₦airaland Forum

BraniacX:
Mr, understand a phrase before you brandish it as a paper shield! False equivalence? Don't make me laugh! The reason America was founded as a country was to create a safe haven and somewhere to belong to for those who for whatsoever reason were feeling oppressed! And that was set into the spirit of your statues! So Mr whattaboutism, let me play your game with you, isn't it false equivalence to say that i can not seize you and make you my slave since the British abolition of slavery is almost 180years old and the american 13th amendment over a 100years old?

It seems you don't understand what you are arguing for or against

The only reason you can no longer hold anyone as slaves is that it is now illegal, many years ago it was not illegal and nothing/no one can stop you

You cannot argue that since it was legal 200yrs ago, it should be legal today

If in 2200 it becomes illegal to kill animals to eat, you cannot be held to such standard retroactively

You can only live by the rules and standards of your time

raumdeuter:
And those that didn't have official manifest or documentation means they never crossed the border or immigrated?

Official manifest wasn't documentation in the sense if immigration doofus are you really American? They were records of who was where when simple, as were marriage certificates, birth certificates, death certificates, property purchase receipts, court records, mailing addresses, census records, prison records, law enforcement records, military records, wage and salary records, banking records, tax records, church membership records, membership of social, cultural, scientific and what not groups so at one point or another, everyone not t slave was captured in a record or two as existent in the US and from there their descendants can trace their lineage back and even when their point of entry wasn't ascertained, the fact that they weren't kicked out goes to confirm my point in the General attitude towards immigration

BraniacX:
Official manifest wasn't documentation in the sense if immigration doofus are you really American? They were records of who was where when simple, as were marriage certificates, birth certificates, death certificates, property purchase receipts, court records, mailing addresses, census records, prison records, law enforcement records, military records, wage and salary records, banking records, tax records, church membership records, membership of social, cultural, scientific and what not groups so at one point or another, everyone not t slave was captured in a record or two as existent in the US and from there their descendants can trace their lineage back and even when their point of entry wasn't ascertained, the fact that they weren't kicked out goes to confirm my point in the General attitude towards immigration

I notice like the typical liberal, you are already trying to get to insults when your logic cannot stand. No wonder you were dodgy about answering if that was how liberalism worked

Explain Why is a shipping manifest not a document?

A shipping manifest shows people who made a trip, And it shows people who landed and immigrated into a country

Many families traced their landing/immigration into America to shipping manifests which shows their ancestors names on the shipping manifests/documents

I have been to Plymouth MA where the earliest pilgrims landed and saw the list of those who first made the trip from Europe

Anduku:
You are not making any sense, in fact, you are the one who is being willfully ignorant. If we are to follow this your irrational thinking then almost every country should leave their borders open for every tom, dick and harry since our ancestors all migrated to our present locations sometime in our history. Very illogical

dude wallow in your willful ignorance as i don't have to make sense to you! My argument is simple, border control is a given but in Americas case if it goes beyond stopping every and any cross border criminality then it violates the spirit of the founding of the US! Asylum seeking is and never was a crime and what you have today of people being prevented from presenting themselves at the border to seek asylum is plain old racism and hypocrisy

raumdeuter:
It seems you don't understand what you are arguing for or against

The only reason you can no longer hold anyone as slaves is that it is now illegal, many years ago it was not illegal and nothing/no one can stop you

You cannot argue that since it was legal 200yrs ago, it should be legal today

If in 2200 it becomes illegal to kill animals to eat, you cannot be held to such standard retroactively

You can only live by the rules and standards of your time

now you fall into my trap, so is it now illegal to cross the border to seek immigration? What changed? The laws or the policies of the current government?

BraniacX:
dude wallow in your willful ignorance as i don't have to make sense to you! My argument is simple, border control is a given but in Americas case if it goes beyond stopping every and any cross border criminality then it violates the spirit of the founding of the US! Asylum seeking is and never was a crime and what you have today of people being prevented from presenting themselves at the border to seek asylum is plain old racism and hypocrisy

So because America was not controlling their border 300yrs ago, they should not control it now when there are different times and challenges

300yrs ago anyone can trek from Sudan to Nigeria and no one will stop them, Maybe they should continue doing that today since it was done like that 300yrs ago

BraniacX:
now you fall into my trap, so is it now illegal to cross the border to seek immigration? What changed? The laws or the policies of the current government?

Was there any law to stop border crossing 300yrs ago? Is there any such law now?

