Why is Biden Administration Lying about Border Crisis?

[Animal]

that's what i expected. so if everything on my list is cleraly a crime

If you'd done the reading, you'd see they're not. Swing and a miss again, mental midget.

read everything, stupid. they are. and all it takes is one thing on my list to be a crime. read everything though.

[dot]

read everything, stupid. they are.

Except they aren't, and the experts told you why. But you'd have to have read to know why. This is why posting things in black and white does no good with you because you won't read it and learn how you're wrong.

[Animal]

read everything, stupid. they are.

Except they aren't, and the experts told you why. But you'd have to have read to know why. This is why posting things in black and white does no good with you because you won't read it and learn how you're wrong.

Here's some black and white for you:

Under INA § 235(b) applicants for admission must generally be detained for removal purposes if they do not appear clearly to be admissible. The statute defines an “applicant for admission” to include both an alien seeking initial entry at a designated port of entry and an alien
present in the United States who has not been admitted.
The detention requirements of INA § 235(b) have been construed to apply to applicants for admission regardless of
whether they are subject to a streamlined “expedited removal” process (e.g., those apprehended when attempting
to enter the United States without valid entry documents) or are subject to formal removal proceedings (e.g., aliens
inadmissible because of engaging in certain criminal activities). This construction also applies to aliens who,
though initially subject to expedited removal, were found to have a credible fear of persecution if returned to their
country of origin, and then transferred to formal removal proceedings to pursue asylum or similar forms of relief.

[dot]

Here's some black and white for you:

Under INA § 235(b) applicants for admission must generally be detained for removal purposes if they do not appear clearly to be admissible. The statute defines an “applicant for admission” to include both an alien seeking initial entry at a designated port of entry and an alien
present in the United States who has not been admitted.
The detention requirements of INA § 235(b) have been construed to apply to applicants for admission regardless of
whether they are subject to a streamlined “expedited removal” process (e.g., those apprehended when attempting
to enter the United States without valid entry documents) or are subject to formal removal proceedings (e.g., aliens
inadmissible because of engaging in certain criminal activities). This construction also applies to aliens who,
though initially subject to expedited removal, were found to have a credible fear of persecution if returned to their
country of origin, and then transferred to formal removal proceedings to pursue asylum or similar forms of relief.

Read why you're wrong. Do your homework.

[Animal]

Here's some black and white for you:

Under INA § 235(b) applicants for admission must generally be detained for removal purposes if they do not appear clearly to be admissible. The statute defines an “applicant for admission” to include both an alien seeking initial entry at a designated port of entry and an alien
present in the United States who has not been admitted.
The detention requirements of INA § 235(b) have been construed to apply to applicants for admission regardless of
whether they are subject to a streamlined “expedited removal” process (e.g., those apprehended when attempting
to enter the United States without valid entry documents) or are subject to formal removal proceedings (e.g., aliens
inadmissible because of engaging in certain criminal activities). This construction also applies to aliens who,
though initially subject to expedited removal, were found to have a credible fear of persecution if returned to their
country of origin, and then transferred to formal removal proceedings to pursue asylum or similar forms of relief.

Read why you're wrong. Do your homework.

i have read that you fucking moron. No one is disputing Biden's stupid (really stupid) border policies. Those are stupid on their own merits. We are talking ONLY about the crimes that Mayorkas committed. One of those crimes is not detaining illegal aliens when they crossed the border until they could determine if they should be admitted. That is a crime.

Your dilemma is to say that is not a crime. And if it is a crime, your next dilemma is to say that its not a high enough crime or its not a misdemeanor.

[Biker]

[Biker]

Biden is destroying our country

[CHEEZY17]

The Democrats tell us that all of the immigrants are just awesome people!

[dot]

i have read that you fucking moron.

Then you'd see why you're wrong. But since you're still disputing it:

No one is disputing Biden's stupid (really stupid) border policies. Those are stupid on their own merits. We are talking ONLY about the crimes that Mayorkas committed.

Wrong. Read what the cited experts said about what you call crimes. Either do your homework or you fail.

