What is pulling America Apart?

[Ana the Ist]

Well, anyway. They are not illegal when they are going through the proper legal process.

Unless they entered illegally, which is who I was talking about.

You're the only one talking about those who entered through ports.

For those that crossed illegally but then connected with the authorities and made an asylum application, they illegally crossed the border, they committed a crime, but since they have applied for asylum, they are no longer illegally in the country.

Wrong, the experts disagree.

Why would you disagree with someone who has vastly more experience and expertise in the topic than you?

Once again...

Simply filing an application for asylum in removal proceedings does not convert an alien’s status or make the alien “legally” present. That said, DHS cannot remove an alien with a pending asylum application.​

If they're here illegally when they file for asylum, then they are illegal until a judge grants them asylum.

That's how it works.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Says the person that thinks people that are allowed in the country by the authorities, by court decree etc, that they are illegally in the country.
Two contradictory things, but held as true at the same time in your mind.

What exactly is the difficult aspect of this for you to understand?

That people are here illegally and not deported?

Start with point #1.

#1. New Biden rules for ICE point to fewer arrests and deportations, and a more restrained agency

That's Biden's order to the agency that would do the job of deporting people here, illegally, and have no pending decisions on whether or not they can stay. He's literally telling the people who get paid to do this job....to not do their job.

#2. Imagine anyone here on a temporary visa. It could be a work visa, a student visa, any kind of visa that expires (I don't know if ambassador visas expire). Once that visa expires....they are here illegally. It's not a question....their status literally changes from legally here on a visa, to illegally here on a visa that expired. If they didn't realize how long it could take for a visa renewal to be processed....they could have applied for a visa renewal days before their visa expired, and not had any decision on whether or not their visa is renewed for weeks or days. Do we deport those people? Of course not....once it's been determined they have applied for a visa renewal, they won't be deported until a decision is made to not renew their visa, but their status is still "illegal" despite them being present in the US.

It's not actually a complicated process at all. Your nation probably has one very similar.

Are you just clinging to this in hopes of being correct about something? The fact that you haven't been able to find any experts or even laws that agree with what you're claiming to be true should be a clue.

The reason why it wasn't hard for me to find laws and experts verifying what I claimed is because I looked these things up years ago....long before I posted about them here.

 

[RDKirk]

I really do hate the USA vernacular. Calling people aliens as if they are from outer space and USA is the entire world. It is dripping with USA arrogance.

[/QUOTE]

"Aliens" is the original word. The federal government used "aliens" more than a hundred years ago. So did the UK, such as their Aliens Act of 1905. There was no concept back then of "calling people aliens as if they are from outer space and USA is the entire world."

So, if you want to be offended, at least be offended by something real, rather than something you made up in your own head.

 

[wing2000]

Wrong, the experts disagree.

IOW, you disagree.

 

[Ana the Ist]

IOW, you disagree.

Well I wouldn't call myself an expert.

 

[stevil]

"Aliens" is the original word. The federal government used "aliens" more than a hundred years ago. So did the UK, such as their Aliens Act of 1905. There was no concept back then of "calling people aliens as if they are from outer space and USA is the entire world."

So, if you want to be offended, at least be offended by something real, rather than something you made up in your own head.

Thanks for correcting me here. I don't want to be offended. I don't hear this term much, except when I read either USA stuff, or UFO stuff.

Personally I think the terms

• Visitors
• Citizens

are a better way of distinguishing people

And visitors can be broken down to

• Tourist
• Temporary work permit
• Refugees
• Asylum Seekers
• Overstayer
• Undocumented visitor

The term "illegal" or "illegal immigrant" is quite derogatory and often used incorrectly.
Obviously a person isn't illegal, but people can do illegal things, rather than be illegal.
An overstayer and an undocumented visitor are both illegally in the country.
All the rest are legal, even if, for example an Asylum Seeker might have previously committed a crime by crossing the border not at a port of entry.

Citizens could be broken down to

• Permanent resident
• USA Citizen

The term "illegal" or "illegal immigrant" is quite derogatory and often used incorrectly.
Obviously a person isn't illegal, but people can do illegal things, rather than be illegal.
An overstayer and an undocumented visitor are both illegally in the country.
All the rest are legal, even if, for example an Asylum Seeker might have come in not at a port of entry.