Under every recent American govt, there have always been laws to stop illegal border crossing

What changed? Times and laws changed

BraniacX:
dude wallow in your willful ignorance as i don't have to make sense to you! My argument is simple, border control is a given but in Americas case if it goes beyond stopping every and any cross border criminality then it violates the spirit of the founding of the US! Asylum seeking is and never was a crime and what you have today of people being prevented from presenting themselves at the border to seek asylum is plain old racism and hypocrisy

You're the one wallowing in ignorance not me. Asylum seeking is not a crime but illegal immigration is a crime in every country in the world. Trump has never been against asylum seeking or immigration, he has been very clear that he is against ILLEGAL immigration. If you want to seek asylum in a country, you don't storm the country's borders in mob and throw stones at their border patrol, you follow the laid down procedures and do that legally.

armyofone,
Can you explain why liberals can't stand a logical argument and frequently just resort to cheap infantile insults?

I think I will wait for someone will more intellect to hold an argument, PDPguy come and bail your fellow liberals out

raumdeuter:
I notice like the typical liberal, you are already trying to get to insults when your logic cannot stand. No wonder you were dodgy about answering if that was how liberalism worked

Explain Why is a shipping manifest not a document?

A shipping manifest shows people who made a trip, And it shows people who landed and immigrated into a country

Many families traced their landing/immigration into America to shipping manifests which shows their ancestors names on the shipping manifests/documents

I have been to Plymouth MA where the earliest pilgrims landed and saw the list of those who first made the trip from Europe

Is a shipping manifest a passport to identify an immigrant? For all you know it could be an American returning back from Europe, I never said it wasn't a document, I said it wasn't an immigration document in totality i.e conferring and confirming previous and current nationality status but a record of who was where when and unless there is no traceable previous generation on American soil, only then can such person be called a migrant and i went on to state many other records that can be used to track migration in a genealogy over time until you arrive at the first migrant or did you miss that part?

Anduku:
You're the one wallowing in ignorance not me. Asylum seeking is not a crime but illegal immigration is a crime in every country in the world. Trump has never been against asylum seeking or immigration, he has been very clear that he is against ILLEGAL immigration. If you want to seek asylum in a country, you don't storm the country's borders in mob and throw stones at their border patrol, you follow the laid down procedures and do that legally.

You shouldnt have broken it down to him, let him go ahead and show his ignorance.

Trump simply says if you want to claim asylum go throught he channels, There is a procedure for applying for asylum not just storming into the country

Like I have issues in my house and need to come into your house, you have the right to stop me at your gate, vet me and put me through the proper process, Not just that I will enter your house unchallenged unquestioned because I want asylum

raumdeuter:
So because America was not controlling their border 300yrs ago, they should not control it now when there are different times and challenges

300yrs ago anyone can trek from Sudan to Nigeria and no one will stop them, Maybe they should continue doing that today since it was done like that 300yrs ago

did America have clearly defined borders 300 years ago?

BraniacX:
Is a shipping manifest a passport to identify an immigrant? For all you know it could be an American returning back from Europe, I never said it wasn't a document, I said it wasn't an immigration document in totality i.e conferring and confirming previous and current nationality status but a record of who was where when and unless there is no traceable previous generation on American soil, only then can such person be called a migrant and i went on to state many other records that can be used to track migration in a genealogy over time until you arrive at the first migrant or did you miss that part?

In the early times it was just people entering and exiting as they liked and the shipping manifest was the only thing they could point to

What brought us to shipping manifest was your claim that a white American can never deny his European ancestry because of shipping manifests
In the course of time many manifests have been lost or destroyed so Mr JohnSmith does not have any shiiping manifest linking him to Europe because it as destroyed

So he can claim to you that his ancestry was not European and anything you say tying him to Europe is just assumptions like you claimed about your own Nigerian ancestry

Anduku:
You're the one wallowing in ignorance not me. Asylum seeking is not a crime but illegal immigration is a crime in every country in the world. Trump has never been against asylum seeking or immigration, he has been very clear that he is against ILLEGAL immigration. If you want to seek asylum in a country, you don't storm the country's borders in mob and throw stones at their border patrol, you follow the laid down procedures and do that legally.

oh he hasn't been? where? In your world if alternate truths? If so, why were official points of entry for presentation and application for asylum closed along the border during the arrival of the so called Honduran caravan? Why were legitimate american residents stopped at ports of entry and in some cases returned at a time during trumps Muslim ban?

BraniacX:
now you fall into my trap, so is it now illegal to cross the border to seek immigration? What changed? The laws or the policies of the current government?

