International Americans - can somebody explain to me "illegals"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 609094
  • Start date Start date
Neck&Neck said:
Lefties prefer the term “Undocumented”
Illegal is too harsh for their ears
Click to expand...
People on Sherdog or in your friends/family etc? I don't know any lefty who takes offence to that word. How long do you spend on FOX Lose?
 
Neck&Neck said:
Lefties prefer the term “Undocumented”
Illegal is too harsh for their ears
Click to expand...
You just have to say what you want and ignore their feelings. All they will do is throw little temper tantrums like they are doing in LA currently. Once they realize it isn't going to help anything, they'll get back to normal.
 
Legal immigrants generally need to have a visa (which generally means they either need to have a job lined up, are students, visting, etc.) that the government can use to classify them (and give the limited amount they have appropriately), are vetted by DHS/CBP/USCIS/ICE, are interviewed, have their photo and fingerprints taken, etc. This ensures that people coming in the country are not criminals, have jobs lined up for them and approved by the US government (which generally means that the job couldn't find a US worker to replace them for that job) and in some countries they also check your financial status to ensure you aren't just entering for benefits. It also provides tracking information to the US government, allowing them to know who is in the country and who isn't. The US government can control how many people come in, who comes in, if they are coming in for an acceptable reason and that they aren't criminals or bad people.

Illegal immigration has none of that. It's literally just letting anyone that can walk across the border get in. Doesn't matter if they have no job lined up, have no finances and will just become homeless right away, have 5 kgs of fentanyl on them, are a mass murderer, are a Nazi, etc.
 
Scheme said:
Legal immigrants generally need to have a visa (which generally means they either need to have a job lined up, are students, visting, etc.) that the government can use to classify them, are vetted by DHS/CBP/USCIS/ICE, are interviewed, have their photo and fingerprints taken, etc. This ensures that people coming in the country are not criminals, have jobs lined up for them and approved by the US government (which generally means that the job couldn't find a US worker to replace them for that job) and in some countries they also check your financial status to ensure you aren't just entering for benefits. The US government can control how many people come in, who comes in, if they are coming in for an acceptable reason and that they aren't criminals or bad people.

Illegal immigration has none of that. It's literally just letting anyone that can walk across the border get in. Doesn't matter if they have no job lined up, have no finances and will just become homeless right away, have 5 kgs of fentanyl on them, are a mass murderer, are a Nazi, etc.
Click to expand...
I'd been here legally for 10 years but kind of chuffed I became a citizen last year. Not that in the case of some people being here legally doesn't seem to matter.
 
Siver! said:
What is often conveniently forgotten is often there is NO legal avenue for would-be asylum seekers or refugees.

www.amnesty.org.uk

The truth about safe and legal routes

We are Amnesty International UK. We are ordinary people from across the world standing up for humanity and human rights.
www.amnesty.org.uk www.amnesty.org.uk

The rules in the UK make it borderline impossible to take a safe and legal approach to asylum.

This in itself causes a ton of problems for them, us and everybody involved.

Is it the same in America?
Click to expand...

We are similar In aus. You can claim asylum if you get here... but. Good luck getting here. If you dont do it through a legal port of entry. Back you go.

We used to have a fair few make it. But far too many were dying in the waters off australia , some got real lucky... other not. So public perception shifted with the shit run they had in 2001.

They often were barely sea worthy vessels and depended on being rescued as often as making it to australia.


The "Tampa incident" refers to a 2001 event where a Norwegian container ship, the MV Tampa, rescued 433 asylum seekers from a sinking fishing boat off the coast of Christmas Island. The Australian government refused the ship permission to enter its waters, leading to a high-profile international incident and a significant shift in Australia's asylum policy. This event triggered the implementation of Australia's "border protection" laws, including offshore processing of asylum seekers.

October 6, 2001: A wooden hulled vessel carrying 223 asylum seekers and believed to be operated by people smugglers sank and was intercepted by the HMAS Adelaide 190 kilometres north of Christmas Island.

Lucky rescue , bht our media ran with they threw their children overboard to force aus to rescue them and sinking their own boat. [ really they were just sinking ]

In October 2001, the SIEV X boat carrying asylum seekers capsized in the Indian Ocean, resulting in the tragic death of 353 people. This incident was one of several events surrounding the "Tampa affair" and the Australian government's response to asylum seekers arriving by boat.


It wasnt people thinking fuck the refugees that shifted perception. It was fuck the people smugglers launching death ships full of families.

Aus first introduced the policy of turning back boats in 2001, following the Tampa incident. The Tampa incident sparked the introduction of Australia's interdiction program named 'Operation Relex', which lasted until early 2002. It was succeeded by Operation Relex II which ended in July 2006.


Glad i looked into it lol I always felt we should do more.... but considering the numbers

In 2023, the UK granted refugee status or other protection to 62,336 people following an asylum application


In 2023, Australia recognised 14,669 refugees and resettled 15,223 refugees

In 2023, the U.S. admitted a total of 60,050 refugees.

I feel quite alright with that.

www.concern.org.uk

Which countries are taking in the most refugees in 2025?

