IjeBos: This is a shockingly racist, sexist and disgusting post. The level of racism basilico spews here, it's hard for me to believe he's a black Nigerian.
basilico: You are such a liar. Everything above is a complete lie. Townhall is a reputable source that leftie fact checkers don't like and smears it at every opportunity. Your stories are complete lies. You can't post your sources because they are all Twitter . Nairaland removes Twitter amd *tt.co* short links ( omit the first t - To see the short link) hence you are unable to show your sources. Lies upon lies from you. You said Trump refused to offer his DNA to Jean Carroll. I would also refuse because it's easy to plant DNA on another surface.. I will debunk your Twitter sourced lies in the course of the day. Starting with your DNA lies it's the Judge who refused Trump's offer of DNA.
basilico: Pains you because the Great Replacement does not appear to be a conspiracy theory after all. Biden I have shared here before spoke glowingly of constant unmeasurable immigration till whites were a minority. All his actions on immigration reflects what he said in that video clip .
I doubt that. Ijebos has no purpose in life. No children so he does not care about the future.
basilico: Ijebos. Elon Musk POV on immigration policies by Biden. I consider him a true genius who has taken full advantage of democrat policies to amass unimaginable wealth. I'm surprised he said it. Bill Maher also on Biden powers to enforce border security
But Ijebos knows better. Blames Trump influence for not supporting immigration bill
Ijebos has a learning disability. After embarrassing himself yesterday I am sure he will shut his a-hole up for some days till he recovers
basilico: Ijebos can't stand the fact that he is a Nigerian like us 'n that can't be changed. He can't stand that it's possible you could one day be eligible to vote in America like him .
it's unfortunate for him. he can hopeless stood by and hate while i go about my business
IjeBos: Lol. I almost died of laughter reading this. I realize now you don't have a strong enough grasp of the English language and struggle enough with Reading Comprehension that you don't even understand the things you yourself write. So let's break this section down again. I added numbers to help
Line 1 basically breaks down to: Legal Immigrant = Valid Visa, , Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship (the comma is a logical or) Line 2 basically breaks down to: Legal Immigrant = Can Vote Combining them, you would have: Legal Immigrant = Valid Visa, Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship = Can Vote Therefore by the logic in what you wrote you are saying: Valid Visa, Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship = Can Vote Or If you have Valid Visa or are Granted Asylum or Granted Citizenship then you can vote. We know that is not true so your logic and what you wrote are clearly wrong. So, go finish arguing with yourself and figure out what you are trying to say and then write it effectively so your words convey what you want it to.. (though I think both the thinking and writings parts will prove difficult for you)
45 years plus 😂
Dumb as a rock.
Visa holder (student visa, work or visitors) != asylum !=citizen.
All these are legal forms of immigration with different characteristics.
A legal immigrant can vote provided he meets the criterion.
Common sense evades you.
I am not the one who think showing up at a bother and say I fear for my life in my country automatically makes one a legal immigrant.
You can remain stupid. You claim you went to Harvard 🤣🤣
IjeBos: I started reading this post and then stopped here.
Read this section here. I'm not sure if you wrote this or copied it. But it's clear you don't understand what you are talking about. 1.) You have a section on legal immigration (as opposed to illegal immigration). 2.) You say legal immigrants include Visa holders. Ok. True
IjeBos: 3.) Then you go on to talk about Rights and Benefits. 4.) One of those benefits you site is that legal immigrants can vote. Another is they can get a passports? Huh?
Except you lack comprehension, you seem to be fooling yourself.
Authorization: they have valid visa, been granted asylum or CITIZENSHIP This is what you left out.
Ilhan Omar is an immigrant who can vote and not only that, she holds an office in the US government.
IjeBos: 5.) So do you think that Visa holders can vote or get a passport?
No I do not think so, you brought this out of your hay-ass because that's what you use to reason. Visa holders can get a passport when they naturalize. That is when they become a naturalized US citizen. Raumdeuter got to the US with a visa, he has a passport and can vote.
IjeBos: 6.) So, if Visa Holders can't vote or get a passport does that mean they are not legal immigrants?
