ADVERTISEMENT

More illegal migrants being used as political pawns

Does it? You really want to hang your hat on that? How about the legal status question? You got a theory there as well?
They entered the country illegally then applied for asylum. Yes, you're still illegal at that point. Unless I missed that they all had their asylum trials held already.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CowboyJD
But you libs missed the best part of the whole thing. At the same time the White House was claiming that the "Border was closed", the liberal NE cities were whining about immigrants being shipped there. It completed nuked the narrative that Mayorkis, Biden and the liberal media had attempted to sell.
Busses all the way to yank land. 🤣
 
They landed in the panhandle of Florida and then were flown to Massachusetts. Meets the letter of the law.
Yes, I know what DeSantis did as part of the stunt. But still, these migrants were not in Florida, were they? They were in Texas, briefly brought here by the flight, and then flown to Massachusetts. Also, there is the whole "unauthorized alien" part of this too that you are ignoring.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the news on both sides, or the bill itself.
 
You really want to hang your hat on that?
He is hanging his hat on that because that is how DeSantis is trying to defend what he did. DeSantis is also trying to claim those migrants could have come to Florida.

Welcome to DeSantis world.🙄
 
Yes, I know what DeSantis did as part of the stunt. But still, these migrants were not in Florida, were they? They were in Texas, briefly brought here by the flight, and then flown to Massachusetts. Also, there is the whole "unauthorized alien" part of this too that you are ignoring.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the news on both sides, or the bill itself.
As I stated above, having applied for asylum does not make you an authorized alien. The fact they entered illegally and then applied for asylum clearly qualifies them as unauthorized aliens. As for the "from Florida" portion of the law and as someone who has argued on exactness and semantics in a number of other threads, you should appreciate the fact that the stunt (and it was clearly a political stunt) recognized the "from Florida" requirement and landed the plan in Florida in order to meet the letter of the law. But you can't argue that the individuals were flown from Florida to Massachusetts. That is a simple fact. There was no clause in the law regarding how said illegals entered Florida.
 
As I stated above, having applied for asylum does not make you an authorized alien. The fact they entered illegally and then applied for asylum clearly qualifies them as unauthorized aliens.
I'm not sure this is correct.

From what I've read, these migrants were asylum seekers. If this is wrong, please provide a source that says otherwise and I will agree they aren't asylum seekers. If they were asylum seekers, as the reports I've read indicated, they are not unauthorized if they have been processed. They would have completed the initial step in their processing by scheduling a hearing, getting fingerprinted, and undergoing background checks. While awaiting their hearings, they are not unauthorized. Again, going off only what I've read in reports, most of not all of these migrants had been processed.

With that said, immigration law is notoriously complicated and the reports I've been reading could be wrong. If you have any evidence to present that they were not asylum seekers who had been processed, please share it.

As for the "from Florida" portion of the law and as someone who has argued on exactness and semantics in a number of other threads, you should appreciate the fact that the stunt (and it was clearly a political stunt) recognized the "from Florida" requirement and landed the plan in Florida in order to meet the letter of the law. But you can't argue that the individuals were flown from Florida to Massachusetts. That is a simple fact. There was no clause in the law regarding how said illegals entered Florida.
I disagree that landing a plane filled with migrants from Texas on Florida soil en route to another state does meet the letter of the law. This is definitely an argument lawyers will debate in court with applicable case law.

And I (along with others) can absolutely argue that these migrants were from Texas and flown from Texas to Massachusetts. Because that is what happened. They were clearly not from Florida.

Suffice to say, your original statement that DeSantis did not improperly use state funds is not a legal fact at this point.
 
lol, your delusional. My first reaction was to have a good laugh at your epic fail. One you have yet to recover from!

iu

do you mind telling us what makes shipping illegals north to sanctuary cities a good thing when the democrats do it and a bad thing when republicans do it? We all look forward to your brilliant answer.
 
Last edited:
You and Clinton are little more than bullshit artist playing on words.
Words matter and no one is playing on words. If they are processed asylum seekers, that clearly matters and is very relevant to this discussion.
 
Last edited:

Those entering the country illegally do not qualify for asylum and most everyone knows it. What Democrats are doing is allowing millions into the country knowing it will take years for them to get through the process. During that time many will have children that will give them anchor baby status and of course Democrats will cry about how it's unfair to deport them after being her for years. It's the same BS Democrat have been pulling for years.
 

Those entering the country illegally do not qualify for asylum and most everyone knows it. What Democrats are doing is allowing millions into the country knowing it will take years for them to get through the process. During that time many will have children that will give them anchor baby status and of course Democrats will cry about how it's unfair to deport them after being her for years. It's the same BS Democrat have been pulling for years.
Why do you oppose timely disposition of their claims? You seem to prefer the chaos - why is that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: my_2cents
Why do you oppose timely disposition of their claims? You seem to prefer the chaos - why is that?
Right. That's clearly what he's after: as much chaos as possible. Damn, David, you're smart to spot that so quickly! It went right over the heads of the rest of us.
 
The most telling thing for liberals:

There was more attention generated on the immigration crisis (media coverage, commentary in news talk, etc...) for sending 50 immigrants to Martha's Vineyard than there was when 50 migrants died in the back of a semi-truck in San Antonio.
Begs the question why folks are firmly dug in on retaining the status quo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: my_2cents
Horrible horrible what we are allowing
 
Begs the question why folks are firmly dug in on retaining the status quo.
Who on the right is dug in on the status quo? Its the left that's pushed for sanctuary cities and quit sharing data with ICE. Its the left that fought tooth and nail to stop the wall. Its the left that turned Obama's family detention centers into Trump's "Cages for children". Its the left that reverted the "remain in Mexico" requirement. Its the left that attacked Border Agents for "whipping migrants" simply because a photo showed them using long-reins on their horses. So I ask you, why is the LEFT so firmly dug in on retaining the status quo.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT