In article <tgddnt$1622$1@gioia.aioe.org>, davidjohnston29@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 2022-09-19 10:27 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> RichA wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 15:44:27 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>> Don't believe your eyes, believe what I say. - Kamala Harris
>>>>> KAMALA (just days ago): "The border is secure."
>>>>>
>>>>> Except:
>>>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1570395563908124673/vid/720x406/UHnt5iObM7IksvPv.mp4?tag=14
>>>>>
>>>>> ILLEGAL ALIEN: "The border is open. The border is open because we
>>>>> entered illegally."
>>>>
>>>> Count the days before Biden brings in a law keeping them from being bussed
>>>> from Texas or Florida to left-liberal enclaves.
>>>
>>> There are already laws against kidnapping people.
>>
>> Which would be relevant if anyone was being kidnapped here.
>
>Did those people agree to being taken to the place they were being taken
>to?

Yes. There was paperwork (in Spanish and English) that they signed, along
with brochures from MA on how to get welfare and assistance once they arrived.

--
Let's go Brandon!

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <tge1vj$ea8v$1@solani.org>, suzee@imbris.com wrote:
> On 9/20/2022 3:43 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-09-20 4:20 p.m., suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 9/20/2022 3:10 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-19 10:27 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <tga4g6$1u8j$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>>>>   David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-09-19 2:37 a.m., RichA wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 15:44:27 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>>>>> Don't believe your eyes, believe what I say. - Kamala Harris
>>>>>>>> KAMALA (just days ago): "The border is secure."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except:
>>>>>>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1570395563908124673/vid/720x406/UHnt5iObM7IksvPv.mp4?tag=14
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ILLEGAL ALIEN: "The border is open. The border is open because we
>>>>>>>> entered illegally."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Count the days before Biden brings in a law keeping them from being bussed
>>>>>>> from Texas or Florida to left-liberal enclaves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are already laws against kidnapping people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which would be relevant if anyone was being kidnapped here.
>>>>
>>>> Did those people agree to being taken to the place they were being
>>>> taken to?
>>>
>>> Probably, though they were told they were going to Boston.
>>
>> But they were not in fact taken to Boston.
>
>They were lied to.

Wrong.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
><kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>>>> asylum status.
>>>
>>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>>>
>> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>> for years or to kill them.
>
>Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
>country and broke its laws to get in.

There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
proof of such a threat.

>Oh, and people massing at the border are not being 'uprooted from their lives'
>if they're turned around and deported the moment they cross over illegally.
>

That's different from the people in the Martha's Vineyards discussion
who crossed into the country legally.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:10:05 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>><kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>Oh, and people massing at the border are not being 'uprooted from their lives'
>>if they're turned around and deported the moment they cross over illegally.
>>
>
>That's different from the people in the Martha's Vineyards discussion
>who crossed into the country legally.

As I've said multiple times why would anybody attempt to cross a wall
when they could just enter the country legally then overstay their
visa? (which is when they become illegal)

In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
> ><kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>
> >>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
> >>>> asylum status.
> >>>
> >>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
> >>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
> >>>
> >> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
> >> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
> >> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
> >> for years or to kill them.
> >
> >Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
> >country and broke its laws to get in.
>
> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
> proof of such a threat.

"Sure they may have lied..."

That breaks several laws right there.

> > Oh, and people massing at the border are not being 'uprooted from their
> >lives' if they're turned around and deported the moment they cross over
> > illegally.
> >
> That's different from the people in the Martha's Vineyards discussion
> who crossed into the country legally.

Those people weren't uprooted from their lives, either, nor were they
deported.

On 9/23/2022 12:34 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
> <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>>>> asylum status.
>>>
>>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>>>
>> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>> for years or to kill them.
>
> Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
> country and broke its laws to get in.
> ...

Or... they *did* think of it, but were desperate.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>proof of such a threat.

You just contradicted yourself within that paragraph. You just admitted
to being aware that no atrocities were being committed against them and
that they are knowingly making false asylum claims. That means you
actually know that laws have been broken.

There's no right to seek asylum if one hasn't truly been subjected to an
atrocity.

shawn, stop digging your own grave deeper.

