• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden banned Border Patrol horses. What an a-hole.

BlueTex said:
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
(

(2)Exceptions
(A)In generalParagraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that—
(i)
the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;
(ii)
the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;
(iii)
there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States;
(iv)
there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;
(v)
Click to expand...

any alien which has not been properly vetted, for reasons such as crossing the border illegally, should be recognized as a danger to the security of the United States and thus meet the exceptions clause.
 
Grandpappy said:
You have people crossing the border who the Border Patrol is tasked with stopping.
You have areas where horses are the only transportation option.
It's all about the video and reaction by Americans.
Do you know what a cutting horse is?
Did you know that a horse would rather jump over a human being than trample them?
Joe Biden is a damn idiot.
God help us.
Click to expand...
God help racist bigots...
 
BlueTex said:
Good luck with that argument in court....
Click to expand...

We went over this in the other thread. They are not entitled to an asylum hearing as they don't qualify under the definition of the law as a refugee. That decision can be made in the field, by an individual CBP agent.
 
DopeyJoeIsSenile said:
I am assuming that your daughter and the 4H girls never had to ride in a law enforcement or crowd control capacity with all of the swift turns, stops, etc.
Click to expand...
The horse patrol didn't need to do that, they chose to dive in among the Haitians and do what my daughter's friends would call 'cutting'. The video shows the Agent using his reigns to slap at the refugee. That wasn't needed to control the horse, that was simple frustration and anger.

You know what ASSuMEing does, yet you do it. Much of Western showmanship is complex, trot patterns of tight turns, swift bursts, sliding stops, backing... The Agents were not is hand to hand combat, the refugees weren't trying to unhorse them. No riot control, simply riding down afraid refugees- not a banner moment for the Border Patrol... ✌️
 
Personally, I would suggest to the mounted agents that are currently being vilified by the liberal media to file a lawsuit against Biden for creating a hostile work environment.
They would win easily.
 
Grandpappy said:
Personally, I would suggest to the mounted agents that are currently being vilified by the liberal media file a lawsuit against Biden for creating a hostile work environment.
They would win easily.
Click to expand...


LMAO…. Is this how these lawsuits work in fantasyland?
 
Grandpappy said:
Personally, I would suggest to the mounted agents that are currently being vilified by the liberal media file a lawsuit against Biden for creating a hostile work environment.
They would win easily.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to see a cereal box law degree can be put to use- not saying GOOD use but then again I don't think Lin Wood's degree is being put to good use either. Might be a MAGA thing... ✌️
 
Libs make up bullshit based on their Marxist training, libs get their sorry asses sued. It’s the American way.
 
Grandpappy said:
Libs make up bullshit based on their Marxist training, libs get their sorry asses sued. It’s the American way.
Click to expand...
MAGA make up BS based on their Moa Zedong training. MAGAs try to sue, their suits rarely last a day in court. It's the American way... ✌️
 
Grandpappy said:
Personally, I would suggest to the mounted agents that are currently being vilified by the liberal media to file a lawsuit against Biden for creating a hostile work environment.
They would win easily.
Click to expand...
You mean they didn't have the option of finding other jobs and Biden forced them onto their horses? Don't be ridiculous.
 
Grandpappy said:
I can think of far worse behavior. Rope the sumbiches and drag their sorry asses back to where they came from.
But that didn't happen. We are a civilized nation, right?
Click to expand...
Like violently breaking into the U.S. Capitol shouting Kill Mike Pence and beating and maiming Capitol Police because you lost an election? All which you apparently support. :rolleyes:
 
BlueTex said:
Good luck with that argument in court....
Click to expand...
just more proof that progressives do not care about the security of our country or citizens. It is completely logical that an unvetted illegal alien who enters this country illegally poses a possible security risk to the US, for the simple fact, that we don't KNOW who TF they are... and right THERE is the law for dealing with such a thing...

but that is obviously too easy and rational for radical progressives.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Applying for asylum doesn't mean they can illegally enter into the country. Has to be a designated point of entry.

  • “Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.
Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.
Click to expand...
Doesn't apply to asylum:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
Click to expand...

www.law.cornell.edu

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 
element94 said:
Like violently breaking into the U.S. Capitol shouting Kill Mike Pence and beating and maiming Capitol Police because you lost an election? All which you apparently support. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm curious, what Capitol officers were maimed during the riot?
 
notquiteright said:
The horse patrol didn't need to do that, they chose to dive in among the Haitians and do what my daughter's friends would call 'cutting'. The video shows the Agent using his reigns to slap at the refugee. That wasn't needed to control the horse, that was simple frustration and anger.

You know what ASSuMEing does, yet you do it. Much of Western showmanship is complex, trot patterns of tight turns, swift bursts, sliding stops, backing... The Agents were not is hand to hand combat, the refugees weren't trying to unhorse them. No riot control, simply riding down afraid refugees- not a banner moment for the Border Patrol... ✌️
Click to expand...
Inconsequential to handling the horse. And, no, they don't just have to use their knees.
 
Hypothetical said:
just more proof that progressives do not care about the security of our country or citizens. It is completely logical that an unvetted illegal alien who enters this country illegally poses a possible security risk to the US, for the simple fact, that we don't KNOW who TF they are... and right THERE is the law for dealing with such a thing...

but that is obviously too easy and rational for radical progressives.
Click to expand...

Think you could convince a jury of that horse shit in a civil rights lawsuit?
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Yes it does. It does not take the place of breaking other laws or else an exception would be listed in the statute, which it doesn't.
Click to expand...

It does not. I am sorry that you are having trouble with black letter law.
 
notquiteright said:
The horse patrol didn't need to do that, they chose to dive in among the Haitians and do what my daughter's friends would call 'cutting'. The video shows the Agent using his reigns to slap at the refugee. That wasn't needed to control the horse, that was simple frustration and anger.
Click to expand...
It was also common sense crowd control Those so-called refugees were attempting to force their way past the border control and disappear into the countryside. What would you have done. Fired spit wads at them? Or super soaker squirt guns?
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Yes it does. It does not take the place of breaking other laws or else an exception would be listed in the statute, which it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Wrong... turn in your internet law license...

Aliens otherwise subject to expedited removal who indicate either an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture will be given further review by an asylum officer including an opportunity to establish a “credible fear,” and thus potential eligibility for asylum. INA section 235(b)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i); 8 CFR 235.3(b)(4). Further, an alien otherwise subject to expedited removal is “given a reasonable opportunity to establish to the satisfaction of the examining immigration officer that he or she was admitted or paroled into the United States.” 8 CFR 235.3(b)(6). Aliens who have not been admitted or paroled and who are subject to expedited removal have the burden of proving that they are not inadmissible and satisfy the continuous physical presence requirement. 8 CFR 235.3(b)(1)(ii). Any absence from the United States serves to break the

www.federalregister.gov

Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal

This Notice (this Notice) enables the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to exercise the full remaining scope of its statutory authority to place in expedited removal, with limited exceptions, aliens determined to be inadmissible under sections 212(a)(6)(C) or (a)(7) of the Immigration and...
www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom