I though Bendid was a parellel for Bendis , the real enemy of Jon

It was that, too, I think, he chose Bendix as his enemy because the name is very tongue in cheek. But this issue I could feel how Taylor was imagining a dialogue with Trump right there, it's the type of stuff he always complains about on twitter. With the lying and the refugees, all that stuff.

If you want to enter as a refugee, you have to claim asylum, and you can't do that without going to the proper offices, which requires you entering the country beforehand. A lot of refugees are illegally deported before they can claim asylum, which is in violation of international law.

No, you do not need to first claim asylum before entering as a refugee. Not always at least. You can apply for refugee status through the UNHCR. Now you wouldn't be applying through the U.S government so the country in which you become a refugee may not be the one you want. But the point of seeking asylum is protection from persecution or fear of suffering persecution, so it should not matter where you end up, so long as you are protected.

Now there are caps to these numbers. The previous administration had it limited to I believe 15,000. The new administration has it upwards of 225k, still a lot of people. Now to your second point; your correct in that an asylee may not be deported, however, the government may terminate an asylee's status as an asylee and legally remove them from the country.

Maybe I misread your second point. Are you referring to policies like the Migrant Protection Protocols(MPP)?

There is no law, as far as I'm aware, that says asylum seekers have to stop in the first safe country they enter. At least in America, which is what I'm referring to here. I know in the European Union, they have the Dublin Regulation, but I'm focusing on America, like I said. What we're talking about is Defensive Asylum Processing. This is what the refugees in this comic would presumably go through, and in many cases, what real life refugees would undergo.

The problem, however, is that America does not give these refugees their day in court, which is part of the process for DAP. They are swiftly deported before they are able to have their claim of asylum heard out or investigated. Right now, the way they're doing this is through an abuse of Title 42, as a way to forego Due Process, which is in violation of US and international law.

Okay lets let’s analyze a bit here. Your first point in your original response was “ If you want to enter as a refugee, you have to claim asylum, and you can't do that without going to the proper offices, which requires you entering the country beforehand”. This is not true. You don’t have to enter the country before hand. Refugees who enter the country claimed asylum from their home country. I pulled some numbers from Dhs.gov to compare refugees( who claimed asylum from their own country) to…

Asylum seekers who claim from within the country from either entering illegally or from a port of entry. According to dhs.gov, using the latest available figures from 2019 and going back a decade from 2009, a total of 924,809 refugees have entered the country. Of those who entered, 663,263 of them entered already as refugees, meaning they claimed asylum from outside the U.S.A, that is 72% of refugees. Before we move to your second point, will you agree that you initiallymade an erroneous claim?

Yeah, I should've specifically made it clear that refugee status is contingent on the federal government's humanitarian efforts and discretion, and therefore when I said refugee, I wasn't referring to the legal status, but rather the colloquial term. There's a distinction to be made that I failed to make. But broadly, when I say refugees, I mean anyone forced to leave their country to avoid harm, not just those legally defined as such. Like the ones in the comic, who weren't recognized legally.

But still, I was wrong to generalize the entire concept to the specifics of the comic this discussion is about.

And to your second point. This one is a bit trickier. Yes you are right in that not giving an asylum seeker due process does violate U.S and international law, but at the same time, Title 42 does allow the U.S government to remove persons who have recently been in a country where a communicable disease was present. I don’t believe that U.S and international asylum laws specify what to do in the event of a public health emergency and what takes primary importance, citizens or refugees.

The problem is that Title 42 has nothing to do with immigrants, and was simply used to give public health authorities the authority of quarantine. Shifting the burden of that authority from the president to the surgeon general. And now it's being misappropriated by the US government to expel refugees (again, colloquially used) before they are able to claim asylum or get their due process.

It doesn't stop the spread of COVID, despite that being the claimed reason for it to be invoked, as it does nothing about the thousands and thousands of other foreign visitors coming to the US through other means every single day. It is just a way for the government to quickly dispel migrants from the country, at the cost of their US and international law-backed rights.

Section 265 of U.S. Code Title 42 permits the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “prohibit … the introduction” into the United States of individuals when the Director believes that “there is serious danger of the introduction of [a communicable] disease into the United States.”The rule allows any customs officers—which includes officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) such as Border Patrol agents—to implement any such order issued by the CDC. The..

