₦airaland Forum

basilico:
I thought he could apply for a full hearing by all the judges. 11 of them and Only 4 conservatives So it might just throw out his petition.

Will only be stopped if he applies for a stay with the Supreme Court. If he requests an en banc hearing (with the full Appeals court), the criminal trial will continue unless the request for the en banc is granted.

J U D G M E N T
This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order of the District Court appealed from in this cause be affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate through February 12, 2024. If, within that period, Appellant notifies the Clerk in writing that he has filed an application with the Supreme Court for a stay of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending the Supreme Court’s final disposition of the application. The filing of a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc will not result in any withholding of the mandate, although the grant of rehearing or rehearing en banc would result in a recall of the mandate if the mandate has already issued. See D.C. Cir. R.
41(a)(4).

Obrigardo:
It's soooo sad. Well that's the playbook of fascists. There is no truth in their universe, just outright constant propaganda. And also it's the grifting too.

These people are the dumbest people alive on Earth today.

I guess I'm still naive about it and the fact people fall for it. Not sure how the US can function in a world with these type of deception and blatant propaganda.

Obrigardo:
Do you remember that Nara case that the criminal appealed and even took it to Scotus? Scotus denied to even hear it.

They will do the same if he ever appeals and their cert denial will be Swift and fast before this month ends

My logical mind agrees with you and sees that as the most likely outcome. I would think they wouldn't want to set any precedent here. But.. I don't trust the court. And in both scenarios, Thomas should be recusing.

And in the alternate reality (conservative sphere), Trump Wins legal round.

Just saw this. I've been getting these Right Wing propaganda emails in one of my main personal accounts. Someone seems to have sold my data.

But wow. After this Appeals court ruling, this is what is being blasted out to conservatives like Basilico and Bemeruca. No wonder why alot of conservatives seem to live in an alternate reality.

Edit: So I fired up a VM I use for testing, turned on the VPN and edited the link. And tada.. before I could read the article I had to pay.
2nd pic.
The scamming/grift goes on.

happney65:
Just saw the Judgement now before I came here. He is an oloribuku. He thinks the U.S.A is a banana republic like Nigeria where everything goes and former leaders are left off the hook

He should go to the supreme court and they will tell him the same too

I think the US's legal system is what sets us apart. And he's trying to torpedo that. Fortunately he's dailing.. outside of Judge Canon and her curious delays.

I'm scared of the Supreme Court though. Realistically, they shouldn't take the appeal and let this ruling stand, but he has a couple of sycophants on there as well.

Trump is not immune from prosecution.
It was a Unanimous ruling of the 3 Judge panel.
He has until Feb. 12 to seek a stay from the Supreme Court or his criminal case will continue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/politics/trump-immunity-appeals-court.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20240206&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline&regi_id=75289398&segment_id=157435&user_id=41c9d58298cfae5beaf0adde0a0b0423

Republicans are potentially going to filibuster their own immigration bill.. because of Trump. In fact Sen Lankford, one of the drafters, probably won't vote for it.
McConnell is asking his caucus not to vote for cloture after making a speech yesterday saying the bill must be passed. McConnell is a coward. Well most Republicans are cowards. The Do Nothing Congress.

I think what is happening on the Republican side of Politics is quite fascinating. Below is the 2nd top leader of the house purposely lying in a tweet. I say purposefully because he has to know the bill doesn't allow 5,000 immigrants in at the border daily. He could have read the bill or had his staff read the bill or just picked up the phone and called one of the people who drafted it. But he does this because he has a low regard for the intelligence of Republican voters. And you can see the effect. Basilico and Bemeruca even though having the actual language of the bill in front of them are still arguing this made up fact.

Here is a good dissection of the Bill:
The bipartisan border deal would not allow 5,000 illegal crossings per day, despite what Trump says
What's become a popular talking point among conservative Republicans opposed to an emerging immigration bill is incorrect. Here's what it would do.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656

FoxNews has obtained an internal CBP(customs Border Patrol) memo that Acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller sent out to CBP leadership today re: the Senate border deal, which he calls “the strongest set of tools we have had in decades.” Miller has worked in CBP for 30+ years.

“CBP Leaders,

As you have likely heard by now, yesterday the Senate released a bipartisan national security agreement. To better respond to the volume of encounters we have seen in recent years, we need more resources and stronger enforcement tools than currently available to manage migration at the border.

