Black Sunday

[fredtoast]

(11-26-2018, 10:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes thank you, couldn't remember the exact date, but I said it in advance, and what was your response again??

At as to the second part of your thread, I didn't expect them and neither did many others for them to arrive as quickly as they did at the border. I think everyone understands that part.

Uh, your comments from 11-8 were 100% wrong

(11-08-2018, 07:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Mexico is getting super sensitive and doing everything they can to prove Trump wrong, but in reality, Trump wins again!! Cause they did exactly what he wanted in the first place and that was for them to accept the immigrants instead of passing them on to us.

[Benton]

(11-27-2018, 12:58 AM)Beaker Wrote: Its fine to want to come here. But the legal way, not rushing the border en masse. 

Ok. That's fine, but not really what you said.

[Benton]

(11-27-2018, 01:24 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Just curious, but is leaving poverty a legitimate legal reason for asylum? I always assumed requesting asylum was because of political, religious, or etc. persecution.

Anyways I dont have any issue with how this is being handled. I don't like Trump, but that doesn't mean I want 1000s of people to just stream across our border. Think about the message that would send to the millions in poverty in the Americas, by just letting them all in. I guess I must be racist because eff that. If they want in, get in line like everyone else around the world has to. Not our fault their countries are crapholes.

To the question, not really.  Not that I'm familiar with.

Still not a good practice to shoot tear gas at people though.

[Dill]

(11-27-2018, 01:24 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Just curious, but is leaving poverty a legitimate legal reason for asylum? I always assumed requesting asylum was because of political, religious, or etc. persecution.

Anyways I dont have any issue with how this is being handled. I don't like Trump, but that doesn't mean I want 1000s of people to just stream across our border. Think about the message that would send to the millions in poverty in the Americas, by just letting them all in. I guess I must be racist because eff that. If they want in, get in line like everyone else around the world has to. Not our fault their countries are crapholes.

No.

What message has Trump been sending those millions in poverty, and how has it affected the flow of refugees to the border?

[Millhouse]

(11-27-2018, 01:52 AM)Benton Wrote: To the question, not really.  Not that I'm familiar with.

Still not a good practice to shoot tear gas at people though.

I got tear gassed once at OSU, wasn't fun though for an hour or two. But at least they didn't get shot, so there is that.

Oh can I make fun of the title of this thread? I thought maybe the op got Sunday and last Friday confused.

[Dill]

(11-26-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your unbiased play by play aside. I never mentioned anything about closing down the borders; I mentioned about people entering the country illegally. So you, Dill, and the rest of "we" can assert he didn't introduce a stance I didn't make; but it's exactly what happened.

What to discuss the merits of closing the border, feel free. But don't say someone is defending it because they don't want folks entering illegally, unless you want to introduce an argument never made.  So be careful Liberal when you want to accuse someone of "flat out lying".

What Dino demonstrated was 1) that I said defending those who protect the laws was the "best defense" of a choice to shut down the border.
And 2) that you converted my statement to a claim that "shutting down the border was the best choice."

Then you called the claim I never made a "red herring"; and, posted my claim about the best defense of Trump's border closing alongside my denial I ever said you thought closing the border was "the best choice," and aggrieved, told me to "enjoy my conversation."

Instead of garbling arguments, why not explain why or how, in defending those who "protect the laws," you could not at all defending Trump's choice to close down the borders?

[Dill]

(11-26-2018, 09:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Provide links to backing your data please. Preferably from the USCIS Website.
I want to see this because for the 1st quarter 2018, I see almost 30k. So I want to be clear we are talking about the same thing.
It takes about 6 months to process one, so they have a 6 month lag.

My data comes from an Oct 1 C-span presentation by a Cornell historian who works on immigration history.
Her name is Maria Christina Garcia: https://www.c-span.org/person/?mariacristinagarcia

Here is the link to her presentation. Click on 22:00 and you will hear her citing the figures I gave. Better yet, listen to the whole thing from the beginning.  It provides an overview of the history of immigration/asylum law, changing definitions, and the like.

U.S. Cold War Refugee Policy
https://www.c-span.org/video/?452255-1/us-cold-war-refugee-policy

Could you maybe provide a link to that 30k for the first quarter of 2018?

[Dill]

(11-26-2018, 11:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Or FDR.  Just sayin’

Hmmm. FDR, who did not run on a "Japanese ban," interned Japanese during a war with Japan.

Trump, who ran on a Muslim ban (and a wall) favors internment camps in peace time.

I do see some daylight between them. But even if there is not, most now think the internment was a black spot on an otherwise great presidency.

FDR or Hitler, we don't want to go that way. (I know you agree with that lol.)

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 01:03 AM)Beaker Wrote: I used the words overwhelm and invasion because that's what they are trying to do currently. And it is legal to seek asylum. Just like its legal to come to your front door and ask to be let in. But as soon as they try to push their way past you into your house because they are frustrated you won't let them in it becomes illegal. Just like at the border. At that point, the border guards should be allowed to prevent them from crossing as necessary.

And Trump has said before he is ok with immigrants coming to this country legally through proper channels. I can't stand Trump, but I gotta agree with him on that. They can come through proper channels, but not illegally.

And what happened was that Trump stopped allowing them to even ask.

And then a few (some?) tried to get around the closed checkpoint.

He has also said he'd close the entire southern border.  I wonder what is different between THOSE immigrants seeking to enter legally and the rest? 

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 02:19 AM)Dill Wrote: What Dino demonstrated was 1) that I said defending those who protect the laws was the "best defense" of a choice to shut down the border.
And 2) that you converted my statement to a claim that "shutting down the border was the best choice."

Then you called the claim I never made a "red herring"; and, posted my claim about the best defense of Trump's border closing alongside my denial I ever said you thought closing the border was "the best choice," and aggrieved, told me to "enjoy my conversation."

Instead of garbling arguments, why not explain why or how, in defending those who "protect the laws," you could not at all defending Trump's choice to close down the borders?

So by employing the best defense of shutting down the wall, I was not asserting it was the best choice? Roll with it. Bottom line you introduced an argument I was not making. Closed border or not, to responsible for any actions taken when folks attempt to cross illegally are those that are attempting to cross illegally. 

Anything else is the best defense to support lawlessness. See how it works? 

[Dill]

(11-27-2018, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So by employing the best defense of shutting down the wall, I was not asserting it was the best choice? Roll with it. Bottom line you introduced an argument I was not making. Closed border or not, to responsible for any actions taken when folks attempt to cross illegally are those that are attempting to cross illegally. 

Anything else is the best defense to support lawlessness. See how it works? 

Jeezus.  No. My argument assumes that, when defending Trump policies, you just have to go with what he gives you--in this case more border chaos and gassed children. Doesn't mean that you think gassing children is good, but you have to go with "the law" and it is the (un)soundness of that assumption which I address.

Bottom line, I made an inference about an argument you made. Which is what people do in arguments.
You went south when you claimed I made an inference about an argument you didn't make.  Stop rolling with that.

And questioning the application of military/police force to unarmed civilians (in this case also lobbing teargas into another country, violating its sovereignty) is one of the mainstays of democratic process. You don't get to do that in dictatorships. That's why we have Miranda rights, and why police cannot legally shoot unarmed suspects in the back, and why police departments and the government can be sued.

So in a liberal democracy, it is indeed possible that a state may use unnecessary force against civilians, citizens or not. In which case, even if the civilians are guilty of a misdemeanor (border crossing), those who "protect the law" may be at fault for inappropriate use of force. 

So no, I am not impressed by your side-with-the-law-whatever-it-does-to-whomever position.

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So by employing the best defense of shutting down the wall, I was not asserting it was the best choice? Roll with it. Bottom line you introduced an argument I was not making. Closed border or not, to responsible for any actions taken when folks attempt to cross illegally are those that are attempting to cross illegally. 

Anything else is the best defense to support lawlessness. See how it works? 

https://youtu.be/dwm-80q42I0

[*bfine32*]

I blame the fence repairs

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/migrant-mom-impaled-front-her-children-falling-border-115803192--abc-news-topstories.html

Quote:A migrant mom was impaled in front of her children over the weekend while attempting to climb a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, authorities said.

The 26-year-old Guatemalan native was trying to scale a fence near the San Ysidro Port of Entry, a crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, on Friday when she fell and impaled herself on pieces of rebar, according to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officials.

If we weren't concerned with fortifying our border this lady would have never hurt herself in front of her kids.

[Belsnickel]

(11-26-2018, 06:38 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Chemical Attack: Calling tear gas a "chemical attack" is obviously an attempt to put it in the same category as Assad using lethal chemicals that can kill hundreds, which have long been described as chemical attacks. In that case, the US has been having "chemical attacks" every time a Philadelphia sports team wins or loses a big game and riots. The US Government also "chemical attacks" everyone who goes through basic training, including 17-year-old minors.

I just wanted to address this: tear gas is a chemical attack. It is classified as such in the Geneva Conventions.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 04:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just wanted to address this: tear gas is a chemical attack. It is classified as such in the Geneva Conventions.

But was the use in this instance an attack? 

[Belsnickel]

(11-27-2018, 04:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But was the use in this instance an attack? 

Depends on how you define the word.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 04:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Depends on how you define the word.

That's why I stated "in this instance" to narrow the scope and use o the word. But hell, let's try this instead of resorting to Websters:

Do you feel the tear gas was deployed as an offensive manner (attack) or as a controlling measure? Because from what I read that determines if it is classified as a chemical weapon or simply a riot control agent.  

Or we can both just agree that folks will use the term chemical attack to try to place blame?

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's why I stated "in this instance" to narrow the scope and use o the word. But hell, let's try this instead of resorting to Websters:

Do you feel the tear gas was deployed as an offensive manner (attack) or as a controlling measure? Because from what I read that determines if it is classified as a chemical weapon or simply a riot control agent.  

Or we can both just agree that folks will use the term chemical attack to try to place blame?

Glad you're NOT defending the use of tear gas.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 05:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Glad you're NOT defending the use of tear gas.

Where the hell did I say I didn't defend the use of tear gas? 

[Belsnickel]

(11-27-2018, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's why I stated "in this instance" to narrow the scope and use o the word. But hell, let's try this instead of resorting to Websters:

Do you feel the tear gas was deployed as an offensive manner (attack) or as a controlling measure? Because from what I read that determines if it is classified as a chemical weapon or simply a riot control agent.  

Or we can both just agree that folks will use the term chemical attack to try to place blame?

Personally, I don't see what difference that makes in whether or not it is a chemical weapon. It is a chemical weapon whether or not it is used in riot control or offensively because it is a chemical that has been weaponized. Trying to split hairs based upon how it is used is nothing more than trying to justify actions that are less than appealing and questionable morally and/or legally.