No Irish need apply
There's not racism. That's a false accusation, all you can reach for as your argument is faltering and failing and falling and falling and falling and...
"OH YA! WELL because my argument sucks, YOU'RE A RACIST! YA! YOU HATE SPANISH SPEAKING PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S A RACE!"
Come on, dude. Grow up.
"Now, it is true that they may not qualify for asylum"
This is already your concession. It's the best and most honest thing you said there.
It's also quite hilarious that he claims I called him racist because I was losing the argument. Two problems with that statement. Firstly, I won the argument, because I made factually correct statements which he was unable to counter. Secondly, I never called him racist, although it is somewhat telling that he went there on his own.LOL...the self proclaimed victory stunt...in all caps yet.
Anyway, calling that a concession when your own failure to grasp the legality that the determination of their qualification can only be made AFTER they apply is outright hilarious.
Must be why he's so happy. Ignorance is bliss. Not my problem if he comes to a discussion forum and chooses not to discuss anything.@HoloDoc this is probably a good time to inform you that from ADH's perspective you are arguing with him in a room that is otherwise probably empty. He has pretty much everyone, probably soon to include you, on ignore.
Must be why he's so happy. Ignorance is bliss. Not my problem if he comes to a discussion forum and chooses not to discuss anything.
I just had to spend five minutes cleaning up that adulting mess. Won't be doing that again anytime soon.
Funny thing is I wasn't even mocking him. I legitimately just corrected him. And he lost his shiznat. Which caused me to mock him.Mocking him used to be a lot more fun, because as you can see he handles it really poorly. Now it's more a matter of posting a disclaimer to make sure any lurkers know that he is not a representative sample of CFC and just letting him babble himself out.
Funny thing is I wasn't even mocking him. I legitimately just corrected him. And he lost his shiznat. Which caused me to mock him.
Slightly more on topic, the caravan is obvious not working as well as a publicity stunt as Trump would have liked; he just announced sanctions on Iran.
Funny thing is I wasn't even mocking him. I legitimately just corrected him. And he lost his shiznat. Which caused me to mock him.
Believing you "corrected me" is either your hallucination or your impression while subject to brainwashing, sir. At least those are the options I hope for you because they can pass.
I provided evidence of my claims. I linked to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. If you would care to enlighten me, perhaps you have some similarly useful evidence of your claims? Or am I hallucinating you?
They are not asylum seeking people in the first place.
I do not, for one second, believe this mass of people are seeking legal asylum.
Would you accept a three week all expense paid trip to Tegucigalpa for you and your loved ones?They are not asylum seeking people in the first place. I do not, for one second, believe this mass of people are seeking legal asylum.
Look, do you see in the funny papers that the Honduran government suddenly started executing Jews? Homosexuals? Black people? Democrats? Because you would. I promise you would have heard about that by now. That is not what is going on. That is no argument.
Strawman is Strawman. No one accused the Honduran Govt. of doing any of those things. So you're right; there is no argument about that. Because no one made that point.They are not asylum seeking people in the first place. I do not, for one second, believe this mass of people are seeking legal asylum.
Look, do you see in the funny papers that the Honduran government suddenly started executing Jews? Homosexuals? Black people? Democrats? Because you would. I promise you would have heard about that by now. That is not what is going on. That is no argument.
Since 2010, Honduras has had one of the highest murder rates in the world. The National Violence Observatory (NVO), an academic research institution based out of Honduras’ National Public University, reported the following murder rates over the past six years:
2011
86.5 per 100,000 people
2012
85.5 per 100,000 people
2013
79.0 per 100,000 people
2014
66.4 per 100,000 people
2015
60.0 per 100,000 people
2016
59.0 per 100,000 people
Honduran law enforcement frequently report highway assaults and carjacking by criminals posing as Honduran law enforcement, including in remote areas of Choluteca, Olancho, Colon, and Copan departments. Criminals set up road blocks or checkpoints and wear partial police uniforms and equipment that are often mismatched and inconsistent with genuine uniforms.
Discrimination against ethnic minorities and the LGBTI community has been reported. Members of the LGBTI community have reported violent assaults due to gender identity and sexual orientation.
You know, this sounds like the sort of place a reasonable person may choose to flee.government lacks resources to investigate and prosecute cases, and police often lack vehicles/fuel to respond to calls for assistance. This means police may take hours to arrive at the scene of a violent crime or may not respond at all. As a result, criminals operate with a high degree of impunity.
I'm taking this to mean, "but would you want to live there?", and of course I would not. Why are you bringing emotion into it to cheat the point? There is a legality issue which they are trying to stress, not me, i.e. they are the ones who intend to file refugee/asylum status. The onus of proof is on them to establish these things (one or more) are happening: be able to validate previous persecution or feared approaching persecution based on the individual's race, religion, nationality, social class, or political outlook.Would you accept a three week all expense paid trip to Tegucigalpa for you and your loved ones?
So you admit they are coming to the US to file for asylum? In other words, that the caravan is comprised of, drum roll, asylum seekers?I'm taking this to mean, "but would you want to live there?", and of course I would not. Why are you bringing emotion into it to cheat the point? There is a legality issue which they are trying to stress, not me, i.e. they are the ones who intend to file refugee/asylum status. The onus of proof is on them to establish these things (one or more) are happening: be able to validate previous persecution or feared approaching persecution based on the individual's race, religion, nationality, social class, or political outlook.
Ok? Stop muddying the waters. I'm not yelling at Honduras to not come here. I'm saying their argument is bs, whoever lined them up and told them this is a good idea is bs and it's obviously somehow politically motivated.
So you admit they are coming to the US to file for asylum? In other words, that the caravan is comprised of, drum roll, asylum seekers?
No, my post was not about asking if you would want to live there. It was would you take your family to Honduras for three weeks, not a life time. People seek asylum as a solution for a variety of reasons. Three weeks there might boost your empathy. the legality issue is one that is resolved at the border by US officials. for any resolution, the petitioners must first get the border and file their case. This is just the getting to the border part of the process. It is a long difficult march from Honduras to the US and one not for the faint of heart. Would you deny them the decision to make that effort when it has no effect on the US? Knowing that there might be a surge of applicants for asylum in a few weeks should give the US border agents sufficient time to prepare and manage the process well. Trump has taken a different stand and shown a desire to deny them their US legal right to apply for asylum. We should be preparing to process the expected 1,200 who make it to the border in a timely manner.I'm taking this to mean, "but would you want to live there?", and of course I would not. Why are you bringing emotion into it to cheat the point? There is a legality issue which they are trying to stress, not me, i.e. they are the ones who intend to file refugee/asylum status. The onus of proof is on them to establish these things (one or more) are happening: be able to validate previous persecution or feared approaching persecution based on the individual's race, religion, nationality, social class, or political outlook.
Ok? Stop muddying the waters. I'm not yelling at Honduras to not come here. I'm saying their argument is bs, whoever lined them up and told them this is a good idea is bs and it's obviously somehow politically motivated.