This proposed legislation would provide the strongest set of tools we have had in decades to effectively manage migration and enhance our nation’s border security. The primary enforcement changes in this agreement include the Border Emergency Authority that would deem individuals who cross the border at times of high encounters ineligible for asylum and order them summarily removed, changes to strengthen the Credible Fear interviews so that only individuals who are more likely to be eligible for asylum are favorably screened to continue in the process, and a new accelerated provisional removal process that will eventually enable asylum claims to be adjudicated in a matter of months not years.

Critically, this agreement would provide much-needed resources to our frontline personnel, with over $6.8B in supplemental funding for CBP alone. This includes funding for over 1,500 new Agents, Officers, and mission support personnel as well as funding for the recently increased GS-12 Border Patrol Agent overtime pay. The bill also includes important new funding for Non-Intrusive Inspection systems, Automated Surveillance Towers, and other key items to improve our ability to perform our missions. In addition, the proposal significantly increases resources for USCIS and ICE to expand their capacity to screen, transport, detain, and remove individuals who cross the border unlawfully at sufficient scale to match recent encounter levels.

Together, these tools and resources would enable us to maximize consequences against those who unlawfully enter the country, maintain order and security at the border, and appropriately prioritize our essential national security and public safety missions.

These proposed changes won’t fix everything in our immigration system. But they are tough and fair. And, if enacted into law, they would make meaningful and substantial improvements to our nation’s border and national security.

As leaders across our agency, I wanted to share these highlights with you now as this legislation moves forward in Congress.

Thank you for everything you do each day.”

Troy A. Miller
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissione

I wonder where all Hunter Biden's fanboys are now with the same condemnation of Musk. Musk owns guns as well. I assume that FBI gun investigation will be loading any time.. Who are we kidding.

Border Patrol Union endorses the Immigration Bill.

bemeruca:
So all the people who show up at the border to seek asylum has visa?

The meanings of words can't be this complicated for anyone. Holy Sh*t.

And an immigrant encountered at the border only becomes inadmissible when they are deemed by the agent to not be admissible. So a person who passes the initial screening(which they made harder) for asylum would be an admissible alien and let into the country.

Edit: Why would you need a Visa to show up at the border and apply for asylum? Your posts tend to sound like you turned off your brain.

bemeruca:
Like the illegal aliens crossing the border. Dumb dumb dumb

Oh you don't fundamentally understand US immigration because it hasn't been explained to you on your Fox News Youtube clips.

For an inadmissible encounter, a border agent would have to meet/arrest (encounter) the person. And being inadmissible (not able to be admitted, because they don't have a visa and are unable to claim asylum), they would be removed and not allowed in the US. And that encounter of that inadmissible alien would count to that 5000 number.

Any alien who is not encountered by border agents would not be included in that count. But if an alien did make it to the US outside of legal porder ports of entry, they would not be allowed to even claim asylum if that 5000 figure of inadmissible aliens has been reached. This is the big deal. Gone would be the days that people can just step onto the US soil and claim asylum if that number of inadmissible aliens has been reached.

And an immigrant encountered at the border only becomes inadmissible when they are deemed by the agent to not be admissible. So a person who passes the initial screening(which they made harder) for asylum would be an admissible alien.

bemeruca:
So you are saying the same thing? With what you are responding to 🤣

Lmao, you are dumb

Holy Shit. This idiot is arguing what the word inadmissible means. Here is the inevitable point where you try to obfuscate and divert because you are wrong as ALWAYS. You are literally trying to change the meaning of the word inadmissible, trying to argue that inadmissable really means they are allowed to enter. Lol.

inadmissible
Inadmissible is an adjective used for something or someone not allowed or worthy of being admitted. In the rules of evidence, inadmissible would mean evidence that would be excluded in a court of law. Inadmissible or inadmissibility refers to unfit evidence in each legal action. Inadmissibility would arise from a prohibition such as enjoining of parol evidence which contradicts a written and executed contract. In immigration law, it would be foreign personnel who are ineligible to enter a country.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inadmissible

bemeruca:
You are embarrassing yourself again.

Inadmissible aliens:
A person who entered the U.S. without a visa or a valid passport and has been living in the country for more than a year without authorization

Let's look at the actual law. You'll one day learn that words have meaning.