I also think people should move away from the term "Alien". There are way too many sci fi movies for us to generally think of other worldly beings rather than humans on that word. Anyway, just my opinion of course.

 

[RDKirk]

Thanks for correcting me here. I don't want to be offended. I don't hear this term much, except when I read either USA stuff, or UFO stuff.

Personally I think the terms

• Visitors
• Citizens

are a better way of distinguishing people

A "visitor" is someone with an invitation who is leaving soon.

And visitors can be broken down to

• Tourist
• Temporary work permit
• Refugees
• Asylum Seekers
• Overstayer
• Undocumented visitor

The term "illegal" or "illegal immigrant" is quite derogatory and often used incorrectly.
Obviously a person isn't illegal, but people can do illegal things, rather than be illegal.
An overstayer and an undocumented visitor are both illegally in the country.
All the rest are legal, even if, for example an Asylum Seeker might have previously committed a crime by crossing the border not at a port of entry.

I don't see any reason not to offend someone who has crossed the boarder against the law. That is already the first offense. I don't worry about offending someone who has walked through my front door uninvited and even unannounced.

 

[stevil]

A "visitor" is someone with an invitation who is leaving soon.

Have you ever heard of an unexpected visitor?
Most tourists aren't invited, that's just silly.
I've been to England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Samoa, Vanuatu, Fiji, Australia, Switzerland, France, Vatican City, Morocco and I have never been invited.
Maybe presidents, prime ministers, etc get invited, but not me.

I don't see any reason not to offend someone who has crossed the boarder against the law. That is already the first offense. I don't worry about offending someone who has walked through my front door uninvited and even unannounced.

You don't believe in compassion, or grace or courtesy?
An asylum seeker going to a port of entry and declaring that they are unsafe in their country and hoping for the generosity and kindness of your country, you don't see any reason not to offend this person?

My main social philosophy is to be kind and nice to people, to give them respect. That means to not intentionally offend people, unless of course they are being nasty to me.
If a person is in desperate need of help and is reaching out to me, I don't first think, how can I offend them.

Is compassion and kindness not something that people from USA value?
They want to put out a mat on their front door that says "Go Away!"
And put a header on their Asylum Claim form with the message "Tell it to someone who cares" and a footer "Please keep out country clean by placing this paper in the nearest bin"

 

[rturner76]

As I said, it goes on more than "keywords." Heck, "keywords" are hardly ever actually spoken; real bad guys aren't that stupid. It goes more on technical parameters surrounding the communication than spoken words. In fact, not all of the communications are even between humans...it includes computer-to-computer communication as well.

And you still don't appreciate the sheer volume of global communications the US is interested in. It varies from drug operations in Guatemala to violent tree huggers in Mindinao to Hamas terrorists in Gaza to Russian military operations in Ukraine. There are billions of communications recorded resulting in thousands of "hits" (communications that meet alert parameters) every day.

I don't believe ALL communication can be monitored worldwide.....It's more that AMYONE'S communication or online activity can be monitored or searched at any time. People can also be detained without charges, legal support, or in some cases even a phone call, or even a warrant for their arrest. The Fourth Amendment has been fundamentally nullified by the Patriot Act. Even though there have been steps taken to reduce the reach of the law, in practice, Federal law enforcement is no longer bound by the doctrine of due process or cruel and unusual process. Provided the "detainee" is taken off of US soil and held in a black site stationed in a country that allows such punishment. The NSA and CIA for example keep their own confidential records and are free to shred or redact them when necessary and when investigations are ordered, more often than not, they are allowed to investigate themselves when of course no wrongdoing can be proven.

 

[RDKirk]

Have you ever heard of an unexpected visitor?
Most tourists aren't invited, that's just silly.
I've been to England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Samoa, Vanuatu, Fiji, Australia, Switzerland, France, Vatican City, Morocco and I have never been invited.
Maybe presidents, prime ministers, etc get invited, but not me.

Yes, tourists are invited guests. That's why they have visas...the visa is the invitation.

You don't believe in compassion, or grace or courtesy?
An asylum seeker going to a port of entry and declaring that they are unsafe in their country and hoping for the generosity and kindness of your country, you don't see any reason not to offend this person?

