knowingly.
Asylum is a legal process.
Those who are here under that status are here legally.
There are no alternative facts.
You are in fact bearing false witness, and you do it without hesitation.

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

I am not misusing words. What you should understand is that the way that U.S. Code 1158 is interpreted and enforced is up to the Executive branch of our government. How the asylum laws are enforced is supposed to be according to the current POTUS. Therefore, what Biden believes are asylum seekers does not fall under the same interpretation of another POTUS.

What the progressive Left wing liberals have failed to do is convince the majority of Americans that the USA has the ability to practically and profitably absorb multiple millions of immigrants and asylum seekers year after year after year after year, ad nauseum. The majority of Americans know that this is simply not sustainable, regardless of what the progressive left wing liberals have been saying to us.
The Democratic Party would have won the November election if most of us wanted to continue on with the failed policies of these past few years.

 

[Valletta]

The number of actual illegals have gone down since the peak in the early 2000s. No one is sustaining illegals. Again, who are being sustained are asylum seekers and those with temporary status. Those people who, as they wait their processing, get temporary work permits and do the jobs Americans don't do. Those people American businesses actually depend on, and frankly without them our economy would come to a screeching halt. You guys keep on mixing up illegals and those who are here legally, and I think it's on purpose.

"The number of illegal immigrants in the country has roughly doubled under President Biden. The United States had some 10.2 million illegal immigrants in 2020, and another 10 million have entered during Biden’s presidency."

Matthews: Illegal immigrants double under Biden — and that’s just the start

While most immigrants are just looking for a chance to grasp the American Dream and build a better life for themselves and their families, Border Patrol has seen a significant increase in foreign n…

thehill.com

This article was from January of 2024. Approximate 12 million have now entered our country under the Biden regime.

 

[HARK!]

If the majority of Americans wanted to continue the immigration asylum policies of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, then Kamala Harris would have won the election back in November.

No doubt, the two biggest issues for this past election were the economy, and the illegal invasion. The Biden administration failed miserably on both counts despite their propaganda campaign. The American people spoke. Trump was elected.The losers need to get over it, and come up with a new shtick, to remain relevant.

 

[Say it aint so]

I am not misusing words. What you should understand is that the way that U.S. Code 1158 is interpreted and enforced is up to the Executive branch of our government. How the asylum laws are enforced is supposed to be according to the current POTUS. Therefore, what Biden believes are asylum seekers does not fall under the same interpretation of another POTUS.

What the progressive Left wing liberals have failed to do is convince the majority of Americans that the USA has the ability to practically and profitably absorb multiple millions of immigrants and asylum seekers year after year after year after year, ad nauseum. The majority of Americans know that this is simply not sustainable, regardless of what the progressive left wing liberals have been saying to us.
The Democratic Party would have won the November election if most of us wanted to continue on with the failed policies of these past few years.

Yes, the DOJ can remove those who don't pass the asylum criterion. That criterion that determines who are here legally under the asylum process. DOJ or the Executive Branch can not make the same claim as you and determine those here legally are illegal. It's not up to Biden or Trump who is legal and who is here illegally. We have immigration courts, and wait for it, "the law" to determine that.

 

[Vambram]

Yes, the DOJ can remove those who don't pass the asylum criterion. That criterion that determines who are here legally under the asylum process. DOJ or the Executive Branch can not make the same claim as you and determine those here legally are illegal. It's not up to Biden or Trump who is legal and who is here illegally. We have immigration courts, and wait for it, "the law" to determine that.

You still ain't getting it. Perhaps I can try once again to explain this. It is the POTUS and the executive branch of the Federal government which has the ability AND the authority to decide how to interpret and enforce the immigration and asylum laws.
If there are those who disagree with the POTUS and the DOJ, then they can file lawsuits in federal courts.

 

[Say it aint so]

"The number of illegal immigrants in the country has roughly doubled under President Biden. The United States had some 10.2 million illegal immigrants in 2020, and another 10 million have entered during Biden’s presidency."

Matthews: Illegal immigrants double under Biden — and that’s just the start

While most immigrants are just looking for a chance to grasp the American Dream and build a better life for themselves and their families, Border Patrol has seen a significant increase in foreign n…

thehill.com

This article was from January of 2024. Approximate 12 million have now entered our country under the Biden regime.

That is another disingenuous article. "Encounters" meaning those encountered at the border including asylum seekers and people just out and out denied entry are considered "encounters". Encounters, which also doesn't count the number deported and people here legally, are not one in the same.

No, 10 million people have not entered the U.S. under Biden

Evangelical pastor Franklin Graham made a trip to Texas and, while there, he waded into the immigration debate. "(Joe Bi

www.politifact.com

And once again, holy moly, someone who claims to follow Jesus lying.

 

[Say it aint so]

You still ain't getting it. Perhaps I can try once again to explain this. It is the POTUS and the executive branch of the Federal government which has the ability AND the authority to decide how to interpret and enforce the immigration and asylum laws.
If there are those who disagree with the POTUS and the DOJ, then they can file lawsuits in federal courts.

I don't understand why you are making this argument. The DOJ nor the Executive branch can interpret the laws like you guys do in "knighting" those here legally as being illegal. Ever wonder why Trump never put an EO making that grand pronouncement. Heck, even the Remain in Mexico was being battered around the courts like a pinata. That EO was never determined to be legal, so how is "the POTUS and the executive branch of the Federal government which has the ability AND the authority to decide how to interpret and enforce the immigration and asylum laws" going to declare all those legally here under law are now "interpreted" to be illegal.

 

[HARK!]

that EO was never determined to be legal

So in other words there is no court ruling against it?

There is no court ruling that says that I can't lock my doors to keep out home invaders.

 

[Fyrewulf]

So you think anyone who break the law and convicted as felon should be punished?

I think that you're referring to President of the United States of America Donald J Trump, and he has seen his many days in court, with many charges. The law decided what it decided. The illegal immigrants roaming the streets have never faced consequences. Very different.

 

[Vambram]

I don't understand why you are making this argument. The DOJ nor the Executive branch can interpret the laws like you guys do in "knighting" those here legally as being illegal. Ever wonder why Trump never put an EO making that grand pronouncement. Heck, even the Remain in Mexico was being battered around the courts like a pinata. That EO was never determined to be legal, so how is "the POTUS and the executive branch of the Federal government which has the ability AND the authority to decide how to interpret and enforce the immigration and asylum laws" going to declare all those legally here under law are now "interpreted" to be illegal.

I am not surprised that you don't understand why I am making this argument. You appear to have a progressive left wing liberal point of view that therefore refuses to allow you to understand the constitutional conservative point of view.