8 U.S.C. § 1182 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 8. Aliens and Nationality § 1182. Inadmissible aliens

(a)Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182&num=0&edition=prelim

How many times do I have to make my point about you and your inability to understand and comprehend the things even you write yoruself.

bemeruca:
Seems like you are suffering from comprehension issues or you don't understand what you post.

Here's a riddle.
If you have 4500 inadmissible alien encounters at the border on a given day. How many inadmissible aliens would be allowed into the country that day?
Let me help you, since it seems quite a complex calculation for you.
0. The answer would be 0. As they are inadmissible. 🤣 🤣 🤣

bemeruca:
If there were 4,500 encounters per day over a 7-day period, the calculation would be:

Day 1: 4,500 encounters
Day 2: 4,500 encounters
Day 3: 4,500 encounters
Day 4: 4,500 encounters
Day 5: 4,500 encounters
Day 6: 4,500 encounters
Day 7: 4,500 encounters
Total encounters over 7 days = 4,500 x 7 = 31,500

To calculate the 7-day average, take the total encounters and divide by 7 days:

31,500 encounters / 7 days = 4,500 encounters per day

So if there were 4,500 encounters per day consistently over a 7-day period, the 7-day average number of encounters would simply remain 4,500 per day.
So if the consistent daily rate was 4,500 encounters over an entire year, the total number of encounters for that year would be 1,642,500.

In 2023, there was 3.2 million border crossing, and 2023 is regarded as the worst. I know this because I am one of them who entered through Mexico and asked for a job and an asylum.

Everybody stand in line 🤣 the border is still open, they just added a queue system.

The bill is rubbish

I wrote earlier that there are people in this thread who don't read themselves but allow right wing Propaganda to lie to them. And what do you know. Here pops in Bemeruca, with more lies. In fact his post quotes my post with the actual text of the bill which refutes his post. All he had to do was read it. But instead he reposted numbers from the same merchants of lies he allows to fill his mind.

Maybe he has a hard time with the word "inadmissable". Which means they are not allowed in the US. Meaning they are automatically removed. I even went through the trouble of bolding and changing the color to red, to help people who don't have the strongest reading comprehension skills. Some people can't be helped (sigh).

Sec. 3301. Border emergency authority.
• Creates Sec. 244B of the Immigration and Nationality Act which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security new emergency authority to respond to extraordinary migration circumstances. The “border emergency authority” may be exercised if the 7-day average number of cumulative encounters of inadmissible aliens is between 4,000 and 5,000 per day and must be exercised if the 7-day average is above 5,000 per day. Exercise of the authority is also required if the number of encounters on a single day exceeds 8,500. Unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries are not included in the total number of encounters for the purposes of this section.
• When use of the emergency authority is authorized, the Secretary has the authority to prohibit the entry into the U.S. of all individuals, except unaccompanied minors, between ports of entry and may only screen individuals for eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Concurrently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is required to continue processing a minimum of 1,400 inadmissible aliens per day across southwest land ports of entry under expedited removal or the 235B non-custodial removal proceedings contained in this title, ensuring that access to the asylum system remains available.[/b]

zendi:
The Emperor of Dolusia is the world's most Iron-fisted dictator.
He can sleep 25 hours/day and still "win" any election without campagning.
He therefore rules Dolusia with impunity and gaslighting to his heart's content.

The Emperor finally decided to end the debate as to whether the Open Border is open or not.
So he gave the witless Dolusian sheeple two hard options, to wit :

"(1) I will continue 'apprehending' and surging illegal aliens into Dolusia, calling them asylum seekers."

"(2) I will sign into law a bipartisan Senate Bill simply making illegal Immigration legal."

"Either way, your Borders must remain wide open because migration is a natural process that nobody can do anything about."
"Besides, we must live by our value as, not a nation of her citizens, but a Nation of Immigrants."

(fiction)

Here is more fiction, a poem.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

That is what is actually written on the Statute of Liberty. America is a land of immigrants. Those who came here seeking a better life. That is our national identity. And as you know, everyone in America is an immigrant (outside of the Native Americans).

This is basilico on the new immigration law. Below that is the actual wording of the law. Tomorrow he will argue that he is never wrong, when 99% of everything he types is mostly wrong.

basilico:
So 5000 new illegals every day are welcome.
What's do good about that.

Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), expressed his opinion of the bill in a more colorful way, “This bill is the worst screwing in the Senate since that Dem staffer filmed his

Sec. 3301. Border emergency authority.
• Creates Sec. 244B of the Immigration and Nationality Act which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security new emergency authority to respond to extraordinary migration circumstances. The “border emergency authority” may be exercised if the 7-day average number of cumulative encounters of inadmissible aliens is between 4,000 and 5,000 per day and must be exercised if the 7-day average is above 5,000 per day. Exercise of the authority is also required if the number of encounters on a single day exceeds 8,500. Unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries are not included in the total number of encounters for the purposes of this section.
• When use of the emergency authority is authorized, the Secretary has the authority to prohibit the entry into the U.S. of all individuals, except unaccompanied minors, between ports of entry and may only screen individuals for eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Concurrently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is required to continue processing a minimum of 1,400 inadmissible aliens per day across southwest land ports of entry under expedited removal or the 235B non-custodial removal proceedings contained in this title, ensuring that access to the asylum system remains available.[/b]

zendi:
Let me oblige you with one last JAMB answer. You want to see stats, go to the border. Trump's Border was miles and miles far from the mindless chaos that will greet you there, as everybody from both left and right has been attesting to.

Are you still having a hard time with the laws that Trump used and the stats that showed that he ended illegal immigration. Well, of course I already knew the answer. The stats don't show that. And the laws weren't there so he did some by Exectuvice Orders, some that were found illegal by courts. And he also used a Public Health Emergency action due to covid to shut down the border (Title 42). And some say that he used it not in the means it was intended.
I thought of this post when I saw Crenshaw's tweet. As you know Crenshaw is a very conservative Republican House member.

This is a more detailed synopsis of the bill. I initially posted the Fox News version as I assumed, their write up would be the most unfavorable to the bill.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_section-by-section.pdf

Below is the definition of encounters. It ecompasses both Apprehensions and Expulsions. So theoretically, the border agents could expel 5000 immigrants (none meet the qualifications for asylum) in a day and it would trigger the closure of the border and also stop anyone from claiming asylum who is caught illegally entering the US not at the borders. That with the enhanced screening and new rules as to who is not permitted from claiming asylum (1 being if you could have claimed asylum in a country you crossed before coming into the US), again I think it's a tough bill.

Edit: And here is the exact wording of the bill. It actually delineates between the "encounters". People arguing that it allows 5,000 people to claim asylum a day are clearly lying because as usual they don't bother to do their own research and they get their information from people who lie to them (aka Basilico, Bemeruca).

Sec. 3301. Border emergency authority.
• Creates Sec. 244B of the Immigration and Nationality Act which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security new emergency authority to respond to extraordinary migration circumstances. The “border emergency authority” may be exercised if the 7-day average number of cumulative encounters of inadmissible aliens is between 4,000 and 5,000 per day and must be exercised if the 7-day average is above 5,000 per day. Exercise of the authority is also required if the number of encounters on a single day exceeds 8,500. Unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries are not included in the total number of encounters for the purposes of this section.
• When use of the emergency authority is authorized, the Secretary has the authority to prohibit the entry into the U.S. of all individuals, except unaccompanied minors, between ports of entry and may only screen individuals for eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Concurrently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is required to continue processing a minimum of 1,400 inadmissible aliens per day across southwest land ports of entry under expedited removal or the 235B non-custodial removal proceedings contained in this title, ensuring that access to the asylum system remains available.

This is a Fox News Reporter's take on the new immigration bill that should be up for vote in the Senate soon. From this take it's a tough bill. I think it significantly changes how asylum has been done making it much harder to get, harder to claim and even when it is claimed reducing the processing time from years to 90 days. It makes it a less opportunistic way of entering the country and seems to get rid of some of the abuse we've been seeing.

fuckJones:
I have so many questions bordering me and I want christians in the house to help me.

1.Is it acceptable to withhold tithes if I disagree with the pastor's or the church's spending?

2. can I pay my tithe in the different church fromt the one I attended?

3. Is it correct for a pastor of a church and his family to use the church income, i.e. tithes, offering and third party income for their own use, especially since the church is not registered as their property? If no , what do you call their actions

4. Is it biblically okay for most of the pastors to ask for tithe on every Sunday? I mean why do they have to remind them every time, instead of letting people choose if they are okay to give their money!

5. can pastor says my church?