My main social philosophy is to be kind and nice to people, to give them respect. That means to not intentionally offend people, unless of course they are being nasty to me.
If a person is in desperate need of help and is reaching out to me, I don't first think, how can I offend them.

Is compassion and kindness not something that people from USA value?
They want to put out a mat on their front door that says "Go Away!"
And put a header on their Asylum Claim form with the message "Tell it to someone who cares" and a footer "Please keep out country clean by placing this paper in the nearest bin"

When someone walks through my door without an invitation, no, at that point I'm not brimming with compassion, grace, or mercy. The bunch of homeless people downtown have my sympathy, but not my permission to just all walk into my house tonight.

When he steps back outside on my porch and we talk about his situation, maybe so.

 

[stevil]

When someone walks through my door without an invitation, no, at that point I'm not brimming with compassion, grace, or mercy. The bunch of homeless people downtown have my sympathy, but not my permission to just all walk into my house tonight.

When he steps back outside on my porch and we talk about his situation, maybe so.

Very silly.

It seems you have compassion if a person is a USA citizen, but if not, then no.

The process of Asylum seeking is that the person must show up on USA soil. They can't apply remotely.
They don't just barge right on in, and straight for your pantry and have a feast. They go to the port of entry and meet the officials there and declare their situation.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't believe ALL communication can be monitored worldwide.....

As I explicitly stated earlier: " ...within technological capabilities..."

It's more that AMYONE'S communication or online activity can be monitored or searched at any time.

Who do they know to listen to, and how do they necessarily know which communication belongs to that person?

Smart terrorists at least use burner phones and will use a new phone for each instance of critical information. State operations use various rotating-encryption, frequency- and system- hopping networks for classified communication. And I mentioned before, much of their communication is not by a person, but computer-to-computer spurts of encrypted data. That's the difference between COMINT and SIGINT.

That's why the NSA attempts to collect everything--within their technological capabilities--and analyze it all afterwards. A terrorist's new burner phone line isn't going to be discovered by "keywords" because he's too smart for that. And even if it were to be discovered by keywords, the communication through that new device must still be already recorded even though it hasn't been linked to anyone yet. But the new line will be linked to him by technological means that I'm not going into right here and now (although they've certainly been improved since my personal "information cut-off date").

 

[RDKirk]

Very silly.

It seems you have compassion if a person is a USA citizen, but if not, then no.

Until I get to know something about them...no. I don't even know that they need compassion until I get to know something about them.

The process of Asylum seeking is that the person must show up on USA soil. They can't apply remotely.
They don't just barge right on in, and straight for your pantry and have a feast. They go to the port of entry and meet the officials there and declare their situation.

The people we're talking about do, indeed, "just barge right on in, and straight for your pantry and have a feast. " The ones who "go to the port of entry and meet the officials there and declare their situation" aren't the problem.

 

[stevil]

Until I get to know something about them...no. I don't even know that they need compassion until I get to know something about them.

Treat all people with respect. That's not hard is it?
If you don't know, then assume the best.
There is a process, if people are complying with the process, then you don't need to be mean, don't need to use force, don't need to treat them like they are doing anything illegal.

The mind boggles when I think back to that video where the Republicans went to court because they didn't want to give people in these detention facilities soap, toothpaste and tooth brushes.

The people we're talking about do, indeed, "just barge right on in, and straight for your pantry and have a feast. " The ones who "go to the port of entry and meet the officials there and declare their situation" aren't the problem.

Even those that for some reason couldn't come through a port of entry, if they turned up to the authorities voluntarily and declared their situation then they ought to have compassion. It would be interesting to know why they couldn't go to a port of entry.

For those that just sneak in and try to avoid detection and live off the grid, well that is entirely a different situation.
I personally have no problems if they get caught, they get less leniency and they deported.
But they are getting in, not because the authorities are being soft, but because they are sneaking in.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Treat all people with respect. That's not hard is it?

It is when we are used to dehumanizing others.

 

[timothyu]

It is when we are used to dehumanizing others.

Who taught that?