Current CDC director Rachelle Walensky and even her predecessor Robert Redfield have deemed title 42 expulsion necessary. The CDC director said that the order targets people entering the U.S from Canada and Mexico and who would be introduced into a congregate setting( Port of entry or border patrol station), including asylum seekers. Are immigrants not included in " individuals when the Director believes that “there is serious danger of the introduction of [a communicable] disease into the U.S?

Should the U.S not have the autonomy to follow the guidance of the leading health experts in the country on the matter of who can and can not enter the country, prioritizing its own citizens?

Nothing in Section 265 of Title 42 permits the CDC the authority to expel migrants from the border. Read the entire text. Nothing in it gives the authority to deport anyone. The order itself is invalid without explicit authority and power given to the CDC through congress. And we know for certain that the current abuse of power is ineffective at stopping COVID, so there is no valid claim to continuing this, even with congressional support.

The United States should have the autonomy to follow whatever guidance it deems fit to, as long as it doesn't go against US or International law. This order does both, and is a clear abuse of authority.

[...and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health.. (Surgeon general)shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose.

They are prohibited from entering on the advice of the CDC. They are then expelled. If they do not leave voluntarily then they are deported.

The resonse up top is from the text itself, 42 USC §265. Suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases.

Nothing in that gives them the authority to deport and supercede law.

If arrivals are showing up in the thousands and are told that, because of a public health crisis, they are temporarily prohibited from entering the country on the advice of the CDC and that they must leave, and they refuse to do so, what should then happen?

We should hold them humanely and safely, and give them their afforded due process, since the CDC does not have the authority to expel people from the country.

And I would never claim that the CDC does have that authority. I said that they are the experts who are, given the current circumstances, offering their judgement and giving advice regarding people entering the country. Title 42 is then being imposed by the federal government based off of the advice of the experts at the CDC. Title 42, as shown eralier, does allow the federal government to prohibit people from entering the country. They are told to leave. If they don' then they have to be remove

I believe that this conversation is over Psycamorean. You made an erroneous claim on your first point, which we have since clarified. And, as I have shown regarding your second point, Title 42 does in fact allow the U.S from prohibiting people from entering the country, including asylum seekers, while the country is experiencing a public health emergency.

The text of law has to be specific, and that text does not give the CDC the authority to create an order which expels people from the country, which is what has happened.

Who claimed that the CDC created the order?

What do you mean, they've created at least three different orders to pursue this.

https://www.aila.org/infonet/cdc-notice-of-new-title-42-order

42 CFR § 71.40 (2):Prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction into the United States of persons...or physically expelling from the United States some or all of the persons;. Its right there. " physically expelling from the U.S...They do have the right to expel people from the country, including asylum seekers, during a public health crisis.

That is not from the law. That is from an emergency Interim Final Rule made by the HHS in March of 2020. This was to give the CDC the authority to make the order by redefining the terms of the law. If you don't think this is an overreach of authority, I don't know what to tell you.

Whether I feel this is an overreach of authority or not is irrelevant. What is important here, objectively speaking, is whether or not the CDC has the authority to expel migrants at the border. You claimed earlier " the CDC does not have the authority to expel people from the country", yet your last response admits that the CDC does have the authority, albeit being given the authority via an emergency interim final rule.

The legal argument is that the authority is ill-gotten, and not given in any solid basis.

Your opinion is not irrelevant. In that case, anything the government does is okay. They have the authority because they say they do now.

That's not how law works either. Many times the law is broken, and then the courts recognize this, and then the authority is revoked. This is actually happening right now with this very law.

So then not only was your first point made erroneously, but also your second point as well. This is a completely different argument now that you are making. I think we are done here. Until next time Psycamorean.

No it's not. I think the CDC is using an overreach of authority not based in the law, at the expense of federal and international law. This whole conversation is just proving that's the case.

The argument you made initially was that the CDC does not have the authority to expel people at the border. You never mentioned that they do have the authority but that there are questions surrounding the legality of 42 CFR § 71.40 (2).

Well, given the constant court challenges and given the language of the law being cited by the HHS, which never mentions expelling people, I think I'll be proven right in the long run. If I remember this argument, I'll post about it and let you know here.

You may or may not be correct, only time will tell. See you in another review.

what propaganda?

Probably the part about the climate crisis being averted, or how at first everyone fought over borders, resources and ideologies.