This question says you your brain is misfiring
IjeBos: This is the continuous problem with you. You're too stupid to understand words have meaning. You're too stupid to know how little you know. So you continuously over-value your abilities and post condatrictory nonsense like you did above.
You are speaking about yourself here To you when you migrate to another country and become and naturalized citizen, you are no longer and immigrant. Hahaha you are so dumb.
IjeBos: And until you can demonstrate you have a minuscule understanding of the US immigration process (unlike this nonsense you are writing here). And so I don't feel like you are my punching bag (I don't like abusing people, even idiots like you), I'm done with you.
IjeBos: God, you really do strangle the English language. Is it that hard to conjugate a verb?
Lol am I writing an application letter? You take naira land too serious. You were using excel to document monikers on naira land. Conjugate this and that 😂
IjeBos: I started reading this post and then stopped here.
Read this section here. I'm not sure if you wrote this or copied it. But it's clear you don't understand what you are talking about. 1.) You have a section on legal immigration (as opposed to illegal immigration). 2.) You say legal immigrants include Visa holders. Ok. True 3.) Then you go on to talk about Rights and Benefits. 4.) One of those benefits you site is that legal immigrants can vote. Another is they can get a passports? Huh? 5.) So do you think that Visa holders can vote or get a passport? 6.) So, if Visa Holders can't vote or get a passport does that mean they are not legal immigrants?
This is the continuous problem with you. You're too stupid to understand words have meaning. You're too stupid to know how little you know. So you continuously over-value your abilities and post condatrictory nonsense like you did above.
And until you can demonstrate you have a minuscule understanding of the US immigration process (unlike this nonsense you are writing here). And so I don't feel like you are my punching bag (I don't like abusing people, even idiots like you), I'm done with you.
Again, you are embarrassing yourself. You don't know the purpose of the American army, now you don't know how immigration works.
Daft. When I am free I will break it down from a person(me) who crossed the border illegal and seek asylum and a job in It 😂😂
IjeBos: You seem to still be confused about the definition of legal. And you seem to still be confused about the asylum process. I've posted the law.. read it. I've posted 1 site and 1 well written NY times article which talk about the asylum process.. read them.
I've corrected enough of your posts and given you enough resources to answer the rudimentary (if you followed this issue) questions you've asked. If you choose to continue to sound illiterate because you watch Youtube clips instead of reading well sourced info, that's on you.
You can't correct someone when you have no clue of what you are saying.
This is your words:
Most of the issue now is the legal immigration (asylum seekers). There is a huge backlog and so cases are taking years to come up
Legal immigration is what the law permits. You can be in the US illegally and still apply for asylum which would then be "legal immigration" as there is a legal process in place.
There is a reason you avoided my questions. Go back and answer them so you can expose yourself.
Legal Immigration: Definition: Legal immigration refers to the process of moving to another country with the right documentation and clearance. Status: Legal immigrants are foreign-born individuals legally admitted to the U.S. Authorization: They have obtained a valid visa, been granted asylum, or have been granted citizenship. Rights and Benefits: Legal immigrants can vote. They are eligible for social services from federally funded programs. They can receive social security benefits. They can hold United States passports. Process: Legal immigration involves following established procedures and meeting eligibility criteria.
