I think that's about right.Quote:
The REAL solution is to close the border from illegal crossers .
|
I think that's about right.Quote:
The REAL solution is to close the border from illegal crossers .
They are not legal asylum seekers . The criteria is clear as to who is eligible and that does not include people trying to escape poverty. They have to suffer persecution due to race,religion.nationality;membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Also international principle says that those who claim asylum or refuge must claim it at the first safe country they reach. That would be Mexico.
Much of this is just an excuse for liberals to complain about Trump. That doesn't mean the whole situation is not tragic, but it's been going on for decades. Politics.
A link to the law of which you speak would be quite helpful.
I don't need an excuse to complain about the lying, cheating, cruel bullying dufus. Thought you knew! Politics? YEP!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
An honest man! Diogenes would be pleased.Quote:
Politics? YEP!
"Asylum is the legal protection afforded by the United States government to a person who can demonstrate a “well-founded fear of persecution” based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group."
https://immigration-law.freeadvice.c..._is_asylum.htm
It also requires due process, meaning representation and a judge.
A judge yes, but the article said nothing about representation, or at least not that I saw. But there is the problem. When ten thousand people (or whatever it is) suddenly hit the border, then coming up with so many judges can probably be a major problem, and thanks to a court decision, they only have twenty days.
It just follws that any court proceeding has to include a counsel for the defendent since there is a prosecutor present.
It's a daunting challenge granted to process so many claims but it's done all the time at sports events and lottery. Rich guys can make hundreds of thousands of transactions in minutes no problem. We have the technology, just have a dufus to figure it out. Instead of coordinating his many resources and his congress he gives lip service and lies. That' is why he was elected to solve problems and deal with challenges to the country, not style and profile and tweet insults and derogatorys to his foes and detractors on his campaign stops.
You right wing loonies just suck that stuff up don't you? You don't question his actively slowing down the process to create this chaos.
Actually, I'm not sure that is true for those who are not citizens.Quote:
It just follws that any court proceeding has to include a counsel for the defendent since there is a prosecutor present.
Wow. What a thoughtful response. Are all liberals as addicted to name calling as the libs on this board??? Well, you will be happy to know that you are more like Trump than you want to think.Quote:
You right wing loonies just suck that stuff up don't you?
So what, if he can do it why can't everybody?
Because it indicates a person who has run out of civility, and that's not where I want to be. You will have to decide for yourself.Quote:
So what, if he can do it why can't everybody?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's not where you want to be? That's a laugh!
Where you want to be is supporting the slaughter of children as promoted in your Bible, and supporting the torture and killing of children in the present-day at the southern border because you love Trump's policies.
You have gone on record right here on these pages (no dispute) as approving both of these barbaric murderous activities.
When confronted with your own words, you response is "I don't care"!
So much for your Christianity. It's more like devil-worship.
You have put Moloch ahead of Jesus.
You really need help.
Another non-reply. Hard to rebut the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Geez, look who all of a sudden wants to be civil. Come on JL, we are talking about the dufus here right? There is nothing civil or decent or honest about him so don't expect civil when it comes to him at all. You voted for him, your decision but I don't have to abide by him, his words, or antics. Another woman has accused him of assaulting her, will you dismiss it out of hand as another thrill seeker?
PS
I did call you a right wing loony didn't I. Sorry 'bout that, but sometimes you do sound like one.
You generally don't bother me, Tal. I think I understand you, and I never have to try and figure out where you stand. I guess I do have to wear the right wing badge. I hope I'm not loony, but of course loony people are usually the last ones to know it!! As to civility, I shoot for responses that are straightforward and truthful, but I try not to be a name caller or make personal attacks. If I do, then call me out on it. Just bear in mind that stating the truth and calling names are not the same thing.Quote:
I did call you a right wing loony didn't I. Sorry 'bout that, but sometimes you do sound like one.
No, I think it should be taken seriously, unlike the response of the liberals with Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. Remember them??? Remember the shameful treatment of Monica Lewinsky? Sorry, but your effort to claim the moral high ground on this one won't work. The truth is probably that there are many powerful men out there who have used their money, fame, and position of power to take advantage of women. Sad to say, but likely true.Quote:
Another woman has accused him of assaulting her, will you dismiss it out of hand as another thrill seeker?
Hard to rebut the truth? More like hard to rebut an imaginary discourse that seems to be driven by hate and anger, and appears to border on being irrational. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think so. Read. Think. Anaylzye. Keep up. That will answer your questions.Quote:
Another non-reply. Hard to rebut the truth.
How far back do you want to go with that past bad behavior? How does that justify the worse behavior NOW? I seek no moral high ground, but neither can you when you just let the antics words, and behavior of this dufus go with the constant references to past bad behavior. Even if I conceded dems dropped the ball many times in the past, I doubt you could acknowledge or admit how really bad this dide in the WH now is.
First of all, we are both up too early in the morning.Quote:
How far back do you want to go with that past bad behavior? How does that justify the worse behavior NOW? I seek no moral high ground, but neither can you when you just let the antics words, and behavior of this dufus go with the constant references to past bad behavior. Even if I conceded dems dropped the ball many times in the past, I doubt you could acknowledge or admit how really bad this dide in the WH now is.