The part about the world starting to come back from the brink of climate destruction. Now the issue, when reviewed in isolation, may not come off to most as propaganda. But there are other instances of Taylor propagating his wild beliefs. For example, in Superman Son of Kal-el. He clearly has gone off the rails with topics like refugees, immagration and climate change. It is a common theme with him. I feel like here in this issue, he could not resist the urge.

Man, you are easily triggered.

Haha. Well if leaving low ratings for comics that I deem to be of an activist nature makes me easily triggered, then I agree lol

I mean, even with that criteria (which I don't think is particularly good), this comic has barely anything resembling activism. You're just rating it poorly because of *other* comics the writer has written.

And like I said above, when reviewed in isolation most people, I presume, wouldn’t classify it as such. Having read other material by the same writer I feel that what was said in this issue, albeit playing a small role in the story, was not innocent in nature. He’s propagating his activist beliefs again and it will continue. It’s purely subjective on my part to suspect that.

So why not rate this issue on its own merits rather than what you think will come of it in the future?

The rating itself was not based on what I think will come in the future. It is based off of the aforementioned “brink of climate destruction”. The issue itself, apart from what’s in question, I really enjoyed. I suspect Taylor has difficulty separating his story telling from his activism, a claim in which I cannot substantiate. There is a balanced approach to writing about topics that are politically polarizing, and Taylor does a poor job of it. But I understand your point Psycamorean.

I think, if by your own admission that you enjoyed this issue otherwise, you should have rated this issue higher, and then just said that you were wary of the political stuff in your review. It'd be more fair that way, no?

Yes, and generally I would have. Taylor, however, is a repeat offender. You make a great point though. Thanks for your input. I’m sure I will exchange with you again in the future as I always see you in the comments. Goodnight.

You've rated it as you wanted, DoorMan, and that's everything that matters. You shouldn't try to explain to anyone how you rate your comics. Especially not to someone who just this week has admitted of rating a comic higher than it deserved just to stick it to "the bootlickers".

Hey Merlyn, why don't you follow me instead of being a creep who just shadow follows everyone you don't like? Seems like all your posturing and insults are just projection?

Oww, I hit a nerve, didn't I? Did I lie about something? Did you not rate Daredevil #34 wih 10 instead of the 9 you thought it deserved to stick it to "bootlickers"? And now you come to question other people's ratings after doing the same thing. There's a word for that... what was it? Oh yeah... Hypocrisy!

And I'm sorry to tear down your fragile ego yet again but I didn't "shadow follow" you. I just tend to watch how the ratings evolve with some issues that really annoy me. And, as you saw, Daredevil #34 really annoyed me. So, you know, you're wrong again. As usual.

@Merlyn, yes I agree, that’s all that matters. In retrospect I see how futile it was to offer an explanation. But oh well. I most certainly will not do so again in the future.

@Merlyn You do shadow follow people. This is not the first time you just appeared out of nowhere, not following anyone involved. You come across as obsessive. I think a 9 vs a 10 is way different than a 4 because of a single sentence in a comic that was otherwise enjoyable. I'd never get that triggered. In one instance, you give a very good book an even more positive score. In the other, your score doesn't even begin to match your overall feelings on the issue.

I'm not a child, so the perceived hypocrisy argument doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't make what I'm saying any less valid. It's just all you know how to sling around at your intellectual level. Regardless of my own scores, DoorMan's score for this issue, by his own admission, does not reflect his overall feeling's on the issue, but is rather the result of disliking Tom Taylor's work elsewhere. That's not fair to the book he's actually scoring here.

No I don't. I just know when fools are triggered and I like to make fun of them, if you are referring to that time you, Loafy and all your loser group were licking your wounds. And you are a hypocrite and you should feel ashamed of yourself. Though to be honest, it's very you to try to force others to come to your views or not regarding yourself to the standards you try to impose on others.

Are you "shadow following" me though when you admit to stalk me on other websites?

Licking our wounds? From what? You have too much self respect for how cowardly and infantile you are. I don't stalk you on other websites. However, if you're going to pirate the things you read, maybe use a different username when you whine about it there. And to bring it back around to hypocrisy, I recall you getting super triggered by my assertion that people were pirating their comics. I have screencaps of this if you'd like me to post them. You're an extraordinary hypocrite.

:)))) Imagine being so sad as a human being to make screencaps of other people's conversations. And you DO stalk me on other websites. You LITERALLY just said on the Superman review you google my username to check me out on other websites. You're that pathetic.