>>. . .

On 9/23/2022 10:01 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:10:05 -0400, shawn
> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>>> <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Oh, and people massing at the border are not being 'uprooted from their lives'
>>> if they're turned around and deported the moment they cross over illegally.
>>>
>>
>> That's different from the people in the Martha's Vineyards discussion
>> who crossed into the country legally.
>
> As I've said multiple times why would anybody attempt to cross a wall
> when they could just enter the country legally then overstay their
> visa? (which is when they become illegal)
>
The problem may be getting that visa in the first place.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:03:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>> ><kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>> >>>> asylum status.
>> >>>
>> >>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>> >>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>> >>>
>> >> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>> >> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>> >> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>> >> for years or to kill them.
>> >
>> >Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
>> >country and broke its laws to get in.
>>
>> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>> proof of such a threat.
>
>"Sure they may have lied..."
>
>That breaks several laws right there.

Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally. Just
like I know that you've broken the speed limit before but without
proof that you've broken the law there's no possibility of punishment.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:18:02 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>>. . .
>
>>There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>>lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>>home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>>proof of such a threat.
>
>You just contradicted yourself within that paragraph. You just admitted
>to being aware that no atrocities were being committed against them and
>that they are knowingly making false asylum claims. That means you
>actually know that laws have been broken.

No, I was playing along with BTR that some may have lied but we (the
public) certainly can't know if any of them lied. That's supposedly
what their court date would help resolve.

>There's no right to seek asylum if one hasn't truly been subjected to an
>atrocity.
>
>shawn, stop digging your own grave deeper.

Only when you stop lying about what I've said. You are smart enough to
read and understand what I said but it seems you always want to read
something negative into it that wasn't there. I don't see anyone else
doing that so it doesn't seem to be what I've written.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:03:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, kensi wrote:
>>>>>On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>>>>>>>asylum status.

>>>>>>That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>>>>>>not if it's just going to lead to deportation.

>>>>>Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>>>>>God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>>>>>should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>>>>>for years or to kill them.

>>>>Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
>>>>country and broke its laws to get in.

>>>There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>>>lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>>>home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>>>proof of such a threat.

>>"Sure they may have lied..."

>>That breaks several laws right there.

>Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally. Just
>like I know that you've broken the speed limit before but without
>proof that you've broken the law there's no possibility of punishment.

That's not how it works. That's not how anything works.

It's a lie. Period. No equivocation. It's illegal to commit fraud in
making an asylum claim. Such people making fraudulent asylum claims are
illegal aliens, illegally present in the United States who have
knowingly broken U.S. law.

There's no such thing as "It's a lie only if it's been exposed."

In article <EKlXK.489284$Ny99.118052@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 9/23/2022 12:34 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
> > <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>
> >>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
> >>>> asylum status.
> >>>
> >>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
> >>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
> >>>
> >> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
> >> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
> >> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
> >> for years or to kill them.
> >
> > Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
> > country and broke its laws to get in.
> > ...
>
> Or... they *did* think of it, but were desperate.

Being 'desperate' doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to obey the
law, especially of a country that you want to take you in.

In article <5jsrih10mki8bmbj5m96828p7lbpcef164@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:03:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
> > shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
> >> ><kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
> >> >>>> asylum status.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
> >> >>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
> >> >>>
> >> >> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
> >> >> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
> >> >> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
> >> >> for years or to kill them.
> >> >
> >> >Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
> >> >country and broke its laws to get in.
> >>
> >> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
> >> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
> >> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
> >> proof of such a threat.
> >
> >"Sure they may have lied..."
> >
> >That breaks several laws right there.
>
> Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally.

Which is a problem when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that two
million people aren't legitimate refugees. They're economic migrants who
are exploiting a loophole in a treaty and we're just letting it happen
because one party is heavily invested in importing as many 3rd-worlders
as possible for political advantage.

If the law is allowing the United States to be punked on massive and
unprecedented scale, then that law needs to be shit-canned and a new one
put in place that allows us to actually control our own borders.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:18:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>>>lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>>>home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>>>proof of such a threat.

