From 11th congressional district Democratic Party Primary Election hopeful and human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid:
Rashid Speaks against Aurora Oridinance Limiting Migrants
From 11th congressional district Democratic Party Primary Election hopeful and human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid:
Where does it say asylum is a human right?
If you’re smart, you’ll track down the 30 or so who vote for this goof, tag and monitor them, so they don’t hurt themselves or others.
Where does “it” say, you ask. What is the “it” in that question ? The 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol following up on it, signed by the USA, is a start. Such international law is the basis of immigration law in USA federal statutes. Go look them up; they are easy to find.
Qasim Rashid means ‘Full of Shit’ in English. He must be counting on illegals voting for him or his intent is committing political suicide.
Ummm Gov Abbott, Sir?
Could you send a few busloads of those empty-out-the-jails Venezuelan’s you netted, to Martin?
He’s up on all this legal stuff and he’ll know what to do….
+1 JB, another one who does not understand our laws or America. and her legal citizens.
Try this what was good enough for our parents is good enough for all now! stop trying to make excuses for law breaking illegals so the libtards can get votes… just another scam of theirs and this time their plan is back firing on them as the try using human stupid / ignorant shields..
Actually, Martin failed in his Google efforts. While seeking “Asylum” how is it that the 15 Million are politial refugees as an asylum. Merely because Biden is giving away free stuff and the country you are coming from is not of your preference, does not warrant “political refugee” status. How’s about if you come hereseeking asylum, you get no free stuff, no job unless legal and no ability to vote for 10 years? If you want to pay for these illegals, then by all means, welcome them into your home using your own resources. Yes, they are illegal. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Smarty Marty is an intellectual legend and a force of nature to be reconned with.
Well, at least he thinks so.
My answer wasn’t about “feelings,” though a lot of folks here make everything personal. An ignorant person asked a question, and I provided a reference, without saying whether I agreed or not. However, here in the Caliphate, facts do not matter. People who don’t like a fact (here the basis in international law for refugee status and asylum recognized by the USA for over 50 years) just deny it exists and launch personal attacks on someone who cites it. None of you say I’m wrong. You just don’t like the correct answer, so you assume that I endorse the current state of the law, then attack me for it. As though that somehow changes anything.
Is he funded by Soros?
Okay. YOU ARE WRONG. Please explain how 15 million meet this: To be eligible for refugee status, you must be outside the United States and able to demonstrate that you were persecuted or have a fear of persecution in your home country due to your race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.
What is the persecution? What is the fear? I’ll wait.
You see Martin, you read all the words and can comprehend them. No fair!
International law is fake and toothless and should not be the basis of US law. US violates international law all the time (and that’s a good thing) and it needs to start violating it more. There is no inherent “right” for unlimited number of people to show up to one country & ruin it. It’s the decision of countries. They have sovereignty. They have a choice in who comes in and when and where and how and why. You might believe it’s a “right” to have unlimited # of people come in and destroy this country, but I would suggest taking away that “right.” This fake “human right” you speak of is both a bad idea AND an unpopular one.
“Okay. YOU ARE WRONG. Please explain how 15 million meet this:” geez you are a moron. No one said they meet this. They have a right to apply for it though. Learn to read or go back and get an education. Obviously you failed the first time.
Porkboy. Make an effort to keep up. Scroll up to the previous comments. What a goof who self-professes that everyone hangs on his words as the wanna-be oracle of McHenry County with his “insightful” and all-knowing commentary. What a goof. Owned.
Again dumbass, we weren’t even discussing the merits of each individual migrant, or as a group, their cases. Martin merely pointed out that there is a path that is “written”. Try and keep up. Owned.
Ol’ Porky, your comment is lost in translation and has no merit to the actual discourse. Which is, in fact, how 15 million illegals are suddenly oppressed enough to seek refugee status. Not all from Mexico, why did not many of them stop in Mexico to seek citizenship? Why, from South America, the Philippines, China, Africa, and so on, do they bypass South and Central America and then continue on past Mexico if they are “refugees.” Would they not have that protection had they not stopped in one of the many countries they crossed? Get your head out of your a** and quit defelcted the factual conversation in effort to get looks. Sad. Now go back to watching the Rifleman. Goof.
Again dumbass I never said anything about the merits to their claims. Only that Martin is correct, there are paths. Get your racist, homophobic, white christian hating mind out of your ass. I know what the problems are.
And yet you keep looking.
And there it is. Triggered Porky reveals his real sentiments. “White Christian.” “Homophobic.” LOL. Yeah, that’s it. Dem dere Mexican hating homophobic white devil Christians. “It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.” ― Maurice Switzer
The more you spout your nonsensical diatribes, the more you reveal your ignorance. This from the “uneducated” “white” “Christian” “homophobe.” And yet you respond once more…..
You’d think Martin would be grateful I’m trying to throw him some business…..Lawyers ruin everything…..
I’m also guessing Stephen would like to strap everyone here down ‘Alex’ Clockwork Orange-style and make them watch endless loops of that Oprah Color Purple garbage.
Maybe we should discuss the benefits of Pokorny for society,
I can only come up with a very marginal one.
He demonstrates an extremely poor example so he’s kind of a reverse paragon.
Parents show their kids ‘the Pokorny’ and scare the kids into being good. Reverse psychology.
“Don’t grow up to be a Pokorny!”
“If you don’t shape up you’ll turn into a Pokorny!”