Illegal Immigration: Definition: Illegal immigration occurs when someone enters a country without permission or overstays their visa. Status: Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, fall into this category. Authorization: They do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation. Rights and Benefits: Illegal immigrants cannot vote. They are ineligible for most social services from federally funded programs. They cannot receive social security benefits. They cannot hold United States passports. Consequences: Someone who enters the country illegally is subject to detainment and deportation at any time. Legal immigrants can also face removal if they commit and are convicted of a crime. However, unless an undocumented immigrant has committed a crime and been convicted, they may not be immediately detained or removed from the U.S. In summary, legal immigrants follow established procedures and have rights and benefits, while undocumented immigrants lack legal status and face limitations on their rights and access to service
If someone enters the U.S. either legally or illegally, they can apply for asylum affirmatively. Affirmative process involves submitting Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). USCIS conducts a non-adversarial affirmative asylum interview with the applicant. If an individual is subject to expedited removal and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, the written record of this determination serves as their asylum application. If USCIS does not grant asylum during the affirmative process, the individual may be placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Result: Applying for asylum affirmatively does not automatically make someone a legal immigrant. Their status depends on the outcome of the asylum process. Defensive Asylum Process:
Defensive process comes into play when an individual is already in removal proceedings. Reasons for being in removal proceedings include: Not being granted asylum during the affirmative process. Being placed in removal proceedings by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for immigration violations. Being subject to expedited removal and issued a Notice to Appear. In defensive asylum, the case is heard by an immigration judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). If an individual was referred to EOIR by USCIS, their asylum application on file with USCIS carries over to the immigration judge. If there is no asylum application on file with USCIS, the individual must submit Form I-589 to the immigration judge. Result: The outcome of the defensive process determines their legal status. Rejected Asylum Claim:
If an asylum claim is rejected, the individual does not automatically become a legal immigrant. They may be subject to removal orders if their asylum application is denied. However, some individuals may choose to disappear within the country, which can lead to undocumented status. Result: Rejected asylum does not confer legal immigration status, but it does impact their ability to remain in the U.S.
To summarize this part, applying for asylum does not automatically grant legal immigrant status. The outcome of the asylum process determines an individual’s legal standing in the U.S.
JessicaRabbit: Let me clue you into the facts of life real quick.
(1) Calling someone ugly, a loser and a liar IS defamation, given the context of the case, and especially when it is done by the president of the United States, who has a huge influence and reach. It is not a mere opinion, it is a malicious attempt to discredit and harm the reputation of the accusers. It also creates a hostile environment for other victims of sexual assault, who may be afraid to come forward because of the backlash they might face.
(2) Defending yourself is one thing, but threatening to sue and then not following through is another. It shows that Trump was bluffing and had no evidence to back up his claims. It also shows that he was trying to intimidate and silence the accusers, who had every right to speak their truth and seek justice.
(3) I am not a sick person, I am being realistic. Trump IS the judge, in the sense that he has the power and resources to manipulate the legal system in his favor. He has done so many times, by using his presidential immunity, arbitration clauses, and the statute of limitations to avoid accountability. He has also appointed loyalists and cronies to key positions in the judiciary, who may be biased or compromised in his favor. He has effectively blocked the accusers from having their day in court, where they could present their evidence and testimony.
You say I shouldn't be taken seriously? Yet, here you are, engaging with me. Fascinating, isn't it?
JessicaRabbit: You seem to be confused about the difference between criminal and civil cases.
In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused harm or violated a right. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases.
E. Jean Carroll filed a civil lawsuit against Trump for battery and defamation. Battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person without consent. Defamation is the false and injurious statement that damages someone's reputation. To prove battery, Carroll had to show that Trump sexually abused her, which the jury found that she did. To prove defamation, Carroll had to show that Trump made false and malicious statements about her, which the jury also found that he did.
The jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll, because that was not the question they had to answer. Rape is a criminal offense, not a civil one. Carroll did not sue Trump for rape, nor did she press criminal charges against him. She sued him for battery, which is a broader term that includes rape as well as other forms of sexual abuse. The jury verdict form clearly states that the jury had to decide whether Carroll proved that Trump sexually abused her, not whether he raped her.
Therefore, your argument is based on a false premise.
Trump denying her claim is defamation because he lied about what happened and harmed her reputation. He did not just say that he did not rape her, he called her a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are not opinions or expressions of free speech, these are factual assertions that can be proven or disproven. And the jury found that they were false and malicious.
You should check the facts before you make such baseless claims. Otherwise, you might end up like Trump, who is now facing an $83 million bill for his defamation and battery of E. Jean Carroll. That's a lot of money for someone who is not his type 🤡.
I am not confusing anything. Carroll accused Trump of tape, Then claimed he defamed her when he said that didn't happen.
In other to prove defamation, you have to prove tape did occur. She failed to do that.
So how is denying something that didn't happened defamation? Oh he said she was ugly?