Also, I have this fascinating notion that commenting on the internet about comic books can only be done on.... comic book sites. Crazy, right?

It was your conversation with me, so yeah, I think I'm fine with screencapping it. And yeah, I don't just make claims without evidence, so if anyone doubted me, they could find out for themselves.

And your notion has nothing to do with anything. You just steal your comics, whine about them publicly, and then pretend you're actually supporting the industry and get ass mad when people say you don't. Like a hypocrite.

Sounds pretty cuckoo crazy to me but don't stop being you.

If you want to argue about it, and not be a coward, join this server on Discord. It's brand new, and private. https://discord.gg/u4H67s5Zt2

To quote Luke Skywalker, every word of what you said was wrong, and you have no idea what you're talking about but it's not like I can make you understand anything since you're enjoying your parallel reality and lying about others to "win" so again, you do you.

You don't actually have a defense for your actions or what you say. This is why you don't go around calling people hypocrites like it means something, when literally everyone is a hypocrite about at least a few things they say or do. In your case, it's very public and very funny.

Thanks for the invite but no thank you, I try to steer away from crazies as much as I can. I just intervened here because I found it very hypocritical on your part to complain about DoorMan's rating when in that same day you openly admitted to rate a comic higher just to stick it to "bootlickers".

Okay, hypocrite.

If it makes you feel better and it's helping you with your sanity, I'm letting this one slide. :))

I have legitimate proof of you 1) Participating in online comics piracy and 2) Getting offended that someone would suggest that you do. I know you like ignoring evidence, but the broader community lives in reality. I'll post it soon, no worries!

You go, man, post it and you'll win against the bootlickers! I really don't know what you think you'll prove but making sense was never really a problem for you so why start now? :))

Other than proving that you're stalking me all over the internet and have a weird obsession with me, of course. :))

It'll prove you are hypocrite and show how cowardly you are, since you later tried to hide your piracy.

Another user actually discovered it first, and you got ass mad at them too.

It'll prove I comment on the internet about comics. Which, surprise, surprise, I'm doing it right here, right now, in this conversation with you. How does your mind work? :))

Wow, what a stupid weaselly way to void yourself of any culpability in piracy.

I almost feel bad for you. You're incredibly dumb, got caught in doing something wrong, and thought you were clever enough to convince anyone that you actually didn't do it. You really are a child lmao

It's just standard logic but in your lunacy and hate you're not judging clearly anymore, not that you ever really did. I just love how when confronted with your own actions your first response was to "threaten" me in your mind, it tells me a lot about how you view your interactions with other human beings. I wouldn't want to be anyone close to you, you're probably blackmailing them with screencaps or stuff you know about them in order to keep them around you. It's pretty sad, actually.

Good for you, champ. Oh and deleting your comments and privating your disqus account won't work.

Actually I didn't private it because of you if that's what you really think. There was a crazy dude who would follow me, downvoting me everywhere (he still does it btw) and kept replying to me even though I told him like a hundred times I don't care what he had to say. So in order to get rid of him I made it private.

Now you know how the rest of us feel when you shadow follow us. Except we don't block you.

But just for the sake of discussion, why wouldn't it work? Do you plan on keep stalking me? Should I give you my facebook, too? :))

Except I don't rant on my reviews about you, which you do.

It wouldn't work because I took the screencaps back when that other user exposed you. I don't actually stalk you. I just pay attention to what's said around here. I feel like you'll be in for an unpleasant surprise if you ever get a real stalker, if you think this is what constitutes stalking.

To be fair to me, you typically review things super fast as soon as they come out.

You've reviewed comics much sooner than me and I never thought I should write my review about you or your review, I review only the book. I also don't change my ratings to stick it to anyone, that seems pretty childish. Anyway, this has been a decent exchange, minus the "threats" of course. :))

You have actually edited your reviews to talk about other people. But I'm glad you read my reviews while not following me. Like some sort of shadow follow.

And they weren't threats, I just need to put an end to the tired hypocrisy argument you use so often, and this is an effective way.

Except you're not proving anything other than the fact that I'm committing the unspeakable sin of... talking about comics online. I mean, I know you would love it if I wouldn't since you hate that I don't think like you do. And I've explained that I'm following the ratings of comics that I found controversial. I don't know what else to do to make you understand. I tried my best.

Still won't just admit to piracy. I see how you function now. Make large claims, insult to avoid substantiating them, and then weasel away if anyone catches you being wrong.