As to your point, you asked if I would excuse the new accusation out of hand. I think she should go to the police if she has a good case, but you made it sound as though liberals have a good track record on this when they don't. The behavior of Clinton towards women was terrible, and yet the liberal world was falling all over each other trying to be first in line to support him and insult the women. And if that's not enough, they then decided to run his inept and unaccomplished wife for president!
It is now irrefutable that the Democrat Party's position is open borders .
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...8q2wHMN8OtI9jo
This quote was really laughable. "Asked about the Obama administration’s deportation of 3 million, Biden said the president that he served under “did a heck of a job” and that it would be wrong to compare him to President Donald Trump."
In other words, "It was alright when Obama did it, but not OK for Trump to do it."
Politics.
"President Obama says tens of thousands of Central American children flooding into the U.S. along the southern border have created a “humanitarian crisis,” and he appealed directly to parents to stop sending kids north."
It was a crisis then, but not now?
Politics
the whole group of them raised their hands when asked if they want free health care for illegal aliens . <sarc> They are really forging a winning platform</sarc>
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-HzD2UU...g&name=900x900
The best way for Trump to lose is to create the impression that he is an unlikeable loose cannon. Unfortunately, he is doing that very thing.
Some one has lost their mind
Trump made a huuuuge mistake by delaying the deporting . His base is already fuming that he has stopped talking about a wall. This election is on a tee for him to hit out of the park . The only thing that could derail is the economy going to the crapper ;a perception that he is not being forceful enough about the border ;or some new revelation by Mueller . Mueller has already said that his report is his testimony .
He ought to win in a walk, and if his mouth does not do him in, and so far it has not been encouraging, then he should. We'll see.
It was just red meat for the base to chew on anyway, while he goes and schmoozes Vlad and MBS for the weekend. He lost another Supreme Court fight about the census.
ridiculous ruling . SCOTUS has no role in deciding which census questions can be asked . If I were him I'd make a stand and say 'too late ' the question remains . What can SCOTUS do about it ?
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/the-...?cb=1209915523
I've heard the WH was going to proceed anyway with yet another scheme to suppress the census count, by driving Hispanics away.
https://www.wonkette.com/racist-cens...-rig-elections
Enforcing the voting rights act my arse!
there is nothing wrong with the question . I am reluctantly involved in 2 otrher census surveys beyond the 10 year census . The American Community Survey(ACS) asks the question about citizenship and no one says a peep about it . (the other one I'm force to take is one about college graduates ) If I were to say I wasn't a citizen then there is a f follow questions about nationality .
https://www2.census.gov/programs-sur...9/quest19.pdf?
The table on this link shows that having a citizenship question on the census goes back years .It is not a Trump invention .
https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Cen...ions-One-Table
Look the Congress has the constitutional power to dictate how the census get's taken.As it stands ;the law give the Census Bureau wide latitude in the questions ask. SCOTUS has NO role in deciding what is in effect a political question The Roberts' Court is again out of bounds . What this opens up according to Justice Thomas' dissent is“for political opponents of executive actions to generate controversy with accusations of pretext, deceit, and illicit motives.”... “Crediting these accusations on evidence as thin as the evidence here could lead judicial review of administrative proceedings to devolve into an endless morass of discovery and policy disputes." In other words it opens up every executive decision to judicial review even ones where is clearly in the power of the President to make the call. or as Justice Alito said in his dissent ;the federal judiciary has “no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”
So it doesn't matter the dufus is rigging the system? Would it be even wise to TRUST repubs to better enact the Voting Rights Act given the repub shenanigans? Hell NO!!!!
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/59743...ensus-question
it is not the role of SCOTUS to determine motives . They have no business being the referee over political disputes . That is what elections are for . I'll say it again . The Constitution empowers Congress to do a census. They could easily reverse the decision . Instead ,and is too often the case ,they empower the Federal Bureaucracy to become lawmakers .That's all well and good ;BUT the government is run by the executive branch .
Why is it that copying and pasting images does not seem to work on this site anymore? Seems to me at one time it worked, but not now.
The executive branch is but one of 3 coequal branches of government. Something about checks and balances and just because the congress is impotent doesn't mean the judiciary should follow suite. You really want a king don't you? For sure the dufus does.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You have to use the toolsQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yeah, which seem to be a little iffy as to whether or not they work. But didn't copy and paste work at one time???Quote:
You have to use the tools
If you've read my comments carefully I have always advocated Congress do it's constitutional role .I've also as you know have argued that SCOTUS has usurped powers from both branches and is in fact the unequal imperial branch .Quote:
Something about checks and balances
Just about right. There seems to be very little in the way of checks and balances for what the Court decides.Quote:
.I've also as you know have argued that SCOTUS has usurped powers from both branches and is in fact the unequal imperial branch .
Congress gave up its responsibilities a while back to the exec, so who fills the vacuum? One example is WAR powers, he can preemptively attack whomever he wants. Another is bypassing congress and selling weopons and nikes to whomever he wants. Another is bypass congress and redirecting the money from one appropriation to whatever he wants. Need more or are you getting the picture.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15 AM. |