Trump did not just deny accusations against him, he also attacked, insulted, and threatened to sue his accusers, calling them liars, losers, and ugly. He also publicly vowed to sue The New York Times for publishing the allegations, but never followed through. Furthermore, the accusers were not unable to prove their allegations, they were prevented from doing so by Trump's legal maneuvers and stonewalling! He has repeatedly tried to delay, dismiss, or avoid discovery in the lawsuits, invoking presidential immunity, arbitration clauses, and the statute of limitations.
I should clarify here that Carroll initially asked for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages, but later increased the amount to $83.3 million, based on the estimated value of Trump's book sales that she claims were boosted by his defamatory statements about her. However, this is not the amount that Trump has to pay, but the amount that Carroll is asking for. The actual amount will be determined by the jury, if the case goes to trial.
Calling someone ugly, a loser and a liar is not defamation. After all the jury concluded she could not prove he raped her. So defending your self and saying you will sue is defaming someone? You should not defend yourself again? Just accept and stay quiet when someone accuse you of tape. Are you listening to yourself? For the bold you are a sick person. Trump is not the judge. You just prove you shouldn't be taken serious
JessicaRabbit: Actually, Trump did not just say that he did not do something he was accused of. He called E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in the 1990s, a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are false and malicious statements that harmed her reputation and dignity, and that is why the jury found him guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay over $83 million in damages. This is not a matter of exercising his First Amendment right, but of abusing his power and influence to silence and discredit a victim of sexual violence.
Secondly, Trump did not just steal and misuse Michelle Obama's personal data. He also spread a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that she is a transgender woman who was born as Michael Obama. He also did this to undermine Michelle Obama's achievements and contributions as a former first lady, a best-selling author, and a role model for millions of people. This is not a harmless joke, but a deliberate and hateful attack on her identity and privacy.
Thirdly, you are not making any sense when you say that dishonesty has something to do with defamation. Dishonesty is a moral flaw, while defamation is a legal wrong. You can be dishonest without defaming someone, and you can defame someone without being dishonest. For example, if you lie to your boss about why you are late for work, you are being dishonest, but you are not defaming anyone. On the other hand, if you tell the truth about someone's criminal record, you are not being dishonest, but you may be defaming them if you do it without a valid reason or consent. The point is, defamation is not about whether you are telling the truth or lying, but about whether you are harming someone's reputation or not.
So, to answer your questions (again), yes, Trump said and did things that harmed Michelle Obama's reputation and violated her privacy. Yes, he stole and misused her personal data, along with the data of many other people who sued him for the same reason.
Have a nice day at work 🥰.
Okay, I missed this the first time. You type a lot of things especially the Michelle Obama part which has nothing to do with what I am asking you or the case
Based on the bold, what did the jury find in the first hearing? They conclude she could not prove that trump raped her right?
So how then trump denying her claim is defamation when he was not found guilty of that?
For she to file a defamation claim against him, she has to prove that he indeed raped her.
Chck the jury verdict form, the jury concluded E. Jean did not prove trump raped her. So the jury agreed with trump saying he did not rape her
JessicaRabbit: I'm sorry to see that you are getting so emotional about the sexual misconduct allegations against Trump, but you have to realize that I'm doing you a big favor by offering you a bitter reality check concerning these lies you keep peddling.
Let me try to clear some things up for you. I am simply looking at the facts and the evidence, which you seem to ignore or dismiss. I am not writing a love letter to Biden or Clinton, nor am I defending them blindly. I am acknowledging that they have faced accusations of inappropriate behavior, which they have denied or apologized for, and that there is no conclusive proof that they committed any sex crimes. And you are wrong to say that with Trump anything said of him is true, but with the Democrats there has to be irrefutable proof. That is a double standard that you are applying, not me. Trump has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment by at least 25 women since the 1970s. He has also bragged on tape about grabbing women by the pussy without their consent and he did not provided any credible evidence to refute these allegations, nor has he apologized for them. He has instead resorted to calling his accusers liars, threatened to sue them, and attacked their appearance and credibility.
The claims you are making about Biden and Clinton are unsubstantiated. You say that Biden pinched a young girl's titties in the VP's office, but there is no evidence or witness to support that. The only source for that claim is a conspiracy theory website that has been debunked by fact-checkers. You also say that Biden said children loved to feel his hairy legs, but that is a distorted and out-of-context quote from a 2017 speech he gave about his relationship with the black community. He was not talking about anything sexual or inappropriate, but about how he learned to respect and understand different cultures and backgrounds. You also say that Bill abused women and Hillary talked ill of them, but that is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of their history.