>>You just contradicted yourself within that paragraph. You just admitted
>>to being aware that no atrocities were being committed against them and
>>that they are knowingly making false asylum claims. That means you
>>actually know that laws have been broken.

>No, I was playing along with BTR that some may have lied but we (the
>public) certainly can't know if any of them lied. That's supposedly
>what their court date would help resolve.

Again, that's an admission despite the equivocal language.

In the absense of news reports of atrocities that would lend themselves
to widespread asylum claims from citizens of those Central American
countries, yes, the general public can indeed infer that huge numbers of
asylum claims being made by people emigrating from those countries are
without merit if not downright fraudulent.

>>There's no right to seek asylum if one hasn't truly been subjected to an
>>atrocity.

>>shawn, stop digging your own grave deeper.

>Only when you stop lying about what I've said. You are smart enough to
>read and understand what I said but it seems you always want to read
>something negative into it that wasn't there. I don't see anyone else
>doing that so it doesn't seem to be what I've written.

No one lied about what you said, shawn. You added equivocations because
your argument was weak.

"I just can't know the facts in a specific instance nor in aggregate"
is NOT a legitimate argument for you to make to challenge anyone else's
assertion that there is such widespread abuse of the process of seeking
asylum that the asylum system is rendered useless for anyone who actually
suffered from an atrocity and is therefore emigrating in fear for his
own life.

A political prisoner or someone tortured by government to set an example
to others similarly situated, or widespread ethnic cleansing, or
political violence orchestrated by government are examples of what might
be legitimate asylum claims.

The asylum system is a safety valve against the worst of the worst, to
prevent systematic violence led by government to purge society of an
ethnic or religious group or some sort of "other". Ethnic cleansing,
rape, and murder, systematic torture, are tools used by government.

The asylum system must exist.

Usenet's getting it from both sides at the moment, isn't it. There's
your nonsense and Rich's over-the-top anti-Semitic nonsense implying
that Germany is thriving 'cuz no Jews and Jews as targets of century
after century after century of scapegoating 'cuz they deserve to be the
scapegoat during given era.

Ken Burns just made a documentary which didn't do a very good job
arguing WHY there was no asylum offered to Jews in the 1930s in most
countries. Heh. Jews got asylum in a few countries that were shortly
overrun by the German invasion.

We've got no working asylum system right now, shawn, and you are
willfully blind to this.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <5jsrih10mki8bmbj5m96828p7lbpcef164@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:03:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
>> > shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>> >> ><kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>> >> >>>> asylum status.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>> >> >>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>> >> >> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>> >> >> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>> >> >> for years or to kill them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
>> >> >country and broke its laws to get in.
>> >>
>> >> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>> >> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>> >> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>> >> proof of such a threat.
>> >
>> >"Sure they may have lied..."
>> >
>> >That breaks several laws right there.
>>
>> Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally.
>
>Which is a problem when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that two
>million people aren't legitimate refugees.

Asylum seekers, not refugees

A refugee is a displaced person due to natural or manmade disaster and
isn't claiming to be the target of systematic atrocities orchestrated by
government.

>They're economic migrants who
>are exploiting a loophole in a treaty and we're just letting it happen
>because one party is heavily invested in importing as many 3rd-worlders
>as possible for political advantage.

>If the law is allowing the United States to be punked on massive and
>unprecedented scale, then that law needs to be shit-canned and a new one
>put in place that allows us to actually control our own borders.

I really wish you'd stop saying this. There's no reason to give in to
those working to shut down the asylum system.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 13:54:43 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally. Just
>like I know that you've broken the speed limit before but without
>proof that you've broken the law there's no possibility of punishment.

Not true - if they were here legally there would be no reason for a
hearing to determine that.

Whether the evidence bears out the claims is what the hearing is for.
It's NOT "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and the burden of evidence
is not on the state to disprove they're in peril.

