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

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

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

So Far Yes . Just Hope Violence does not Escalate . No Mas ...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If violence escalates I'm sure the people whos job it is to secure the border will request help if they need it.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
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

So you're good with making idiotic comparisons?

Cool. Just wanna make sure to never take anything you post seriously again.

chr0naut
hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Why don't the two of you go find another website to troll, instead of ruining every thread you post to with all your lies and misinformed information you try and pass off as being truth. I'm being dead serious. People have corrected you on misinformation you're spreading and you go to another thread and start spewing the same exact lies and misinformation. It's pathetic and ignorant as hell.

Enough is enough. It is time for the Wall. A real wall, manned with our military. If you want to come in, do it legally, no if, ands, or buts.

Here you can get up to date with what these illegal economic migrants are doing, I don't agree to them storming the border and try to force their way in

twitter.com...

and

twitter.com...

originally posted by: mtnshredder
chr0naut
hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Why don't the two of you go find another website to troll, instead of ruining every thread you post to with all your lies and misinformed information you try and pass off as being truth. I'm being dead serious. People have corrected you on misinformation you're spreading and you go to another thread and start spewing the same exact lies and misinformation. It's pathetic and ignorant as hell.

The cookies and crayons are over in the corner, feel free to help yourself.

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: 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...

From www.humanrightsfirst.org... - (paragraph 3):

With the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. brought the refugee definition into our domestic law. The refugee definition is found at section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

The most recent US law (1980) supersedes the older (1967) UN law., in the US.

If the older law still held, it would be meaningless and ineffectual to amend or add anything to the law, because the older law would overrule the changes.

So, when they write up a new law, or make a change in existing law, it is the newer one that is in force, not the old one.

Ok. I seen women and children - women with children.
I have to ask - Where's daddy?
What kind of asylum are we talking about here?
Are these people able and willing to provide for their families?
Who is going to take care of the kids while mama is at work?
Can mom speak english? Have a degree?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's...
This is an emotional issue - highly emotional.
Logic is evaporated at the image of mom and the kids CS'd in the face.
Even though mom is the one that dragged the kids a thousand miles to break through a fence and meet Mr.CS Gas.

originally posted by: JAY1980

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...

But surely the crime rate in the US is worse. The incarceration rate in the US is the highest in the world, bar none.

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.

Gee, the similarities just keep coming.

What's your point?

Do you not have a concept of national sovereignty?

This, coming from the US, is the ultimate in irony.

The US wanders from conflict to conflict, shoring up its own position and pretending to be the world police.

Where is the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of other nations in that?

Pot calls kettle black?

a reply to: chr0naut

What is your vested interest in our immigration laws and procedures?

Why the hell do you care?

Mind your own business.

Edit:

Nevermind, you're part of the idiot duo that thinks Hitler comparisons in a policy discussion are appropriate.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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..

Ewwwwwww. I can smell the burn from that one. Jesus man. That was just pure savagery.

In any case. Great observation. But it will fall on deaf ears. As usual.

Just shoot the scum with live rounds.

a reply to: Phage

It is also the job of the unorganized militias. Want them to become involved? They tend not to have tear gas, though.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

What is your vested interest in our immigration laws and procedures?

Why the hell do you care?

Mind your own business.

Edit:

Nevermind, you're part of the idiot duo that thinks Hitler comparisons in a policy discussion are appropriate.

I've given up on this person. You can keep playing. I'm enjoying the mental gymnastics show.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

What is your vested interest in our immigration laws and procedures?

Why the hell do you care?

Mind your own business.

Edit:

Nevermind, you're part of the idiot duo that thinks Hitler comparisons in a policy discussion are appropriate.

When was the last time you spent the time for over 20 posts on the (de-)merits of a specific foreign country's immigration policies?

There is no shortage of people in foreign countries emotionally invested in making sure we repeat their mistakes for some reason or another.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

How can women and children seeking Asylum do this?

Just wait until the Venezuelans start arriving from the back.

Save us capitalism, please save us.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I appreciate your acknowledgment the borders should be secured and these people kept out and not allowed to charge in.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

What is your vested interest in our immigration laws and procedures?

Why the hell do you care?

Mind your own business.

Edit:

Nevermind, you're part of the idiot duo that thinks Hitler comparisons in a policy discussion are appropriate.

This is a public forum where topics we find interesting and/or important can be debated. Need I say more?