June 4, 20241 yr 11 hours ago, lynched1 said: It's you. Does it really matter? Sun's getting low. Get back to work. Here you are wasting the time and energy to reply, so I guess you answered. Not the answer you wanted, but you are the complete moron.
June 4, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Toastrel said: Not the answer you wanted, but you are the complete moron. I required no reply. You've exceeded your self imposed limit. Doing so makes you no less a roadside fleshlight. No lives were saved. You are awarded no points.
June 5, 20241 yr On a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being illegal immigrants can camp out in a Home Depot parking lot waiting for a "contractor” to waive cash at them and hire them for work. 10 being employers refuse to hire illegal workers out of fear of consequences for not completing a proper I-9 verification. Where are we?
June 10, 20241 yr CBS host shocked by poll showing 62% of registered voters support deporting all illegal immigrants
June 10, 20241 yr On 6/4/2024 at 1:03 PM, mr_hunt said: Wow so he did have the authority to do something all along but didn't? It's almost as if right wingers were right and leftists look retarded again. Imagine that.
June 10, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, Kz! said: Wow so he did have the authority to do something all along but didn't? It's almost as if right wingers were right and leftists look retarded again. Imagine that. Not familiar with how many EO's get shut down by the courts, huh Smooth Brain?
June 10, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: Not familiar with how many EO's get shut down by the courts, huh Smooth Brain? Except Trump had several successful policies not shut down by courts that Biden repealed, **** boy.
June 10, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Not familiar with how many EO's get shut down by the courts, huh Smooth Brain? It’s already against the law to cross the border at a place other than a legal port of entry. An EO to enforce existing law is not needed. This EO is a joke and essentially a dog and pony show for Biden to be able to claim he’s "doing something”.
June 10, 20241 yr 10 minutes ago, Kz! said: Except Trump had several successful policies not shut down by courts that Biden repealed, **** boy. Trump had plenty shot down by the courts too. Only way to actually fix it is legislatively, which Trump won't allow his lap dogs to do.
June 10, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said: It’s already against the law to cross the border at a place other than a legal port of entry. An EO to enforce existing law is not needed. This EO is a joke and essentially a dog and pony show for Biden to be able to claim he’s "doing something”. Those seeking refugee or asylum status are not required to cross at a port of entry. They can seek asylum once in the US regardless of how they enter per Title 8 , Chapter 12 of the US Code. If we want to deal with the issue, we need Congress to change the damn law. The safe third country exception is maybe the best way to limit this, but that just holds people in Mexico until the case is adjudicated. The better option would be to force people to apply at a Port of Entry and then have a way to determine cases much more rapidly. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 Quote (a)Authority to apply for asylum (1)In general 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. (2)Exceptions (A)Safe third country Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States. (B)Time limit Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States. (C)Previous asylum applications Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the alien has previously applied for asylum and had such application denied. (D)Changed circumstances An application for asylum of an alien may be considered, notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C), if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application within the period specified in subparagraph (B). (E)Applicability Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6). (3)Limitation on judicial review No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).
June 10, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Trump had plenty shot down by the courts too. Only way to actually fix it is legislatively, which Trump won't allow his lap dogs to do. Except Trump's EOs were keeping illegal crossings to around a quarter of what slurry is allowing in on a daily basis. What percentage of Trump EOs were shot down by the courts? Do you know?
June 10, 20241 yr The simple truth is that for decades, particularly during the Cold War, the refugee/asylum laws made complete sense. Refugees from Eastern Europe, and later from Southeast Asia, were fleeing life threatening situations and assimilated to the US rapidly becoming very productive members of society. This is what the law was designed for -- think of those fleeing South Vietnam and Cambodia before the communists took over. However, the law has now been exploited by migrants/asylum seekers from Central and South America who base claims on non-specific threats of simply trying to leave economically disadvantaged and unstable countries. The law needs to be corrected and refined to make the exceptions for seeking asylum much more limited. Escaping the Khmer Rouge and the Killing Fields -- that's a legit asylum claim. Escaping inflation in Venezuela -- not so much. We all know what has to be done, but there's no votes in fixing problems. The votes come from blaming the other side and getting elected on the promise of fixing things, then not doing crap.
