Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez

[Guest]

Anyone can ask for asylum. What do you propose we do with them once they request it? Say they queue up at a border crossing, 6,000 strong, and they all ask for asylum for whatever reason (even though I literally just showed you a video where the men were saying they weren't asking for asylum HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!), what do you do with them?

- Doc

Man, what a problem. If only there was some process in the law cited that took on the question of what to do once a person claimed asylum status. Phew. Wow. I guess Democracy really sucks after all and it's time to make Trump king because we clearly can't deal with things like this conundrum through, I don't know, law.

Hahahahahahaha!

Ok. So you don't have an answer. Meanwhile the President has an answer via a proxy:

“As the Supreme Court affirmed this summer, Congress has given the President broad authority to limit or even stop the entry of aliens into this country,” DHS spokeswoman Katie Waldman and Justice spokesman Steven Stafford said in the statement. “We look forward to continuing to defend the Executive Branch’s legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border.”

eta: I guess they'll have to sneak in, breaking the law, and then request asylum that way. *shrugs*

eta2: I just realized I got sucked into another 'crazy coin' argument with someone who has no answers other than 'let them in'.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Ohhhh, coming out in defense of the king. Wise move, amigo. I'm sure he'll look down on you favorably. Maybe give you a fief or something.

I mean, again, if only the law had anticipated what to do when a person claims asylum to vet the claims we wouldn't have lost Western Democracy to fear mongering and internet trolls. What a world, what a world...

Hahahahahahaha!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ohhhh, coming out in defense of the king. Wise move, amigo. I'm sure he'll look down on you favorably.

I mean, again, if only the law had anticipated what to do when a person claims asylum to vet the claims we wouldn't have lost Western Democracy to fear mongering and internet trolls. What a world, what a world...

Hahahahahahaha!

I have no idea why you're all hopped up on nitrous oxide right now, but you may want to lay off. Look. I attempted to discuss the situation, answer your questions in good faith, extrapolating the various outcomes of the various choices we have before us.

You're now playing the EA game of assuming the outcome and arguing against it. Why you're doing it, I have no idea. I will tell you if you want to discuss the pragmatic realities of the situation outside of Leftist rhetoric I'm all ears. If not, have a good day.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

No you didn't attempt to discuss the situation, Cam. You ignored large parts of the problem and went right for 4Chan-ish fear mongering about migrants.

What Trump did was bad for Democracy in the worst possible way. It really was. The Ninth Circuit judge did right, and Chief Justice Roberts made a solid call in deciding to go public as he did. It's the kind of thing conservatives accused Obama of doing with his executive orders, only this was legitimately the executive branch making law rather than either enforcing or prioritizing how to enforce it. It's the sort of thing future generations have as answers on history tests if left unchecked.

Suppose you wanted to be taken seriously, we could discuss where the issues are in the asylum process that are overwhelming the system and I'd agree that needs attention within the periscope view of that issue. But your comment to EA was about the classification of asylum seekers as criminals and that is a monkey ton of Trump crap being dumped on the country compared to asking how a sincere administration might allocate resources to address humanitarian issues through the legal framework at the US border.

So, if you want a serious discussion, can we concede that calling asylum seekers criminals is something the Trump admin tried to do in defiance of the Constitution because US immigration law is clear on that point, and it's not a left wing conspiracy to be concerned with the way Trump is handling it? If so, cool. Then let's talk about what could be done to legally deal with the crisis on the border.

Otherwise, King Trump sycophants can “F” themselves. Even if they are unwitting ones.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ok. I see you're doubling down on arguing the outcome and then complaining that I'm not arguing in good faith.

So. What are your solutions? Let's focus on what Honor would do for a moment and then discuss the practical applications of your suggestions. Who knows? Maybe I'll send another letter to my Congressman.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I'm not arguing the outcome first. I'm pointing out that very specific to your comment to EA you were overlooking a major issue with Trump's rampant lack of regard for the Constitution. You made the outrageous point that it was some sort of leftist extremist position. I'm curious to know if you see how that wasn't the case but in proportion to what Trump attempted was absolutely appropriate. Trump is wrong to equate asylum seekers with criminality going so far as to attempt to violate the separation of powers when doing so.

So. We properly sorted on that now? I'd be happy with an acknowledgment that there is serious reason to be concerned with how Trump behaves in regards to the law on this issue. If you can make that concession, I would agree you are discussing in good faith going forward. Otherwise, you're asking to have a rather outrageous position overlooked and only play in your sand box.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Aaaand I see, yet again, none of these 'complainers' have anything to offer except mewing and kicking the ground sullenly. Navel gazing is the order of the day!

Here's some music for you Honor, for when you read the forum:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... iaVHG4-XIH

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Did you not argue that EA was guilty of being, and I quote, "...just the Leftist side of the same crazy coin"? Because EA said, and I quote, "Asylum seekers are being treated as criminals." This was in response to subbie saying, and I quote, "i was unable to find the part where the US had a policy which states that seeking asylum is a crime, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is claiming."

And, as I've pointed out, it isn't US policy and is actually against US immigration law BUT, BUT Trump attempted to make it illegal by rewriting the law through executive rule. And when the judicial branch did it's job and made sure he went back in his lane, he complained about partisan judges. So Chief Justice Roberts, seeing the problem as apparently worthy of public participation which happens about never, contradicted the President in defense of the separation of powers as enumerated in the US Constitution.

That's not some "leftist...crazy coin". It got the attention of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

So...can we agree that there is serious merit in being concerned with Trump's behavior in regards to immigration law and the attempt to treat asylum seekers like criminals? And in so doing separate it from the issue of how a sincere and generally lawful administration might deal with the problem? Or keep trolling because EA said something that might have been right? ;)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I literally addressed the criminal thing. We're in a no-win situation and you haven't offered, AGAIN, any solutions. NONE. You and others who are hot and bothered by this issue are all sorts of fired up to complain about Trump, but offer nothing but rage filled impotency. That's the coin. One side is treating immigrants with contempt. The other has no solutions that offer any sort of decent compromise, just more of the same, and that clearly doesn't work.

*shrugs*

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Cam, we've had this discussion before about asylum seekers and my opinion then as well as now is still the issue requires a resource allocation solution. The President seems to think the same thing but wants those resources to take the form of walls and military activity while I think the solution is to beef up the judicial capabilities of the immigration courts to perform the needed hearings and proceed accordingly as determined in a lawful, humane way. It's easy to say, yes, but not as easy as build a wall and lock 'em up.

I really don't see you as being a good faith participant because you present the baseline conditions as one demanding the abandonment of the rule of law in favor of either letting people just move on in or creating concentration camps (and that's what is being described) on the Mexican side of the border. And calling asylum seekers criminals isn't addressing Trump's attempt to further erode our democracy. You can easily remedy that by acknowledging it, though. A simple nod to the fact that you misspoke before would do.