 

[RDKirk]

Treat all people with respect. That's not hard is it?
If you don't know, then assume the best.
There is a process, if people are complying with the process, then you don't need to be mean, don't need to use force, don't need to treat them like they are doing anything illegal.

The mind boggles when I think back to that video where the Republicans went to court because they didn't want to give people in these detention facilities soap, toothpaste and tooth brushes.

If they had complied with the process, they wouldn't be in detention facilities.

Even those that for some reason couldn't come through a port of entry, if they turned up to the authorities voluntarily and declared their situation then they ought to have compassion. It would be interesting to know why they couldn't go to a port of entry.

Because they didn't have visas or other papers to be admitted through the port of entry.

For those that just sneak in and try to avoid detection and live off the grid, well that is entirely a different situation.
I personally have no problems if they get caught, they get less leniency and they deported.
But they are getting in, not because the authorities are being soft, but because they are sneaking in.

Wait, I just checked. People can't just stroll onto New Zealand, either, without having first gotten their paperwork in order.

‘On the edge’: Are New Zealand’s tough immigration rules harming the economy?

Critics say failing to allow family members to join skilled workers will undermine post-pandemic recovery

www.theguardian.com

Immigration fraud

Immigration New Zealand does not tolerate immigration fraud because it undermines our immigration system and can lead to the exploitation of vulnerable people.

www.immigration.govt.nz

 

[Ana the Ist]

Have you ever heard of an unexpected visitor?
Most tourists aren't invited, that's just silly.

A great many places encourage tourism in their economy.

I've been to England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Samoa, Vanuatu, Fiji, Australia, Switzerland, France, Vatican City, Morocco and I have never been invited.

Those would be some examples.

You don't believe in compassion, or grace or courtesy?

That's a silly question.

An asylum seeker going to a port of entry and declaring that they are unsafe in their country and hoping for the generosity and kindness of your country, you don't see any reason not to offend this person?

He did say specifically those who cross illegally.

My main social philosophy is to be kind and nice to people, to give them respect. That means to not intentionally offend people, unless of course they are being nasty to me.
If a person is in desperate need of help and is reaching out to me, I don't first think, how can I offend them.

If 9 million people showed up at your door demanding food, water, and a place to stay....you wouldn't open your door.

Is compassion and kindness not something that people from USA value?

Another silly question.

They want to put out a mat on their front door that says "Go Away!"
And put a header on their Asylum Claim form with the message "Tell it to someone who cares" and a footer "Please keep out country clean by placing this paper in the nearest bin"

At a certain point, that's exactly what must be done to avoid creating the problems they are fleeing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Treat all people with respect. That's not hard is it?

Respect is earned.

If you don't know, then assume the best.

We know though.

There is a process, if people are complying with the process, then you don't need to be mean, don't need to use force, don't need to treat them like they are doing anything illegal.

People aren't complying with the process. In many ways, this administration has completely undermined the process.

The mind boggles when I think back to that video where the Republicans went to court because they didn't want to give people in these detention facilities soap, toothpaste and tooth brushes.

The mind boggles at thinking those same people are demanding to stay in luxury hotels at the taxpayers' expense.

NYC Pays Over $300 a Night for Budget Hotel Rooms for Migrants

Some of New York City's struggling hotels are charging the city premium rates to provide emergency housing for migrants — even as the city slashes services to pay the bills.

www.bloomberg.com

Even those that for some reason couldn't come through a port of entry, if they turned up to the authorities voluntarily and declared their situation then they ought to have compassion. It would be interesting to know why they couldn't go to a port of entry.

It would be more interesting to know why they didn't seek asylum in the nations they crossed to arrive at the US.

They crossed illegally because the Mexican cartels control the border.

 

[stevil]

If they had complied with the process, they wouldn't be in detention facilities.

No, that's not true.
They put them in detention facilities for months because it takes them that long to work through the process.
That is the process. They aren't allowed to apply for asylum prior to entry to the country.

Because they didn't have visas or other papers to be admitted through the port of entry.

Not as far as I understand it, asylum seekers don't need to have visas. They just need to show up at the port of entry and ask to make an asylum claim.

Wait, I just checked. People can't just stroll onto New Zealand, either, without having first gotten their paperwork in order.

Yes, we have border control and customs.