BREAKING: Migrants Breach Wall, Throw Rocks, Get Gassed Back To Mexico - Videos

a reply to: Krakatoa



No Gracias .....

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The refugees are going to keep coming

Yeah all the male migrants you mean are going to keep coming. Article from 2015 fails to mention that all migrants are all male.

Perhaps they don't mention that because it is BS?

(they said the same thing about this lot but there are clearly women and children in the videos and the news articles mention women and children coming away crying after being teargassed).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

But the U.S. is a signatory of the 1967 protocol in this case, which includes article 1 as stated above. So therefore, your comment is moot.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

Which came first 1967 or 1980?

The later law supersedes the earlier.

The presidential executive order must be lawful compliant with existing law otherwise a 9th circuit judge might just rule it out!

Please, provide a valid source (not Wikipedia) stating the 1980 agreement supersedes article 1....and that the U.S. is a signatory.

The US must necessarily be a signatory to its own acts and statutes.

... and the US is NOT a signatory to the 1967 UN protocol.

... and any applicable later revision of an earlier law supersedes that earlier law.

How much cognitive dissonance can you endure before comprehension rises in your eyes like the sun over a Pacific seascape?

Really....
States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol
The united States is listed as of Nov 01, 1968.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yeah..Those all look like legit asylum seekers.

That's exactly what it was like when I came to the US. Just broke in and tried to hurt people on my way in.

Oh wait...No I god damned didn't.

But we're all supposed to believe this isn't an illegal immigrant invasion.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

But the U.S. is a signatory of the 1967 protocol in this case, which includes article 1 as stated above. So therefore, your comment is moot.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

Which came first 1967 or 1980?

The later law supersedes the earlier.

The presidential executive order must be lawful compliant with existing law otherwise a 9th circuit judge might just rule it out!

Please, provide a valid source (not Wikipedia) stating the 1980 agreement supersedes article 1....and that the U.S. is a signatory.

The US must necessarily be a signatory to its own acts and statutes.

... and the US is NOT a signatory to the 1967 UN protocol.

... and any applicable later revision of an earlier law supersedes that earlier law.

How much cognitive dissonance can you endure before comprehension rises in your eyes like the sun over a Pacific seascape?

Really....
States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol
The united States is listed as of Nov 01, 1968.

They were at the convention. That's what it says.

Where's the signature?

a reply to: projectvxn

I did Not see Many " Women and Children "in that Crowd ...Hmm...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Just a few women and a bunch of grown men trying to break in.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's exhausting and depressing

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

But the U.S. is a signatory of the 1967 protocol in this case, which includes article 1 as stated above. So therefore, your comment is moot.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

Which came first 1967 or 1980?

The later law supersedes the earlier.

The presidential executive order must be lawful compliant with existing law otherwise a 9th circuit judge might just rule it out!

Please, provide a valid source (not Wikipedia) stating the 1980 agreement supersedes article 1....and that the U.S. is a signatory.

The US must necessarily be a signatory to its own acts and statutes.

... and the US is NOT a signatory to the 1967 UN protocol.

... and any applicable later revision of an earlier law supersedes that earlier law.

How much cognitive dissonance can you endure before comprehension rises in your eyes like the sun over a Pacific seascape?

Really....
States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol
The united States is listed as of Nov 01, 1968.

They were at the convention. That's what it says.

Where's the signature?

Now, you are just being ridiculous and willfully ignorant.

This conversation is over if you fail to understand how International Agreements work.


Swim in your ignorance....and welcome one of these "asylum seeker" families, and their aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc... into your home now.

Put up or shut up...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Krakatoa



No Gracias .....

Look like border agents are doing their jobs quite well then... Wouldn't you agree

a reply to: AtlasHawk

Yeah all the male migrants you mean are going to keep coming. Article from 2015 fails to mention that all migrants are all male.

Yes - men, women and children. It's only going to get worse - and I understand how this is probably going to go down

We each have to come to our own conclusions and make decisions based on how we see the world, and how we would like things to happen

I know where I stand. I feel comfortable with that

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
a reply to: chr0naut

The lessons we should learn from history have to be repeated for every new generation.

So what your saying that Europe and America should keep its borders open for so called migrants? whom which the majority of them are all men? and criminals? yeah sounds like a great idea and what a great idea of comparing whats happening to WW.

The majority are men but I doubt that the majority are criminals.

If there are criminals, then they should be rejected, and deported to the prosecuting authorities, on a case by case basis.

Because a just and fair government does not want to prosecute those who are innocent of a crime, just because there are bad guys around. A just and fair government prosecutes the criminals only, and with punishments that fit the crime.

Did you know that Hitler accused the Jews of all being criminals and sexual degenerates. He sent children and young mothers with babies to the gas chambers. Well he had to apply the final solution evenhandedly, didn't he?

Providing training and then sending them back to that country constitutes an act of war on our part.

The US has been doing it for decades. Although they are usually referred to as rebels.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

More "everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi" allusions and comparisons.

No, only the Nazi's.

Present your papers! Now.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Assassin82
Unfortunately I believe these invaders will be granted access across the border, with or without “asylum”, legally or illegally. There are too many people here (judges, politicians, socialists) who will make sure they’re seen as the great humanitarians who spited Trump and his followers and led the progressives to a great win for the world.

It saddens me to see people waving another country’s flag throwing rocks at our law enforcement agencies attempting to bypass the laws that govern the very land they want into to. It saddens me more that so many would willingly allow it to happen.

Preposterous statement, they will be vetted and processed...

Sure about that? The last time it was done you all made a huge stink about a fully furnished Walmart and caged children pics from 2014..

Fiip these people aren't shy hey.

They're taking it, like they owned it.

Desperation OK, but that behavior is self-entitled.

a reply to: chr0naut

Sorry I dont have time for idiocy like this.

a reply to: projectvxn

More "everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi" allusions and comparisons.

I understand why it bothers you

Doesn't make it any less valid. You tell yourself whatever you have to to sleep at night - and get as angry as you need to in public

I'm good with it

Just a metaphor, while glancing at this.

But that's a ravenous zombie horde from The Walking Dead.

How fiction precedes the truth.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
a reply to: chr0naut

The lessons we should learn from history have to be repeated for every new generation.

So what your saying that Europe and America should keep its borders open for so called migrants? whom which the majority of them are all men? and criminals? yeah sounds like a great idea and what a great idea of comparing whats happening to WW.

The majority are men but I doubt that the majority are criminals.

Look at the Honduran crime rates for your answer sport...

I assure you a decent amount are fleeing the authorities rather than hardship. Your moral posturing doesn't work on us.

Did you know that Hitler accused the Jews of all being criminals and sexual degenerates. He sent children and young mothers with babies to the gas chambers. Well he had to apply the final solution evenhandedly, didn't he?

Of course you'd pull the Hitler card...
Hitler also accused Jews of conspiring with other nations, rigging elections, and blowing up the Reichstag.

What's your point?

Do you not have a concept of national sovereignty?