No human being is illegal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this basic message getting lost in the current news?

What basic Kumbaya message is that?

Forget laws, forget sovereigns, forget borders, forget welfare & tax systems and just go back to nomadic land grab tribal warfare lawlessness days!

Surely OP- who’s likely a troll- understands that one can both be a human and illegal entrant to a sovereign country with immigration laws and consequences.

If not, Op can go walk into China or Iran or North Korea and complain about No Such Thing As Illegal mantra there. Report back OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just semantics. If you want us to say no human is illegal, that’s fine. But humans can be illegal immigrants, right? Humans can do illegal things, right?

If a human enters the US illegally, that’s a criminal action. Would you prefer we can them “criminals”. That would be accurate, no?

How about saying "undocumented" instead? When you get down to it the distinction is whether or not they have a birth certificate.

No.

Undocumented means they failed to bring their native citizenship ID with them to a foreign country.

Illegal entrant means they did not enter via a legal visa or passport entry point.

They can be both. You can even submit a fraudulent name, age, country of origin.

Rules for entry to any country can be found online or at the consulates, embassy or local authorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about "non-immigrant". Thats a good round sounding term. That's whats stamped on the visas.

90 day tourist visa people still need to bring proof of who they are, and a passport or pay a visa fee if needed and be logged into the system as having entered the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Much better to never know wtf came into your country and who they actually are. Cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are literally planning on deporting random Asian people to Africa for no reason. This policy does not make any sense.

Anonymous wrote:
It’s a deterrent against illegally migrating here for economic reasons and claiming you’re a refugee. If you were a refugee then you’d be happy in any safe country that wasn’t your own dangerous country that you’re leaving. Trump is calling their bluff. Australia does the same thing by the way, and has done so for decades. It dropped their “asylum seekers” numbers dramatically when they started doing refugee swaps and other programs like that. Basically Australia has a policy that if you come to Australia without proper documentation, you will never actually live in Australia - if you’re an economic migrant then you’ll be sent home and if you’re believed to be a refugee then you’ll be swapped for other refugees in a random other country. That’s how they keep the illegal immigration numbers down. It’s not worth it to make the journey through other safe countries to get to Australia when you won’t be able to stay there. We need to do exactly the same thing here.

Funny, how liberals don't think twice about having non-immigrants transplant to the US but scream about having them transplant somewhere else. Oh, no but their families la di da.

Funny how RWNJs like you support the offering of asylum to WHITES from South Africa who claim "racial discrimination" but don't recognize any other basis for asylum, especially when the person requesting asylum is black/brown.

There are reasons for asylum, but not 'I prefer to live in America' which is the case for most people coming in and asking for asylum.

Once people get asylum, and a status that lets them leave and come back, they end up visiting the same country from which they were claiming asylum.

[Anonymous]

Why do Democrats keep TSA, customs, passport check when flying into the US?
What's the point of spending $ on that when they allowed anyone to walk in completely unchecked and/or flown in on secret overnight flights all over the country?