Horrific Rape & Killing of 12-year-old Texas girl: Men Charged

[riclag]

16 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Well, if he had of built the wall and made Mexico pay for it like he promised during the election campaign she would probably still be alive.

He failed badly.

What country you from?

For the record:

Any  American knows the lefts Pelosi & Shummer rejected Trump’s funding for it !

democratic leaders in Congress say they have no interest in making a deal with President Trump to end the government shutdown if it includes new money for his border wall!

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cracks-in-wall-resistance-pelosi-facing-dem-pressure-to-deal-with-trump-end-shutdown

 

President Trump noted last week that his campaign promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it “obviously” did not mean getting a check from the Mexican government directly. Rather, he said, Mexico will be paying for the wall indirectly, “many, many times over” via the trade agreement his administration recently renegotiated with Canada and Mexico to replace NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement).

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mexico-will-pay-for-a-wall-trump-is-right

 

 

[bubblegum]

20 minutes ago, riclag said:

What country you from?

For the record:

Any  American knows the lefts Pelosi & Shummer rejected Trump’s funding for it !

democratic leaders in Congress say they have no interest in making a deal with President Trump to end the government shutdown if it includes new money for his border wall!

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cracks-in-wall-resistance-pelosi-facing-dem-pressure-to-deal-with-trump-end-shutdown

 

President Trump noted last week that his campaign promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it “obviously” did not mean getting a check from the Mexican government directly. Rather, he said, Mexico will be paying for the wall indirectly, “many, many times over” via the trade agreement his administration recently renegotiated with Canada and Mexico to replace NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement).

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mexico-will-pay-for-a-wall-trump-is-right

 

 

So Trump does not mean what he says.

[metisdead]

Some off topic deflection posts and replies contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

[Cryingdick]

10 hours ago, WDSmart said:

We have borders. We also have immigration laws and asylum and refugee status laws. If they aren't helping us deal with the current scope of events, then our Legislative Branch needs to change them. In an emergency, the Executive Branch can issue a short-term edict, but it must be followed by a change in the law. 

 

Asylum applicants need to be held until they are vetted and verified. No change in the law is required to do this. Also the fact they are "paroled" into the USA should tell you conditions can be set on where they go and what they do. I would welcome all asylum seekers and they can wait 5 or more years in Alaska while their case is being considered. There are plenty of land locked mountainous area that only border Canada to put them. Canada protects it's borders so there would be very little chance they return that way. 

 

I would tell them that it will take at least that long and if that isn't convenient for them: they can turn around and voluntarily cross back into Mexico of their own accord. During this time i would take DNA, fingerprints and insist they sign a document that says they have agreed to wave any claim to asylum in the future and they agree not to return..

 

In your other post you suggest the number if rapists, criminals, and murderers is a small number. It's like saying if you let two people in your house and one is a killer that's really a large percentage. Now if you let 10 million people in and only a few hundred thousand are bad it shouldn't be of concern. . 

 

i am not sure i have ever heard a sane explanation of why we need millions of unvetted people allowed in under fraudulent asylum claims.especially during the height of the pandemic. It's just straight up crazy. 

Edited Saturday at 07:49 PM by Cryingdick

[Kinok Farang]

10 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Well, if he had of built the wall and made Mexico pay for it like he promised during the election campaign she would probably still be alive.

He failed badly.

Nice try.

[WDSmart]

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Asylum applicants need to be held until they are vetted and verified. No change in the law is required to do this. Also the fact they are "paroled" into the USA should tell you conditions can be set on where they go and what they do. I would welcome all asylum seekers and they can wait 5 or more years in Alaska while their case is being considered. There are plenty of land locked mountainous area that only border Canada to put them. Canada protects it's borders so there would be very little chance they return that way. 

 

I would tell them that it will take at least that long and if that isn't convenient for them: they can turn around and voluntarily cross back into Mexico of their own accord. During this time i would take DNA, fingerprints and insist they sign a document that says they have agreed to wave any claim to asylum in the future and they agree not to return..

 

In your other post you suggest the number if rapists, criminals, and murderers is a small number. It's like saying if you let two people in your house and one is a killer that's really a large percentage. Now if you let 10 million people in and only a few hundred thousand are bad it shouldn't be of concern. . 

 

i am not sure i have ever heard a sane explanation of why we need millions of unvetted people allowed in under fraudulent asylum claims.especially during the height of the pandemic. It's just straight up crazy. 

I don't disagree with most of what you say above. All I'm saying is that if the situation at the border has changed to the degree that we need new laws to govern it, the president can only make a short-term change using an executive order. For a permanent, long-term change, congress would have to create new legislation. 

[WDSmart]

13 hours ago, stoner said:

13 hours ago, WDSmart said:

They could "allegedly" have done anything. I assume, if there is enough evidence, they will be tried for this crime (killing of the girl). If they are tried, their immigration status should not be considered. 

 

you're missing the point. no illegal entry = no rape. 

You're missing the point. Even if these two men are illegal aliens, they have not yet been found guilty of harming this girl in any way.

[WDSmart]

13 hours ago, stoner said:

13 hours ago, WDSmart said:

And illegal immigrants aren't criminals until they are found, charged, and convicted.

 

illegally entering a country is a crime. 

Yes, illegally entering a country is a crime. As far as I know, these two men have not been found guilty of doing that yet.

[stoner]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

You're missing the point. Even if these two men are illegal aliens, they have not yet been found guilty of harming this girl in any way.

 

no one is disputing that. 

[stoner]

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, illegally entering a country is a crime. As far as I know, these two men have not been found guilty of doing that yet.

 

no one is debating if they have been found guilty or not. they have committed a crime none the less. 

 

 

 

[WDSmart]

12 hours ago, 0james0 said:

Crossing the border illegally is a criminal act- therefore all illegal immigrants are criminals. By your flawed logic, a criminal robbing a liquor store and murdering the cashier isn’t a criminal until they’re caught and convicted. Yeah right-whatever 

Here's your problem causing our dilemma:

I agree with your first sentence, but you can't immediately apply that to these two men. They have not yet (as far as I have read) been prove to have crossed the border illegally. They probably did, but "probably" doesn't make them criminals yet.

In your second sentence, you start with "a criminal robbing a liquor store..." You should have just said "a person robbing...," and not used the term "criminal" yet.

And most importantly, when applied to this case being discussed in this Forum, whether or not these two men are illegal aliens have nothing to do with whether they were the ones who harmed this girl.

[stoner]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I agree with your first sentence, but you can't immediately apply that to these two men. They have not yet (as far as I have read) been prove to have crossed the border illegally. They probably did, but "probably" doesn't make them criminals yet.

 

from the very first comment on this thread.....

 

https://apnews.com/article/girl-murder-houston-venezuelans-illegal-f56f630e45f79421f2d224d84259b4a9

 

The two men are Venezuelan nationals who entered the United States illegally in March, according to a statement Friday from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

[impulse]

13 hours ago, WDSmart said:

What I said was not all immigrants are criminals. And illegal immigrants aren't criminals until they are found, charged, and convicted.

 

No.  I'm pretty sure a tree makes noise when it falls.  Even if nobody's there to hear it. 

 

If you cross a border illegally, you're a criminal.  Whether you get caught or not.

 

 

 

[WDSmart]

12 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

from the very first comment on this thread.....

 

https://apnews.com/article/girl-murder-houston-venezuelans-illegal-f56f630e45f79421f2d224d84259b4a9

 

The two men are Venezuelan nationals who entered the United States illegally in March, according to a statement Friday from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Okay, I didn't read that comment; this information wasn't in the article itself. 

So, these two men are illegal aliens and, therefore, criminals. I now agree with that. But that still doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they had anything to do with this girl's death.

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

No.  I'm pretty sure a tree makes noise when it falls.  Even if nobody's there to hear it. 

 

If you cross a border illegally, you're a criminal.  Whether you get caught or not.

 

 

 

Again, I don't like your phrasing. A tree does not make a noise when it falls unless a human is around to interpret the sound waves it makes as "noise."

And, yes, if YOU cross a border illegally, YOU are a criminal. But, if you think these two men crossed a border illegally, they are not criminals until that is proven to be true. (Which I've now learned via a post here citing APNews that the U.S. Department of Immigration says they have proof.) 

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

21 minutes ago, stoner said:

Expand  

Okay, I didn't read that comment; this information wasn't in the article itself. 

 

 

If you read my next comment, you'd understand why it was disturbing that the article quoted in the OP didn't mention that they were illegals:

 

What was interesting this morning is that during my Bing search on the topic, most of the MSM either failed to mention they were illegals, or claimed that the authorities were still looking into their status, as if it was unknown.  I had to look quite a bit to find an MSM article to link, lest I be accused of linking right wing propaganda again.  Because the right wing sources had them as illegals very early in the news cycle.  Complete with dates they were caught and released.

 

I suspect a bunch of lefties that only read CNN and MSDNC still don't know.  And probably won't, until the anger dies down.  Doesn't help Joe.

 

[stoner]

10 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Okay, I didn't read that comment; this information wasn't in the article itself. 

So, these two men are illegal aliens and, therefore, criminals. I now agree with that. But that still doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they had anything to do with this girl's death.