(1) Bill admitted to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, which was wrong and immoral, but not a sex crime.
(2) He also faced allegations of sexual harassment and assault from several women, which he denied or settled out of court. He was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath about his affair, but acquitted by the Senate.
(3) Hillary supported her husband during the scandal, but also criticized his behavior and expressed her pain and anger. She did not talk ill of his accusers, but rather questioned their motives and credibility, which is a common and understandable reaction for a spouse in such a situation.
I'm still confused as to why you decided to bring up Mike Tyson and music video groupies. Do you know what a red herring fallacy is? Honest question: why do you find it so difficult to stay on topic?
Your suggestion that women who go to a man's room or appear in a video are consenting to sexual advances, is a dangerous and sexist assumption. Consent is not implied by location or appearance, but by explicit and enthusiastic agreement. No means no, regardless of the circumstances.
Yet when trump denied accusations against him for something the accuser was unable to prove he has to pay 88million. Weldon
JessicaRabbit: Actually, Trump did not just say that he did not do something he was accused of. He called E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in the 1990s, a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are false and malicious statements that harmed her reputation and dignity, and that is why the jury found him guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay over $83 million in damages. This is not a matter of exercising his First Amendment right, but of abusing his power and influence to silence and discredit a victim of sexual violence.
Secondly, Trump did not just steal and misuse Michelle Obama's personal data. He also spread a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that she is a transgender woman who was born as Michael Obama. He also did this to undermine Michelle Obama's achievements and contributions as a former first lady, a best-selling author, and a role model for millions of people. This is not a harmless joke, but a deliberate and hateful attack on her identity and privacy.
Thirdly, you are not making any sense when you say that dishonesty has something to do with defamation. Dishonesty is a moral flaw, while defamation is a legal wrong. You can be dishonest without defaming someone, and you can defame someone without being dishonest. For example, if you lie to your boss about why you are late for work, you are being dishonest, but you are not defaming anyone. On the other hand, if you tell the truth about someone's criminal record, you are not being dishonest, but you may be defaming them if you do it without a valid reason or consent. The point is, defamation is not about whether you are telling the truth or lying, but about whether you are harming someone's reputation or not.
So, to answer your questions (again), yes, Trump said and did things that harmed Michelle Obama's reputation and violated her privacy. Yes, he stole and misused her personal data, along with the data of many other people who sued him for the same reason.
Have a nice day at work 🥰.
Trump is not paying 88 million to Michelle Obama. What are you talking about?
Now, I think you are misusing the term "defamatory". Defamation is a legal term that refers to a false statement that harms someone's reputation. It has nothing to do with being dishonest or denying something. Also, I suspect you are making a false analogy between the cases of people who were falsely accused of rape and the case of Michelle Obama. The former involves a serious criminal charge that requires evidence and due process, while the latter involves a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. Finally, you are ignoring the fact that Michelle Obama is not suing anyone for defamation, but for invasion of privacy. She is entitled to protect her personal information and identity from unauthorized and malicious use by anyone, especially by someone who is spreading lies and hate about her. She is not asking for 88 million dollars because she was called a man, but because her personal data was stolen and used without her consent. That is a clear violation of her rights and dignity, and she deserves justice and compensation.
So, to answer your question, no, I am not saying that every time someone denies something they should pay 88 million dollars. I am saying that every time someone steals and misuses someone else's personal data, they should pay the price. And every time someone makes a false and offensive claim about someone else, they should be challenged and exposed. And every time someone tries to evade the facts and logic of a debate, they should be called out and ridiculed. Like the child basilico.
Asked you what Trump said that defamed her you didn't answer.