Etc.
So easy, LOL
And yet steve you wear it so well.
So much for the spirit of Christmas. Correcting says “international law is fake.” Calling things one doesn’t like “fake” became the thing to do in the runup to the 2016 election. International law is not fake. It is imperfect, difficult to enforce, and unevenly applied. Look at the ICC. The USA would not recognize the ICC in the early part of this century, because of the fear that our killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan could subject George Bush or others to prosecution. But the ICC has convicted people for crimes against humanity – all black Africans, I think. See, law applies differently to Blacks worldwide.
But racial disparity isn’t the only way the ICC is like our own legal system. If a bunch of us Caliphatians took over a chunk of Shawnee National Forest, armed, and used it for logging for our own profit, we’d be arrested. This is what the Bundys got away with for years. The reason is that law enforcement works differently in remote Nevada than here. The sheriff there is weaker, and there is less respect for federal law That does not make the law “fake,” it just make enforcement messier. Look at the history of the Bundys from the years leading up to 2014, then to today.
You are right, Correcting, nations are sovereign and can choose to make their own laws about who can enter and why, just as they can about taxing imports. Here is our current law on asylum. Read it and notice all the things people get wrong when they argue.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim
Finally, you say “You might believe it’s a “right” to have unlimited # of people come in and destroy this country, but I would suggest taking away that “right.”” I did not say anything about my beliefs in this matter. Why would I think a bunch of anonymous bloggers care what I believe? I don’t, so I leave my beliefs out of it. You use the common fallacy of attacking the writer instead of the material. Ironically, the asylum law has been in its current status since prior to the first two years of the Trump administrations, when Republicans held both houses of Congress and the White House. Send your complaints to Mitch, Donald, and the rabble of the House, and to the Democrats as well, since they also are responsible. But don’t blame me, and don’t hold this mess up as the fault of one political party party in one country.
Already have criticized Trump and Republicans for not passing it when that was current, Martin. Now the time is gone and we are living in the present, so the people who are in office now are the ones to blame for continuing the mess. It is not 2017 or 2018 anymore.
I’ve said Trump was foolish to prioritize unpopular healthcare reform instead of building the wall much to the chagrin of certain people on this blog… However, most of the blame is not to be shared “equally.” You had the entire Democratic Party and a couple of Republicans (a minority) blocking the wall. If 90 percent of one party is for something and 100 percent of the other is against it, who deserves the blame for it not passing?
The reason I’m assuming your position is because you’re trying very hard to defend the status quo. If you had a problem with it you could at least say “I don’t agree with it” (not that difficult to do) but you hide under “you don’t know my opinion” to shield your (probably garbage and probably leftist) opinions on matters. Of course I don’t know what you believe but it’s peculiar that you don’t say what you believe. Why would the blog care about you fact checking or posting links any more than stating your opinion? If anything people on this blog care more about the latter than the former (not exactly a reading bunch here).
When it comes to your opinion you’re just an unimportant guy who nobody wants to hear from, but when it comes time to defend unpopular and bad policy you feel the need to weigh in and you’re an authoritative figure. idk if that would be an example of the Motte and Bailey fallacy but it’s something… “Oh I’m just a guy why do you want my opinion? NOoooooooo it’s their right under international law!” It’s definitely a bait and switch of some kind.
Again, this is just my opinion: We don’t need to follow international law. We break it all the time. They’re just nonbinding agreements, usually to the detriment of developed countries. And if we have bad national laws on the matter, I hope they are changed and broken/ignored until they are changed.
I just sent Skinner a poll indicating that most people, including a majority of Democrats, want more limits on who is coming into the country. You can say “change the law” all you want. Our opinions are known. Congress isn’t acting. There was a Princeton study from a while ago that showed there is almost no correlation between the content of bills being passed and popular opinion. Popular things are often ignored and unpopular things are often made into law. We have no say. We have a rogue government, not a representative government, and they gerrymander their own districts to stay in power. How are you going to vote someone out who is in a plus 40 partisan district? The situation is worse than most people realize. The only time they get voted out is when someone more wacky/fringe challenges them.
I don’t disagree with what you write, other than your assumptions about me. You say my opinions are probably “garbage and leftist”, then criticize me for not saying what my opinions are. You say, “you’re an authoritative figure.”
I don’t share opinions on an anonymous blog, because it is pointless to do so. Look at this blog. There has never been a constructive exchange of conflicting opinions. It’s mostly name calling, false attribution, and slogans. I stick to evidence and law because they are more objectively true or false than opinions. Even if I am the leftist garbage you wrongly think I am, that doesn’t affect the truth of the statement that the USA stayed out of the ICC for fear of consequences to our own people, from service members up to the commander in chief.
I’m also not an authoritative figure, and I challenge you to find anything I’ve written to the contrary. I have no authority here. I’ve written nothing here about my life or history. I claim no authority. If I say something factually incorrect, just say so. Otherwise this is a blog of anonymous people addressing anonymous people. That’s one reason why I stay impersonal.
I also have not defended the status quo, unpopular and bad policy, as you put it. Saying what is does not defend what is. Putin’s forces hold Crimea. My writing that doesn’t endorse it.
The rest of what you say is nothing I’d disagree with. I’m especially with you on gerrymandering, nationwide. Here is an opinion: I think gerrymandering contributes to the splintering and balkanization of our country. I don’t like it in any state, practiced by any party.