 

for sure.  

[JonnyF]

Once again we see why countries need to protect their borders and control immigration. 

 

Biden has a lot to answer for.

[WDSmart]

33 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

 

If you read my next comment, you'd understand why it was disturbing that the article quoted in the OP didn't mention that they were illegals:

 

What was interesting this morning is that during my Bing search on the topic, most of the MSM either failed to mention they were illegals, or claimed that the authorities were still looking into their status, as if it was unknown.  I had to look quite a bit to find an MSM article to link, lest I be accused of linking right wing propaganda again.  Because the right wing sources had them as illegals very early in the news cycle.  Complete with dates they were caught and released.

 

I suspect a bunch of lefties that only read CNN and MSDNC still don't know.  And probably won't, until the anger dies down.  Doesn't help Joe.

 

Whether or not these two men who are SUSPECTS in this child's death are illegal aliens should, IMO, not be the focus of this forum. Their immigration status makes no difference as to whether they are involved in her death. But a bunch of righties, like you, seem to want to make their immigration status a big deal and imply that it is further evidence that they are guilty of this crime and go on to demean all immigrants, both legal and illegal. I disagree wholeheartedly with that.

Edited Sunday at 01:30 AM by WDSmart

[WDSmart]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Biden has a lot to answer for.

Yes, and you can read about some of them here: 30 Things Joe Biden Did as President You Might Have Missed - POLITICO

[FruitPudding]

Illegal migrants at it again.

[impulse]

34 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

Illegal migrants at it again.

 

I'm waiting for AOC and The Squad to insist that we look at the bright side. 

 

Venezuelan 12 year olds are much safer with their rapists and murderers headed north.

 

https://insightcrime.org/news/venezuela-crime-rate-falling/

 

 

Edited Sunday at 04:36 AM by impulse

[Bundooman]

On 6/22/2024 at 1:35 PM, Kinok Farang said:

No replies from the bat shiit crazy Biden supporters on here.

Try and blame Trump for this one.

He didn't 'build the wall' either.

Blame Trump as well!

 

[riclag]

12 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Once again we see why countries need to protect their borders and control immigration. 

 

Biden has a lot to answer for.

The only way they answer the call is from the citizens vote!

He will make a pitch on the debate

stage that its the gop fault !

But he called for a surge to the border

and the rest is history ,as he try’s in desperation to pivot to the middle!

 

Him & the dems are so so screwed

 

methinks

[Cryingdick]

13 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I don't disagree with most of what you say above. All I'm saying is that if the situation at the border has changed to the degree that we need new laws to govern it, the president can only make a short-term change using an executive order. For a permanent, long-term change, congress would have to create new legislation. 

 

News laws are not required. The secret sauce is the political willpower to enforce existing laws. The tools are already in the box waiting to go. I am not sure why people keep vapor locking on this point. Stop directing law enforcement to be a concierge facility to welcome people and move them in as rapidly as possible. Go back to a normal state o affairs where your first duty is to secure the borders, confirm identities, process claims of asylum in that order. If you can not be verified you are detained. Period. 

 

Not sure why people think we owe anybody the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

[stoner]

9 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

News laws are not required. The secret sauce is the political willpower to enforce existing laws. The tools are already in the box waiting to go. I am not sure why people keep vapor locking on this point. Stop directing law enforcement to be a concierge facility to welcome people and move them in as rapidly as possible. Go back to a normal state o affairs where your first duty is to secure the borders, confirm identities, process claims of asylum in that order. If you can not be verified you are detained. Period. 

 

Not sure why people think we owe anybody the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

 

the fingerprint and dna thing you mentioned is a good idea. i think it's reasonable that immigration has a very accurate way of determining who someone is. the stories of people with no id etc are endless. to no fault of their own many times i would assume. the places they are coming from aren't exactly tip top (generally speaking). then you have those with ill intent. no matter the percentage that reality is there. this idea would go a long way to combat that with 100 percent certainty. i think it would also help deter those who wish to gain the system.

 

[Andre0720]

The right is right, right wing political parties should be preferred, regardless of the candidate.

Too much at stake to elect a leftist government. No more room for emotions in choosing a leader.

So many European countries finally understood that.

 

[john donson]

biden and his open door policies... bankrupting many cities where illegals get free hotels, food 3x a day, pocket money...

[suspectdevice]

On 6/22/2024 at 6:08 AM, Hakuna Matata said:

This is an inevitable consequence of Biden's immigration policy and failure to build the Wall at the border with Mexico!

 

 

Shame on the 3 pricks who put a laughing emoji on this horrendous story

[bbbbooboo]

Hmmm… this is why capital punishment exists, for people who do things like this