What are the info he stole. You type long things without saying anything. So let's be specific. What are the things trump did that was defamatory, what info did he steal from her? Again, I am asking
Now, I think you are misusing the term "defamatory". Defamation is a legal term that refers to a false statement that harms someone's reputation. It has nothing to do with being dishonest or denying something. Also, I suspect you are making a false analogy between the cases of people who were falsely accused of rape and the case of Michelle Obama. The former involves a serious criminal charge that requires evidence and due process, while the latter involves a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. Finally, you are ignoring the fact that Michelle Obama is not suing anyone for defamation, but for invasion of privacy. She is entitled to protect her personal information and identity from unauthorized and malicious use by anyone, especially by someone who is spreading lies and hate about her. She is not asking for 88 million dollars because she was called a man, but because her personal data was stolen and used without her consent. That is a clear violation of her rights and dignity, and she deserves justice and compensation.
So, to answer your question, no, I am not saying that every time someone denies something they should pay 88 million dollars. I am saying that every time someone steals and misuses someone else's personal data, they should pay the price. And every time someone makes a false and offensive claim about someone else, they should be challenged and exposed. And every time someone tries to evade the facts and logic of a debate, they should be called out and ridiculed. Like the child basilico.
what did Trump say that harmed her reputation? what info did he steal? let's start from here. i am getting set to go to the office but I will reply when I can. Dishonesty has something to do with defamation. in other to defame someone, you have to be dishonest abi? exercising your First Amendment right by saying you did not do something you are accused of is not defamatory. she Jury did not find him guilty of rape so how is it defamatory for him to deny he raped her. unless there are things i don't know about this case that you will be kind enough to tell me. i don't think you know what you are saying. so answer the questions up there and tell me what i don't know.
JessicaRabbit: You do realize that claiming something is a lie without proof is an exercise in hubris and dishonesty? Perhaps you've mistaken this debate for a childish scrap in the schoolyard, where "facts" are subjective and unjustified aspersions win the day. I didn't fail to notice how you subtly declined to acknowledge your amateurish gaffe about Blasey Ford. You were obviously conflating two different accusers of Brett Kavanaugh: Christine Blasey Ford and Judy Munro-Leighton. The latter was the one who admitted to fabricating a letter claiming to be another victim of Kavanaugh. She had no connection to Blasey Ford or her lawyers, and she was not the source of Reid's claim.
Moreover, you are comparing apples and oranges when you bring up Harry Reid's accusation of Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years. This misses the whole point. Reid's source was some shady guy who claimed to have worked at Bain Capital, the evil empire that Romney used to run. Reid wasn't sure if his source was telling the truth, but he threw it out there anyway, hoping that Romney would show his tax returns and clear the air. But Romney didn't do that, because he probably had something to hide. Like maybe he was secretly funding a cult of Mormon vampires or something. Reid's claim was never confirmed or denied, but it was not a lie or a trick. It was a clever move to make Romney look bad and untrustworthy to the voters. It was also not a personal attack on Romney's personality or morals, unlike your ridiculous and rude suggestion that Michelle Obama is a man.
You are also making a sweeping generalization and a false dichotomy when you say that all Democrats accuse anyone of anything to serve the immediate cause, and that all Republicans can separate the truth from the lies. Let me break it down for you, champ. Both sides of the aisle have their fair share of hot takes and questionable logic. Painting entire parties with such broad strokes is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. You're ignoring the diverse spectrum of opinions within each group, from firebrands to moderates, and reducing complex issues to a kindergarten-level "good guys vs. bad guys" narrative.
Please do yourself a favor and crack open a non-partisan book (gasp, they exist!). The evidence might surprise you, revealing that truth and misinformation aren't neatly divided by party lines. Then, maybe, just maybe, you can join the grown-up table where we discuss the nuances of politics with, gasp again!, respect and critical thinking. Until then, you might as well create a private blog titled "Unpopular Opinions No One Asked For" and publish your toxic ideas there.
Since when does being dishonest or denying something is defamatory?
There are countless of people who were accused of tape, they went to prison and was later vindicated. Are you saying each time they said they didn't do it they should pay 88million?
IjeBos: Bwahahahahaha. You got roasted again for talking about something you have no clue about and you come back for another helping. What surprises me is that Republican buffoons like you have no real understanding of the issues you are feverishly mad over. Yet you feverishly talk about it over and over. Especially you, Mr. "Open mouth and insert foot".
