******Official politics thread ******

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok Google, how recent was the first country asylum rule adopted?

About two weeks ago.

[rebeccablack]

the article that he pulled that policy description from literally states that its not the law and is in fact being challenged in the courts for potentially violating domestic and international law. theyre not sending their best, folks.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by rebeccablack [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the article that he pulled that policy description from literally states that its not the law and is in fact being challenged in the courts for potentially violating domestic and international law. theyre not sending their best, folks.

Your reading comprehension is bad. The article states previously that the Supreme Court had ruled in the EU that asylum must be to neighboring countries but wasn't a law in the US as of yet. Two weeks ago it was enacted.

Even before the law, you couldn't just walk up and claim asylum.

Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution from their Government in their home country.[5] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group

Basically they would vet you and if you didn't exhaust all options, you would be denied. This has been the case for quite some time. Trump just enacted the language to make it law just incase any liberal idiot with half a brain thought they could twist the original "asylum" definition. Same with the second amendment. People like you now argue there is a possibility it didn't mean citizens of the US.

[Horza]

A U.S. federal judge on Friday struck down one of President Donald Trump’s initiatives to curtail asylum claims, ruling that the government could not reject migrants who had crossed the border illegally. A different federal judge had already put a temporary block on the policy, which would have rejected asylum claims from people who entered the United States between legal ports of entry.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your reading comprehension is bad. The article states previously that the Supreme Court had ruled in the EU that asylum must be to neighboring countries but wasn't a law in the US as of yet. Two weeks ago it was enacted.

Even before the law, you couldn't just walk up and claim asylum.

Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution from their Government in their home country.[5] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group

Basically they would vet you and if you didn't exhaust all options, you would be denied. This has been the case for quite some time. Trump just enacted the language to make it law just incase any liberal idiot with half a brain thought they could twist the original "asylum" definition. Same with the second amendment. People like you now argue there is a possibility it didn't mean citizens of the US.

Isnt that just Western Europe telling Eastern Europe 'haha sucks for you not our problem'.

The EU is illegitimate.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A U.S. federal judge on Friday struck down one of President Donald Trump’s initiatives to curtail asylum claims, ruling that the government could not reject migrants who had crossed the border illegally. A different federal judge had already put a temporary block on the policy, which would have rejected asylum claims from people who entered the United States between legal ports of entry.

"U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, declined to halt the policy, setting up a potential race to federal appellate courts over one of the administration’s key migration initiatives."

It's already on the federal register. I know you'd like to take one article from a Federal Judge in CA that temporarily blocks the motion but, it isn't a dead policy unlike you seem to be insinuating. As I reiterate, there is already a rule set in place, it just justifies the rule.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Isnt that just Western Europe telling Eastern Europe 'haha sucks for you not our problem'.

The EU is illegitimate.

Mainly I think they are sick of the middle east and some of that ideology seeping into their culture. Most places in Europe are not as oppressive as places such as Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Look at a flow chart of immigration for EU.

[Horza]

The point is it has yet to be settled in the courts and Trump doesn't have the best record.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mainly I think they are sick of the middle east and some of that ideology seeping into their culture.

Just say they don't want Arabs, the dog whistles make you look like a coward.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just say they don't want Arabs, the dog whistles make you look like a coward.

I look like a coward because I choose not to speak for a whole population of people for their various reasons of why they might not want people from Middle East. I'm just going off the data.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]