The largest host communities for refugees are probably not the ones you think. Updated for 2025, these are the 10 countries with the largest refugee populations.
www.concern.org.uk


Nobody ever gives props to these countries ... i sure as hell dont
 
Scheme said:
Legal immigrants generally need to have a visa (which generally means they either need to have a job lined up, are students, visting, etc.) that the government can use to classify them (and give the limited amount they have appropriately), are vetted by DHS/CBP/USCIS/ICE, are interviewed, have their photo and fingerprints taken, etc. This ensures that people coming in the country are not criminals, have jobs lined up for them and approved by the US government (which generally means that the job couldn't find a US worker to replace them for that job) and in some countries they also check your financial status to ensure you aren't just entering for benefits. It also provides tracking information to the US government, allowing them to know who is in the country and who isn't. The US government can control how many people come in, who comes in, if they are coming in for an acceptable reason and that they aren't criminals or bad people.

Illegal immigration has none of that. It's literally just letting anyone that can walk across the border get in. Doesn't matter if they have no job lined up, have no finances and will just become homeless right away, have 5 kgs of fentanyl on them, are a mass murderer, are a Nazi, etc.
Click to expand...

More than half of the illegal migrant population entered the country legally but overstayed their visa.

It's a bit more complicated and not this binary.
 
fingercuffs said:
Fuck me, how much news media do you watch? You expect me to click on all of those?
Click to expand...

All I did was search “cnn undocumented” and dozens of results were readily available, including the view for some reason, which is ABC.

But regardless, you don’t have to click, as the summary is basically available in the tweets.

Maybe watch more news tho, if you thought it was isolated to Sherdog and FOXnews and be a bit more informed
 
Rational Poster said:
Let me break it down for you kiddo since you're having such a tough time.

When I said "the internet to tell me what to think" It didn't mean literally anything that exists on the internet, but regurgitating the opinion of a media source.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Carry on letting bid daddy government tell you how to think. Your little "let me talk down to some random person like I know it all and they know nothing" schtick tells me you actually don't know shit and that you're highly insecure. In person, you'd be cowering in a corner somewhere when a real motherfucker walks in. Good luck keeping up the act you put on, but it's pretty obvious to anyone that's interacted with you in any capacity.
 
WillyWarminski said:
On the surface, it sounds self-explanatory.
"Illegal" is law breaking.
So, they should be imprisoned or deported.


In the UK, "immigrants" holds different annotations depending on your dog in the fight.
Immigrants though, aren't illegal.

Illegal immigrants in UK should be ejected.

What is the difference?
Click to expand...

ricc505 said:
I know many legal immigrants and I've known illegals. The difference is simple legals have gone through the prescribed legal process of immigration and illegals have skipped that process.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a simple as what @ricc505 says.

Take for example, an asylum seeker. If they are granted asylum, they can apply for a green card, and they have a legal path to citizenship.

So let’s say a person used the CBP One app to schedule an appointment at a port of entry. They show up at the appointed date and time, we interview them, process them in—in other words, we choose to admit them—they fill out he form to claim asylum, are going through that legal process, showing up to court as they should, etc.

Is such a person legal or illegal? If they’re an “illegal,” what did they do that was illegal?

If they’re “legal,” then why is Leonel Eschavez in a gulag in El Salvador?
 
cottagecheesefan said:
All I did was search “cnn undocumented” and dozens of results were readily available, including the view for some reason, which is ABC.

But regardless, you don’t have to click, as the summary is basically available in the tweets.

Maybe watch more news tho, if you thought it was isolated to Sherdog and FOXnews and be a bit more informed
Click to expand...
Lol, which agencies? I don't watch ANY news since leaving The Bay. And that was only because I was friends with a local news anchor who used to head up ABC 7 early morning who was very flamboyant and fun...the whole early morning team were a blast.

Which do you tune in for every morning/night?
 
fingercuffs said:
Lol, which agencies? I don't watch ANY news since leaving The Bay. And that was only because I was friends with a local news anchor who used to head up ABC 7 early morning who was very flamboyant and fun...the whole early morning team were a blast.

Which do you tune in for every morning/night?
Click to expand...

Well you’re admitting you don’t watch the news, so that is one thing, again, be a little more informed.

But as you can see, you can readily search any major news agency and see what they say. So I did CNN, the view is ABC. This happened all throughout Biden’s presidency also

Here is “msnbc undocumented “







 
BFoe said:
I don’t think it’s a simple as what @ricc505 says.

Take for example, an asylum seeker. If they are granted asylum, they can apply for a green card, and they have a legal path to citizenship.

So let’s say a person used the CBP One app to schedule an appointment at a port of entry. They show up at the appointed date and time, we interview them, process them in—in other words, we choose to admit them—they fill out he form to claim asylum, are going through that legal process, showing up to court as they should, etc.

Is such a person legal or illegal? If they’re an “illegal,” what did they do that was illegal?

If they’re “legal,” then why is Leonel Eschavez in a gulag in El Salvador?
Click to expand...
I am very familiar with legal immigrantion but not asylum. My understanding is if you seek asylum it can be denied and you can be deported if you are in the country. If asylum is granted it doesn't necessarily grant citizenship and your asylum can be rescinded for many reasons. I think my answer stands. If you didn't follow the legal process you are therefore an illegal occupant of the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hog-train
International Biden Managed the Border Crisis Well and Didn't Cause It. Trump's Immigration Policies are Fascist and He's Playing Fragile White People for Fools
9 10 11
Replies
214
Views
2K
MichiganMMA1978
MichiganMMA1978

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,427
Messages
58,282,612
Members
175,993
Latest member
marburg-virus

Share this page

Back
Top