[Animal]

i have read that you fucking moron.

Then you'd see why you're wrong. But since you're still disputing it:

No one is disputing Biden's stupid (really stupid) border policies. Those are stupid on their own merits. We are talking ONLY about the crimes that Mayorkas committed.

Wrong. Read what the cited experts said about what you call crimes. Either do your homework or you fail.

more of your "nuh uh" argument. you know what the crimes are. you just don't like it. I wouldn't like it either because they are pretty chicken shit crimes. but crimes are crimes right?

[Antknot]

[dot]

more of your "nuh uh" argument.

Well, considering you can't produce contrary legal opinion to it, and I've shown several accounts now that disagree with your partisan conclusion, seems my argument is the one with meat on the bone whereas you are the one saying nuh uh.

you know what the crimes are. you just don't like it. I wouldn't like it either because they are pretty chicken shit crimes. but crimes are crimes right?

I know what you say the crimes are. I also know that legal experts disagree with you for multiple reasons on multiple accounts. So either disprove them, or admit you're wrong, mental midget.

[Animal]

more of your "nuh uh" argument.

Well, considering you can't produce contrary legal opinion to it, and I've shown several accounts now that disagree with your partisan conclusion, seems my argument is the one with meat on the bone whereas you are the one saying nuh uh.

you know what the crimes are. you just don't like it. I wouldn't like it either because they are pretty chicken shit crimes. but crimes are crimes right?

I know what you say the crimes are. I also know that legal experts disagree with you for multiple reasons on multiple accounts. So either disprove them, or admit you're wrong, mental midget.

i have already shown you that not detaining an illegal alien is a crime. i posted the actual crime. In writing. I guess its up to you to prove that Mayorkas never let an illegal alien into the US without detaining them. Which would be stupid for me to require since everyone in the world knows he did that millions of times. Not once or twice, but millions.

[CHEEZY17]

Record number of millions I believe.

[dot]

i have already shown you that not detaining an illegal alien is a crime.

And I showed you the legal experts that explain how what you allege is false, including one of the hack's favorite people disagreeing with both of you. So you're going to have to do better.

[Animal]

i have already shown you that not detaining an illegal alien is a crime.

And I showed you the legal experts that explain how what you allege is false, including one of the hack's favorite people disagreeing with both of you. So you're going to have to do better.

yeah, well when it comes to pointing out crimes you can't do any better than posting the actual crime word for word. so you'll just have to accept it over someone else's opinion. poor dumb dot.

[Antknot]

[dot]

yeah, well when it comes to pointing out crimes you can't do any better than posting the actual crime word for word.

Except when legal experts that know more about the subject than you ever will by your own limiting design refute your claims, because your claims are in bad faith partisan hackery. Poor mental midget.

[Antknot]

[Ricrude]

[Animal]

i talked to someone that went through the El Paso airport several months ago. They said that you could tell who the illegals were because they all had the same goody bag of things they were given by the government and they all had the same shoes (also given by the government).

[fouts]

USA is the only country I know that loves to allow ignorant,illiterate,unskilled,gang bangers and perverts openly and freely that have no means of support to burden local schools and social services of all descriptions for the next couple decades. And you the tax payer -this is Bidens gift to you because you will have to pay it. I've seem local neighborhoods turn into shit holes because illegals like making a shit hole like from they came.

[Antknot]

The Democrats won’t do anything about the border. Consider this the US census counts bodies not citizens. The more bodies in a Democrat area the more Democrat representatives in Congress

[QillerDaemon]

Consider this the US census counts bodies not citizens.

Most censuses count bodies, not just citizens. I've been counted twice as a non-citizen simply because I was in the countries when their census was taken.

Better, my son was taken in a census -three- times as a non-citizen. None of these would be considered "shit-hole" countries, either.

[Antknot]

Consider this the US census counts bodies not citizens.

Most censuses count bodies, not just citizens. I've been counted twice as a non-citizen simply because I was in the countries when their census was taken.

Better, my son was taken in a census -three- times as a non-citizen. None of these would be considered "shit-hole" countries, either.

Were you or your son there illegally?