Supreme Court: The Wall Can Go Foward...

[Mountain Man]

"Asylum is mostly intended for victims of war." is incorrect - you corrected yourself. High five! You should thank Seer.

The go to the embassy argument is a non-started for people that are being persecuted and need to flee. But a good way to round people up, just stand in front of the embassy with a net.

I said "mostly", not "exclusively", you dinner.

And a US embassy can provide temporary protection while their case for asylum is processed. Surely that's far preferable to crossing the border into Mexico, refusing sanctuary, and then dragging young children across thousands of miles of dangerous country just so you can illegally enter the US.

[seer]

I see. Still doesn't make the plan any less moronic to people genuinely fleeing government persecution.

Your opinion is meaningless...

[Zara]

I said "mostly", not "exclusively", you dinner.

And a US embassy can provide temporary protection while their case for asylum is processed. Surely that's far preferable to crossing the border into Mexico, refusing sanctuary, and then dragging young children across thousands of miles of dangerous country just so you can illegally enter the US.

I'm glad we have the definition rather than your spin.

Right, temporary protection from someone standing in front of it with a net. Again, it seems like a good way to round people up - or make it impractical for people to ask for asylum in the US. Some of whom are genuine refugees seeking to escape persecution.

[Zara]

Your opinion is meaningless...

Aww, that's cute. It still doesn't make it any less moronic.

Anyone with more than half a brain cell will see it as moronic. Many of whom are also not keen on economic refugees. Just another reason to laugh at the US.

[Mountain Man]

I said "mostly", not "exclusively", you dinner.

From this point forward, "dinner" will be regarded as an insult!

(Stupid autocorrect didn't know I meant "dimwit". )

[Mountain Man]

I'm glad we have the definition rather than your spin.

Right, temporary protection from someone standing in front of it with a net. Again, it seems like a good way to round people up - or make it impractical for people to ask for asylum in the US. Some of whom are genuine refugees seeking to escape persecution.

Serious question: are you a young teenager, or do you just debate like one? I feel like I'm arguing with my 15-year old.

[Zara]

Serious question: are you a young teenager, or do you just debate like one? I feel like I'm arguing with my 15-year old.

Did you even graduate from high school. Seriously, some of your responses have been so poor that one has to wonder.

[Mountain Man]

Did you even graduate from high school. Seriously, some of your responses have been so poor that one has to wonder.

I see I struck a nerve. That pretty much confirms my suspicions.

[Zara]

I see I struck a nerve. That pretty much confirms my suspicions.

You really didn't. That you think you did, speaks about your general lack of awareness.

I don't respect you MM. You're just too dumb and craven compared to other posters here. That's why my comments to you are so disrespectful. I am just giving back what you do to others. You are kinda pathetic in a sad way. But that's alright, not everyone can help how they are made. You can, which is what makes it so sad.

[RumTumTugger]

That has little to do with what is moronic about "Trump is setting it up so they can apply for asylum IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY." Which is by definition, moronic.

Zara not everyone who wait for the caravans in Guatemala are from Guatemala they are from other countries some are even from Africa, Guatemala is the meeting place for where the caravan starts from. so no Trump is not saying they have to apply for asylum in Guatemala he is saying they should apply in Guatemala or Mexico.

[Zara]

Zara not everyone who wait for the caravans in Guatemala are from Guatemala they are from other countries some are even from Africa, Guatemala is the meeting place for where the caravan starts from. so no Trump is not saying they have to apply for asylum in thier home country he is saying they should apply in their Guatemala or Mexico.

Fine.

[Cow Poke]

I said "mostly", not "exclusively", you dinner.

I must say I find this curious.

I have never heard "dinner" used as an insult. In fact, "Call me anything you want, as long as you don't call me late for dinner".

[RumTumTugger]

Fine.

so what is your beef Zara he is saying they can still apply for asylum in US. but that they are not allowed to make the thousands of miles dangerous trek to apply just apply in the first safe place that has an agreement with the U.S. to give a temporary place of safety for them to wait.

[Zara]

so what is your beef Zara he is saying they can still apply for asylum in US. but that they are not allowed to make the thousands of miles dangerous trek to apply just apply in the first safe place that has an agreement with the U.S. to give a temporary place of safety for them to wait.

My beef is the belief that the first safe place to apply is IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. That is, moronic, by definition almost. The second issue is whether an embassy is actually able to provide these services, they certainly cannot protect people for any length of time - particularly if the person faces persecution if they are sent back to their country (i.e., outside the embassy). My third concern is whether the third countries that absorb these people are sufficiently safe / able to support people to actually wait out the process - which can last months to years. Many countries in the region already hold significant numbers of refugees from the region, this is troubling for the long-term stability of the region.

[Teallaura]

I wonder how much evidence you've actually looked into regarding what is happening in some of these countries. Here is one article of people that would meet the US criteria for a group persecuted by the government: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/10/...utal-crackdown Some of these countries are so heavily destabalised it is not even clear if criminal gangs aren't just extensions of the government's extrajudicial activity.

I could find more evidence, if you like, that there are genuine refugees fleeing from these countries due to persecution for their beliefs.

MM already covered this - but no, this isn't the basis for asylum. Now, as for refugee status - no, still not there.