The asylum laws are the problem. It is not the granting asylum, it is the fact that if someone claims asylum they have to be allowed to stay until their application is approved or denied. Until then, they are released into the US with a court date to show up.
He is claiming victory for being stupid? So you admit there is a problem, and you also admit that people who asylum and then disappear are illegal aliens. Bingo....
45 years old remember your age before you become mumu on naira land.
Questions asked up there. How many are granted asylum? How many that come to court? How many that disappeared?
Are they all legal migrants? Because they said they feel threatened at home.
You are only a legal migrant if you are processed and granted asylum not when you disappear into the country.
IjeBos: Lol. As I said, your name should be open mouth and stick foot in. I won't stick around long enough for you to twist words and contort what you've written in order not to be wrong as you always are.
This is what I said.
So let's start with Fun with Vocab
As long as you are following the laws defined for the pathway you are trying to use to immigrate into the US, you are considered a legal immigrant. The asylum process allows some people who entered illegally to apply for asylum. When you apply for asylum you are thus using a legal immigration process. Thus you are a legal immigrant until the asylum application is adjudicated.
IjeBos: Legal immigration is what the law permits. You can be in the US illegally and still apply for asylum which would then be "legal immigration" as there is a legal process in place.
you are doubling down on stupid to kiss Joe Biden's ass. How many people who cross the border are granted asylum? how many of them are deported? how many complete the process? you can call them legal migrants all you want but your brothers in sanctuary cities are crying. from Chinese to Somali pirates are pouring into this country. Remain a daft, goodnight
You somehow believe that your tired posts are witty and that watching Youtube clips qualifies you as an expert. Neither are true. You seem to also never tire of being wrong and sticking your foot firmly in your mouth. This post is another case in point. I don't understand why you are on this forum, it's clearly not to discuss things intellectually as you seem to be in short supply of intellect. If you're bored, while waiting to be matched with an Uber customer, I'm sure your 4 kids would love a call.
You must be the dumbest person here. Obrigado, your days are numbered. Because someone is seeking asylum automatically makes him a legal migrant? Are you this stupid?
People who cross the border illegally are not legal migrants. They are considered irregular or unauthorized entrants who may be subject to removal or prosecution. However, they may still have the right to apply for asylum or refugee protection under certain circumstances, depending on the country they are in and the country they are from. Asylum and refugee status are not the same as legal migration, but rather a form of humanitarian protection for those who face persecution or danger in their home country. Asylum and refugee claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and do not guarantee permanent residency or citizenship.
Given the fact that most of them seeking asylum are undocumented aliens who no one knows their whereabout should tell you mare seeking an asylum does not make you a legal Migrant.
IjeBos: This is a very black and white view of the situation. And of course it's not that simple. Most of the issue now is the legal immigration (asylum seekers). There is a huge backlog and so cases are taking years to come up. The law is broken and has been broken. Trump tried some illegal actions to go around the spirit of the law and the law itself. Biden chose not to. The issue is that this could have easily been fixed with a comprehensive bill. Bush almost had one but it was torpedoed by Republicans. Why? because it's a good issue to run on. And it's harder fixing it when your constituents (farmers) rely on the cheap immigrant labor.
I think most people are for secure borders and finding a good balance for legal immigration. I know I am. I think there isn't enough money to support the whole world. That being said, I recognize many of those people who support more open borders think their reasoning is sound as well... "that's what Jesus preached, "helping your neighbors"". So, they may be living their faith better than I, who is largely focused on money.
I wonder if you have a brain in your head or your are just like a monkey with a keyboard. You cross the border illegal and claim asylum is legal immigration? ewo 🤣🤣😂
raumdeuter: There were slaves taken within African groups. Oyo empire, Ashanti, Mali Benin Kingdon etc all took slaves and some have slaves till this say Never mind that Arab and trans Sahara slave trade
Should we demand Oyo empire pay reparations too?
Budaatum is a hardcore Maga. His obsession with Trump is out of this world.
The people who fought against discrimination and racism wanted equal rights. The old z Gen-z(s) like ijebos and budaatum want handouts.
Foreign Affairs › Re: American Politics Thread: 2026 Midterm Elections Live! by bemeruca: 5:09pm On Feb 04, 2024