Times have changed, laws have changed and in these age it is a crime to cross any country's borders without following due process. Even before Trump came, it was so. As a matter of fact, it is so all over the world. Can you name just one country in the world where crossing the borders illegally is not a crime? Just one country!! Even Nigerians who have always complained about the porousness of our borders are now telling Americans not to protect their own border. Shocking!!! And BTW asylum seekers can only get asylum if granted by the country they seek to go to. The fact that you claim to be an asylum seeker does not confer on you the right to just cross into other countries illegally. They would be well within their rights to deport you if they don't see any merit in your asylum request

raumdeuter:
In the early times it was just people entering and exiting as they liked and the shipping manifest was the only thing they could point to

What brought us to shipping manifest was your claim that a white American can never deny his European ancestry because of shipping manifests
In the course of time many manifests have been lost or destroyed so Mr JohnSmith does not have any shiiping manifest linking him to Europe because it as destroyed

So he can claim to you that his ancestry was not European and anything you say tying him to Europe is just assumptions like you claimed about your own Nigerian ancestry

Mr john smith might not have any shipping manifest but with other records he can trace his ancestry in the US to a certain point to a man or woman and not a single generation before for which he has to look elsewhere in the world and based on his skin color and the name of his primary American ancestor Europe

raumdeuter:
Was there any law to stop border crossing 300yrs ago? Is there any such law now?

Under every recent American govt, there have always been laws to stop illegal border crossing

What changed? Times and laws changed

and if there has been that change in laws like you said, when was it? Who advocated for it? And what was the spirit behind the law? When you can answer all three succinctly you will already be confirming my claim if Republican hypocrisy

BraniacX:
oh he hasn't been? where? In your world if alternate truths? If so, why were official points of entry for presentation and application for asylum closed along the border during the arrival of the so called Honduran caravan? Why were legitimate american residents stopped at ports of entry and in some cases returned at a time during trumps Muslim ban?

If American citizens were stopped from entering during Trump's ban on travel from countries with terrorism issues (not Muslim ban) then they were stopped illegally because Trump's order never included American citizens. The order is out there for anyone to read the contents thereof. If for whatever reason an American citizen was denied entry then such citizens should seek legal redress because the order clearly doesn't apply to them. As for the caravan, there is no law that obligates or makes it compulsory for any country to accept asylum seekers, it is solely at their own discretion. So when a caravan approaches a country's borders in such a manner as they did by storming the borders and even attacking law enforcement, then the country has the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary to maintain security at their borders

Anduku:
Times have changed, laws have changed and in these age it is a crime to cross any country's borders without following due process. Even before Trump came, it was so. As a matter of fact, it is so all over the world. Can you name just one country in the world where crossing the borders illegally is not a crime? Just one country!! Even Nigerians who have always complained about the porousness of our borders are now telling Americans not to protect their own border. Shocking!!! And BTW asylum seekers can only get asylum if granted by the country they seek to go to. The fact that you claim to be an asylum seeker does not confer on you the right to just cross into other countries illegally. They would be well within their rights to deport you if they don't see any merit in your asylum request

FYI Nigeria isn't America! We didn't ask the world to send us their lowly, downtrodden and destitute from the very start, America did and those canvassing for tougher border control are mostly descendants of those lowly, downtrodden and destitute who came into the US without hassles, I am not American so i couldn't care either way, NY grouse is with the hypocrisy of it all

BraniacX:
and if there has been that change in laws like you said, when was it? Who advocated for it? And what was the spirit behind the law? When you can answer all three succinctly you will already be confirming my claim if Republican hypocrisy

Immigration laws have been modified over time from 1790 till date especially in 1890

The 1891 Immigration act was signed by President Harrison a Republican

What spirit? Go and read about the Immigration act of 1891

Anduku:
If American citizens were stopped from entering during Trump's ban on travel from countries with terrorism issues (not Muslim ban) then they were stopped illegally because Trump's order never included American citizens. The order is out there for anyone to read the contents thereof. If for whatever reason an American citizen was denied entry then such citizens should seek legal redress because the order clearly doesn't apply to them. As for the caravan, there is no law that obligates or makes it compulsory for any country to accept asylum seekers, it is solely at their own discretion. So when a caravan approaches a country's borders in such a manner as they did by storming the borders and even attacking law enforcement, then the country has the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary to maintain security at their borders

American citizens you quickly point out but what about valid American residents with valid visas and papers of residency? In your haste to absorb trump of any wrong doing you fail to recollect him condemning any act of unlawful denial of entry OE victimization done in the name of Hus executive order

On asylum seekers, America has an obligation to accept them, don't remember if and which law this is backed by but America does except if their asylum claim isn't valid and that is the point of screening but my point is what has changed in handling asylum hasn't been the law, it has policy that has changed