In article <tgl024$2k708$2@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article <5jsrih10mki8bmbj5m96828p7lbpcef164@4ax.com>,
> > shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:03:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
> >> > shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
> >> >> ><kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to
> >> >> >>>> seek asylum status.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges
> >> >> >>> but not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them
> >> >> >> to God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
> >> >> >> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone
> >> >> >> up for years or to kill them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a
> >> >> >foreign country and broke its laws to get in.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
> >> >> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
> >> >> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
> >> >> proof of such a threat.
> >> >
> >> >"Sure they may have lied..."
> >> >
> >> >That breaks several laws right there.
> >>
> >> Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally.
> >
> >Which is a problem when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that two
> >million people aren't legitimate refugees.
>
> Asylum seekers, not refugees
>
> A refugee is a displaced person due to natural or manmade disaster and
> isn't claiming to be the target of systematic atrocities orchestrated by
> government.
>
> >They're economic migrants who
> >are exploiting a loophole in a treaty and we're just letting it happen
> >because one party is heavily invested in importing as many 3rd-worlders
> >as possible for political advantage.
>
> >If the law is allowing the United States to be punked on a massive and
> >unprecedented scale, then that law needs to be shit-canned and a new one
> >put in place that allows us to actually control our own borders.
>
> I really wish you'd stop saying this. There's no reason to give in to
> those working to shut down the asylum system.

Sorry, but the damage being done is too great to allow this nonsense to
continue.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>It's a lie. Period. No equivocation. It's illegal to commit fraud in
>making an asylum claim. Such people making fraudulent asylum claims are
>illegal aliens, illegally present in the United States who have
>knowingly broken U.S. law.
>
>There's no such thing as "It's a lie only if it's been exposed."

The difference being that the penalty is deportation not imprisonment.
Nobody's going to Gitmo for this.

On 9/23/2022 2:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <EKlXK.489284$Ny99.118052@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2022 12:34 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>>> <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>>>>>> asylum status.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>>>>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>>>>>
>>>> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>>>> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>>>> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>>>> for years or to kill them.
>>>
>>> Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
>>> country and broke its laws to get in.
>>> ...
>>
>> Or... they *did* think of it, but were desperate.
>
> Being 'desperate' doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to obey the
> law, especially of a country that you want to take you in.

No, nothing relieves you of that responsibility ...although
circumstances may occasionally force you to override it.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <tgl024$2k708$2@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >In article <5jsrih10mki8bmbj5m96828p7lbpcef164@4ax.com>,
>> > shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:03:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
>> >> > shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>> >> >> ><kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to
>> >> >> >>>> seek asylum status.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges
>> >> >> >>> but not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them
>> >> >> >> to God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>> >> >> >> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone
>> >> >> >> up for years or to kill them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a
>> >> >> >foreign country and broke its laws to get in.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>> >> >> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>> >> >> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>> >> >> proof of such a threat.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Sure they may have lied..."
>> >> >
>> >> >That breaks several laws right there.
>> >>
>> >> Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally.
>> >
>> >Which is a problem when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that two
>> >million people aren't legitimate refugees.
>>
>> Asylum seekers, not refugees
>>
>> A refugee is a displaced person due to natural or manmade disaster and
>> isn't claiming to be the target of systematic atrocities orchestrated by
>> government.
>>
>> >They're economic migrants who
>> >are exploiting a loophole in a treaty and we're just letting it happen
>> >because one party is heavily invested in importing as many 3rd-worlders
>> >as possible for political advantage.
>>
>> >If the law is allowing the United States to be punked on a massive and
>> >unprecedented scale, then that law needs to be shit-canned and a new one
>> >put in place that allows us to actually control our own borders.
>>
>> I really wish you'd stop saying this. There's no reason to give in to
>> those working to shut down the asylum system.
>
>Sorry, but the damage being done is too great to allow this nonsense to
>continue.

I agree with you that the system is fucked up. Well, un-fuck it up. Do
not destroy it.

Divert the ones with obviously fraudulent asylum claims into a completely
different process and leave those who were truly on the receiving end of
atrocities the ability to have their claims adjudicated.

On 9/23/2022 12:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>>> <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>>>>>> asylum status.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>>>>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>>>>>
>>>> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>>>> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>>>> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>>>> for years or to kill them.
>>>
>>> Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
>>> country and broke its laws to get in.
>>
>> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>> proof of such a threat.
>
> "Sure they may have lied..."
>
> That breaks several laws right there.

