So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[Ibanez]

Mexico is not currently considered a "safe third country."

Trump is trying to change that - part of his negotiations with Mexico on immigration.
https://time.com/5604189/donald-trump-m ... d-country/

But, I'm not saying whether he should or should not be granted asylum. I don't have all the facts one way or the other.

I'm saying he requested it appropriately.

They're being treated as inhumanely as possible as a deterrence. That's immoral, imo. Was curious of Hen's (or anyone else's) take.

The policy is inhumane. But it seems you keep forgetting that there are other countries, closer to Romania, that he could've taken his family.

[Ivytalk]

Mexico is not currently considered a "safe third country."

Trump is trying to change that - part of his negotiations with Mexico on immigration.
https://time.com/5604189/donald-trump-m ... d-country/

But, I'm not saying whether he should or should not be granted asylum. I don't have all the facts one way or the other.

I'm saying he requested it appropriately.

They're being treated as inhumanely as possible as a deterrence. That's immoral, imo. Was curious of Hen's (or anyone else's) take.

Aha! Time for a new siggy!

[GannonFan]

Mexico is not currently considered a "safe third country."

Trump is trying to change that - part of his negotiations with Mexico on immigration.
https://time.com/5604189/donald-trump-m ... d-country/

But, I'm not saying whether he should or should not be granted asylum. I don't have all the facts one way or the other.

I'm saying he requested it appropriately.

They're being treated as inhumanely as possible as a deterrence. That's immoral, imo. Was curious of Hen's (or anyone else's) take.

The policy is inhumane. But it seems you keep forgetting that there are other countries, closer to Romania, that he could've taken his family.

Well, in their defense, the Roma have been persecuted in enlightened Europe for, well, pretty much forever, so Europe is out. Couldn't go east from there, that's just Russia, the Middle East, and China, and they would never tolerate gypsies, with the latter not even able to tolerate anyone who's not ethnically clean. Africa has a one-way sign that points out of the continent. And South America and Central America are way too unstable. So really the only safe havens left in the world would be the US or Canada. Maybe Australia too.

[CID1990]

And, they requested it on apprehension INSIDE the US.

They requested it at an immigration checkpoint on the foot bridge between Mexico and the US. That's an appropriate place to request asylum.

Unsure of what else to do, he paid a cabdriver to take him and Constantin to the foot bridge into the United States, thinking that he could call his wife when they reached the other side. It was dark outside when he reached an immigration officer stationed outside the American border. He told the officer that he wanted political asylum and was taken in to be interviewed with the help of an interpreter on the phone. Mr. Mutu explained that he had lost his wife and son, and that they were fleeing persecution in Romania.

You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... plications

WRONG

They are lying in the story in the NYT. You are not detained for making asylum requests. If he had simply presented himself outside the border and made an asylum application he would not have been detained. He was caught INSIDE the border which is why he found himself in the klink

There are other blatant inaccuracies in the story but obviously the NYT doesn’t care because there are “larger truths” here

This is is why it is better to actually know things rather than be a Google warrior, Reek

1. Detained because illegally inside the US

2. Frivolous on credible fear claims because they crossed numerous safe havens

3. Don’t try to get a win here, Boy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Ganny - The author obviously did not know much about the Roma. That’s why I laughed at that quote above that I took from the article

(Actually, the Big 3 of South America are quite stable. Heck, Buenos Aires would make a gypsy feel right at home... European flavor, and lots of people who are inexperienced with professional, circus-grade pickpockets, liars, and scam artists)

The author also apparently is unaware that if a Roma is the source of a story, you had better get a LOT of corroboration

Reek apparently doesn’t get that, either


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

That was the case, Cid. But, it isn't the case any longer.

It is a Trump administration policy to start detaining asylum seekers at ports of entry instead of letting them into the country with a court date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrat ... story.html

[CID1990]

That was the case, Cid. But, it isn't the case any longer.

It is a Trump administration policy to start detaining asylum seekers at ports of entry instead of letting them into the country with a court date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrat ... story.html

You didn't read the article carefully, Reek. It says that CBP officials doing credible fear interviews are to take a more aggressive stance and apply stricter standards to initial findings of credible fear. It says nothing about detaining people who apply at POEs.

In your defense, the article IS written in a vague way to fool people who do not read carefully. But it does not say that people who present themselves to a POE and ask for asylum are detained. That only occurs when they are apprehended after having already crossed illegally.

Ask yourself this - it is a logical thought exercise... how do we have the authority to grab and detain asylum applicants who have not gained entry to the US yet? Why in the world would we do that when we can simply turn them around?

Read my lips: PEOPLE WHO PRESENT THEMSELVES TO BORDER OFFICIALS AT BORDER CROSSINGS AND APPLY FOR ASYLUM ARE NOT DETAINED

THE ROMA WAS LYING TO THE NYT

Clear?