BraniacX:
FYI Nigeria isn't America! We didn't ask the world to send us their lowly, downtrodden and destitute from the very start, America did and those canvassing for tougher border control are mostly descendants of those lowly, downtrodden and destitute who came into the US without hassles, I am not American so i couldn't care either way, NY grouse is with the hypocrisy of it all

There is no law in the US that says you should send your destitutes to them, This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ poem, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits and so they inscribed the poem there. Nations are ruled by laws and not the words of an individual's poem. Trump was elected to enforce America's laws, not Lazarus' poem

Anduku:
There is no law in the US that says you should send your destitutes to them, This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ poem, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits and so they inscribed the poem there. Nations are ruled by laws and not the words of an individual's poem. Trump was elected to enforce America's laws, not Lazarus' poem

oh! I stand corrected then, so what laws if any ruled the entry of all those European migrants?

BraniacX:
American citizens you quickly point out but what about valid American residents with valid visas and papers of residency? In your haste to absorb trump of any wrong doing you fail to recollect him condemning any act of unlawful denial of entry OE victimization done in the name of Hus executive order

On asylum seekers, America has an obligation to accept them, don't remember if and which law this is backed by but America does except if their asylum claim isn't valid and that is the point of screening but my point is what has changed in handling asylum hasn't been the law, it has policy that has changed

I don't even understand the point of your argument. If any law enforcement officer goes off to start doing things that are extra judicial, how is that the fault of the persons who enacted the laws?

raumdeuter:
Immigration laws have been modified over time from 1790 till date especially in 1890

The 1891 Immigration act was signed by President Harrison a Republican

What spirit? Go and read about the Immigration act of 1891

you obviously have read it so what does it say?

Anduku:
I don't even understand the point of your argument. If any law enforcement officer goes off to start doing things that are extra judicial, how is that the fault of the persons who enacted the laws?

for a president so opinionated and digitally vocal about everything, the silence of his on extra judicial interpretation of his executive order says what?

BraniacX:
FYI Nigeria isn't America! We didn't ask the world to send us their lowly, downtrodden and destitute from the very start, America did and those canvassing for tougher border control are mostly descendants of those lowly, downtrodden and destitute who came into the US without hassles, I am not American so i couldn't care either way, NY grouse is with the hypocrisy of it all

America said bring your downtrodden and destitute Yes so they do not have to vet those destitutte again?

So if you say My house is open to the poor and hungry yoou dont have the right to vet if some people are taking advantage of the situation at the expense of genuine destitutes?

America has taken in downtrodden destitutes from Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, SierraLeone Haiti Vietnam, Iraq and all over the world and they still continue to take as long as you follow the normal procedures

BraniacX:
American citizens you quickly point out but what about valid American residents with valid visas and papers of residency? In your haste to absorb trump of any wrong doing you fail to recollect him condemning any act of unlawful denial of entry OE victimization done in the name of Hus executive order

On asylum seekers, America has an obligation to accept them, don't remember if and which law this is backed by but America does except if their asylum claim isn't valid and that is the point of screening but my point is what has changed in handling asylum hasn't been the law, it has policy that has changed

Asylum seekers has a right to be accepted or rejected. Nowhere does it say we will take everyone who apply

raumdeuter:
America said bring your downtrodden and destitute Yes so they do not have to vet those destitutte again?

So if you say My house is open to the poor and hungry yoou dont have the right to vet if some people are taking advantage of the situation at the expense of genuine destitutes?

America has taken in downtrodden destitutes from Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, SierraLeone Haiti Vietnam, Iraq and all over the world and they still continue to take as long as you follow the normal procedures

America has taken them i agree, until trump! Now that's my point

raumdeuter:
Asylum seekers has a right to be accepted or rejected. Nowhere does it say we will take everyone who apply

before they are rejected they have to be heard first! Now tell me, is that what is happening at the border currently?

BraniacX:
American citizens you quickly point out but what about valid American residents with valid visas and papers of residency? In your haste to absorb trump of any wrong doing you fail to recollect him condemning any act of unlawful denial of entry OE victimization done in the name of Hus executive order

On asylum seekers, America has an obligation to accept them, don't remember if and which law this is backed by but America does except if their asylum claim isn't valid and that is the point of screening but my point is what has changed in handling asylum hasn't been the law, it has policy that has changed

A visa or residence card can be revoked at any time at the discretion of the authorities of the issuing country

Sweden can issue you a visa and revoke it the following day

BraniacX:
oh! I stand corrected then, so what laws if any ruled the entry of all those European migrants?

Can't you understand that times have changed and the world has evolved? The laws as present now were non existent back then. With civilisation came modern laws on immigration. You can't be trying to apply medieval laws to present times. You can't be trying to justify present day illegalities by saying after all they were not illegal hundreds of years ago