Especially if you're referring to DeathSantis.

On 9/23/2022 12:08 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 12:34 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>> <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>>>   shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to
>>>>> seek
>>>>>   asylum status.
>>>>   That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal
>>>> charges but
>>>>   not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>>>>
>>> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>>> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>>> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>>> for years or to kill them.
>>
>> Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a
>> foreign
>> country and broke its laws to get in.
>> ...
>
> Or... they *did* think of it, but were desperate.

Or you're lame for even giving him the time of day when he's lying out
his ass like this. He's just trying to deflect from the crimes
DeathSantis committed.

On 9/23/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <EKlXK.489284$Ny99.118052@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2022 12:34 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>>> <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>>>>>> asylum status.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>>>>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>>>>>
>>>> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>>>> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>>>> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>>>> for years or to kill them.
>>>
>>> Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
>>> country and broke its laws to get in.
>>> ...
>>
>> Or... they *did* think of it, but were desperate.
>
> Being 'desperate' doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to obey the
> law, especially of a country that you want to take you in.

Horseshit alert. The law was broken when they were kidnapped by
inveiglement. If you still had your testicles you'd be able to
acknowledge this.

On 9/23/2022 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <5jsrih10mki8bmbj5m96828p7lbpcef164@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:03:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>>>>> <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to seek
>>>>>>>> asylum status.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges but
>>>>>>> not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them to
>>>>>> God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>>>>>> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone up
>>>>>> for years or to kill them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a foreign
>>>>> country and broke its laws to get in.
>>>>
>>>> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>>>> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>>>> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>>>> proof of such a threat.
>>>
>>> "Sure they may have lied..."
>>>
>>> That breaks several laws right there.
>>
>> Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally.
>
> Which is a problem when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that two
> million people aren't legitimate refugees.

Horseshit alert, this is just the white supremacists' narrative.

Venezuelans are the epitome of those seeking political asylum.

On 9/23/2022 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tgl024$2k708$2@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <5jsrih10mki8bmbj5m96828p7lbpcef164@4ax.com>,
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:03:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <jsbrih9pdtvldke3ktag8uf9pl4su25l6r@4ax.com>,
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 04:34:35 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM PDT, "kensi"
>>>>>>> <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-09-22 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless someone can come forth with proof that any of them lied to
>>>>>>>>>> seek asylum status.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's required if the government wishes to pursue criminal charges
>>>>>>>>> but not if it's just going to lead to deportation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deportation means uprooting someone from their life and exiling them
>>>>>>>> to God knows where. If you ask me, that's sufficiently severe that it
>>>>>>>> should require the same burden of proof as is needed to lock someone
>>>>>>>> up for years or to kill them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then they should have thought about that before they traveled to a
>>>>>>> foreign country and broke its laws to get in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's been no laws broken as far as we know. Sure, they may have
>>>>>> lied about there being some sort of threat to their lives in their
>>>>>> home country but at this point I don't think anyone has asked for any
>>>>>> proof of such a threat.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sure they may have lied..."
>>>>>
>>>>> That breaks several laws right there.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but without proof of their lying they are here legally.
>>>
>>> Which is a problem when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that two
>>> million people aren't legitimate refugees.
>>
>> Asylum seekers, not refugees
>>
>> A refugee is a displaced person due to natural or manmade disaster and
>> isn't claiming to be the target of systematic atrocities orchestrated by
>> government.
>>
>>> They're economic migrants who
>>> are exploiting a loophole in a treaty and we're just letting it happen
>>> because one party is heavily invested in importing as many 3rd-worlders
>>> as possible for political advantage.
>>
>>> If the law is allowing the United States to be punked on a massive and
>>> unprecedented scale, then that law needs to be shit-canned and a new one
>>> put in place that allows us to actually control our own borders.
>>
>> I really wish you'd stop saying this. There's no reason to give in to
>> those working to shut down the asylum system.
>
> Sorry, but the damage being done is too great to allow this nonsense to
> continue.

More outright horseshitting by Eunuch Derp.