6.Which is better, tithing in a rich church where the pastor has his own flight or giving money to a street preacher?

7 .Why does my pastor make me feel guilty for not tithing when I cannot afford it?

Church's do need to pay for lights, sound, the building etc. etc. So, tithes are necessary. And you should tithe some amount. I'd rather my Pastor not work and have time to support the church (prayer, hospital visits etc etc), so I'm comfortable providing for a Pastor's reasonable lifestyle, and reasonable is the key word.

What I do is dedicate a percentage to "tithing". I give some to the church and the rest to others who may be in need (friends, family, random people).

I think when you find a Pastor who aligns with your spirit you'll know. When I think of a Pastor I think of one I had years ago (now deceased). On Sat's he would walk around the church picking up trash, then clean the inside of it. Was a very humble man. And lived Jesus's words. That is that kind of man I envision whenever I seek out a Pastor. So, I'm comfortable giving to that church.

So, the biggest question is why are you at a church when your spirit is telling you otherwise. If the Pastor doesn't align with God's word how can he lead you? Do you understand God's word? Maybe it's time for some church shopping. Figure out what you're looking for. Are you looking for a church where you the Pastor can feed you the Word (do you need to grow in that area), are you looking for a community, or are you looking for a Church that does social impact stuff (gives back to the community)? Visit some, give them some time and see how you feel.

basilico:
...
Back to dish washer sized nipples owner Letitia ( I borrowed this quote from reddit) .
...

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:
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

Thanks for the post. It's a good teaching example of what an "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy looks like. Why should I be listening to Elon Musk about immigration? People should save it if they want to know how not to construct an argument.

It also seems like you've found the people from "both left and right" Zendi was referring to. Lol.

zendi:
Let me oblige you with one last JAMB answer. You want to see stats, go to the border. Trump's Border was miles and miles far from the mindless chaos that will greet you there, as everybody from both left and right has been attesting to.

I am not sure why Conservatives like to let other think for them and propagandize to them. Seems like such Beta thing to do. There's a plethora of information out there about immigration including facts and figures and good articles about the complexity of it. Google, Read, Learn. It's clear you have the time to be informed if you keep posting this nonsense.

bemeruca:
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.


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.

This question says you your brain is misfiring


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.



Again, you are describing yourself on this one.

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

bemeruca:
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.
1.) Authorization: They have obtained a valid visa, been granted asylum, or have been granted citizenship.
Rights and Benefits:
2.) 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.

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)

bemeruca:
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 😂😂

God, you really do strangle the English language. Is it that hard to conjugate a verb?

zendi:
Let me oblige you with one last JAMB answer. You want to see stats, go to the border. Trump's Border was miles and miles far from the mindless chaos that will greet you there, as everybody from both left and right has been attesting to.

Here I am wading through data and stats (you know facts) to make my case on things, when all I have to do is say "some people said" and bingo point proven. Thanks. Good to know.

The policy may be beneficial. If the bank rate is aligned with the black market rate it may stop Arbitrage which I think is one of the reasons the naira is depreciating.

Obrigardo:
I was a bit of a religious extremist back in the days and i was infatuated by the Illuminati cult. I would say i was one of the pushers of the illuminati cult online and so many people knew about them through my online sleuthing. I regret those days but i learned from them.

Interesting.
I assume a lot of people in this thread supporting Trump are also doing it based on religious extremism/fanaticism.
Well, glad you found your way. Some people don't.

zendi:
There is law governing every aspect of law enforcement, including Immigration enforcement in every country of the world. Or are saying there was no immigration enforcement in the US before the arrival of Biden? There was, Trump had a strong border in place and it was backed by the relevant, existing US Immigration Law(s).

I can go into google and start listing all the relevant existing legislations governing immigration, asylum etc, but pls note, I don't do juvenile back and forth in order to 'win'. I post my thought, my opinion, my say, my truth and go my way leaving you to make what you
like of it.

You made a statement and I asked you to back it up. So show me the laws that Trump used. And show me stats that show how effective those laws worked. But instead you've written more mumbo jumbo about laws enforcement.

That juvenile back and forth you are talking about is what a discussion looks like. What you seem to be accustomed to is writing some Right wing propaganda without anything to back it up and then when challenged on it, moving on.

Btw, "Your truth"? Sounds a lot like "alternative facts".

bemeruca:
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.

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.