[89Hen]

God are you stoopid when it comes to this topic.

I think abortion should be reduced/eliminated as much as possible. And I want ALL kids to have a chance at life.

Sorry you think that’s stoopid. Agree to disagree?

[89Hen]

It's Kryptonite. Superman's only weakness. We start talking abortion and you and Kalm turn into babbling idiots.

Babbling idiots..?



It sounds like you're trying to say that you become frustrated and start calling other people names

It is frustrating to see normally bright people turn into dolts on a subject.

[89Hen]

What do you think about a 4 month old immigrant child separated from his family at the border, Hen?

He's from Romania. His parents were legitimately seeking asylum at the border. Family thrown into camps in Texas. He's sent to Michigan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/16/us/b ... rants.html

What do you think about the price of tea in China?

[89Hen]

Aren't you just arguing for arguing sake here?

Yes, and he's done it quite well, turning an abortion discussion into an immigration one.

[CID1990]

Aren't you just arguing for arguing sake here?

Yes, and he's done it quite well, turning an abortion discussion into an immigration one.

And being wrong - again

Dude picking an argument with me over immigration policy/law is like ... I dunno ... him picking an argument with Buzz Aldrin on orbital mechanics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Babbling idiots..?



It sounds like you're trying to say that you become frustrated and start calling other people names

It is frustrating to see normally bright people turn into dolts on a subject.

fundamentally disagreeing on a well understood dilemma doesn't make your opponent a dolt
particularly in a debate founded on morality

[CID1990]

It is frustrating to see normally bright people turn into dolts on a subject.

fundamentally disagreeing on a well understood dilemma doesn't make your opponent a dolt
particularly in a debate founded on morality

There’s a dolt in this thread for sure but it ain’t you. Or 89. Or even klam


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

fundamentally disagreeing on a well understood dilemma doesn't make your opponent a dolt
particularly in a debate founded on morality

There’s a dolt in this thread for sure but it ain’t you. Or 89. Or even klam


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Cid!

[UNI88]

There’s a dolt in this thread for sure but it ain’t you. Or 89. Or even klam


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Ramsey!

FYP

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

It is frustrating to see normally bright people turn into dolts on a subject.

fundamentally disagreeing on a well understood dilemma doesn't make your opponent a dolt
particularly in a debate founded on morality

Agreed. It's what you're saying that makes you a dolt, you dolt.

[Ibanez]

fundamentally disagreeing on a well understood dilemma doesn't make your opponent a dolt
particularly in a debate founded on morality

There’s a dolt in this thread for sure but it ain’t you. Or 89. Or even klam


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about a rube? Any of them?

[CID1990]

Jeez Alabama

https://reason.com/2019/06/27/a-pregnan ... slaughter/

This is getting ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Jeez Alabama

https://reason.com/2019/06/27/a-pregnan ... slaughter/

This is getting ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously, Alabama. WTF?!

So let's recap what looks like it's legal to do in Alabama: Attempted Murder.

That's a great precedent they're going to set down there.

[Chizzang]

fundamentally disagreeing on a well understood dilemma doesn't make your opponent a dolt
particularly in a debate founded on morality

Agreed. It's what you're saying that makes you a dolt, you dolt.

[Ivytalk]

Agreed. It's what you're saying that makes you a dolt, you dolt.

I see you brought your mom into the fight.

[Pwns]

Jeez Alabama

https://reason.com/2019/06/27/a-pregnan ... slaughter/

This is getting ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously, Alabama. WTF?!

So let's recap what looks like it's legal to do in Alabama: Attempted Murder.

That's a great precedent they're going to set down there.

You don't have to love the law, but you can't blame it for this one. Put the charges on the person that pulled the trigger.

[Chizzang]

I see you brought your mom into the fight.

89hen resorts to name calling and implying that everybody else is bathing in Krytonite
as he pretends to love all the worlds unborn children and not have a religious view on the subject



There aren't enough "eye rolls" to post for my response to that silliness

[Pwns]

I see you brought your mom into the fight.

89hen resorts to name calling and implying that everybody else is bathing in Krytonite
as he pretends to love all the worlds unborn children and not have a religious view on the subject



There aren't enough "eye rolls" to post for my response to that silliness

Hey Chizz:

I think you'll find pretty much universal agreement that:

1. Needless loss of life is a bad thing.

and

2. It's not practical to preserve life at all costs (e.g. set the national speed limit to 30 MPH or putting nets around every bridge to keep people from jumping).

The disagreement is what "needless" is and when the costs of preserving life no longer become reasonable. You and kalm basically say is that in order to be pro-life you have to throw out #2, which is ridiculous. You basically don't have anything to back up the notion that the pro-life pretend to care about children except imputing motives of religious fundamentalism, which is silly because even guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris admit abortion is a difficult moral question and not an obvious one.