June 10, 20241 yr 38 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Those seeking refugee or asylum status are not required to cross at a port of entry. They can seek asylum once in the US regardless of how they enter per Title 8 , Chapter 12 of the US Code. If we want to deal with the issue, we need Congress to change the damn law. The safe third country exception is maybe the best way to limit this, but that just holds people in Mexico until the case is adjudicated. The better option would be to force people to apply at a Port of Entry and then have a way to determine cases much more rapidly. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 Yes that is true. But there’s also no requirement that we then release them into the US in the meantime until their case is decided. I also think that people are simply just abusing asylum laws and just claiming asylum to enter the US.
June 10, 20241 yr 47 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said: How many Pole-acks does it take to drive to Panama? Idk. How many?
June 11, 20241 yr 22 hours ago, VanHammersly said: Trump had plenty shot down by the courts too. Only way to actually fix it is legislatively, which Trump won't allow his lap dogs to do. 22 hours ago, Kz! said: Except Trump's EOs were keeping illegal crossings to around a quarter of what slurry is allowing in on a daily basis. What percentage of Trump EOs were shot down by the courts? Do you know? I enjoy asking windmill questions I know he has literally 0% chance of answering.
June 11, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: I enjoy asking windmill questions I know he has literally 0% chance of answering. Oh my God, I'm sorry Smooth Brain. I didn't respond. That must've been so hard for you. You got me. I haven't calculated the percentage of his immigration EOs were struck down by the court If you'd like to run the numbers, I welcome it. Which of course, doesn't change the indisputable fact that if the government actually wants to deal with the immigration problem in any way, they're going to need to pass legislation.
June 11, 20241 yr Just now, VanHammersly said: Oh my God, I'm sorry Smooth Brain. I didn't respond. That must've been so hard for you. You got me. I haven't calculated the percentage of his immigration EOs were struck down by the court If you'd like to run the numbers, I welcome it. Which of course, doesn't change the indisputable fact that if the government actually wants to deal with the immigration problem in any way, they're going to need to pass legislation. "calculated the percentage of immigration EOs" like it's some complex mathematical equation. You made the claim Trump had "plenty" shot down by the courts, but you don't know how many immigration related EOs Trump made or had struck down. So, unsurprisingly, you don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about (stop me if you've heard this one before).
June 11, 20241 yr 35 minutes ago, Kz! said: "calculated the percentage of immigration EOs" like it's some complex mathematical equation. You made the claim Trump had "plenty" shot down by the courts, but you don't know how many immigration related EOs Trump made or had struck down. So, unsurprisingly, you don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about (stop me if you've heard this one before). So I just started looking into it and holy sheet, I'm glad I did. Sometimes you forget what an unbelievable failure he was across the board. First, of course, immigration Quote Federal funding for ‘sanctuary cities’ Days after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order that placed immigration-related conditions on federal funding to cities. The action penalized "sanctuary cities” by threatening to withhold grants from jurisdictions that the Justice Department deemed insufficiently cooperative in helping federal authorities detain undocumented immigrants. Many jurisdictions won rulings declaring the conditions were likely to be illegal because they were not authorized by law. Some ruled unconstitutional the law invoked in support of the conditions. DACA program The Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provided temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. In March 2018, the Trump administration canceled DACA, claiming it was legally indefensible, rescinding deportation protection for nearly 700,000 of these immigrants known as "dreamers.” Cities, states, organizations and individuals across the country challenged the rescission. Several judges, though not all, ruled against the Trump administration. Crackdowns on illegal immigration In addition to the DACA rulings, courts have ruled against elements of the Trump administration’s signature crackdown on illegal immigration, including limiting entry points for asylum seekers, revoking temporary protected status for immigrants from certain countries already living legally in the United States and family separation. But it doesn't stop there. Dumbazz was an even bigger failure on deregulation Quote More than 90 percent of the Trump administration’s deregulatory efforts have been blocked in court, or withdrawn after a lawsuit, according to a running tally maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity, a nonpartisan think tank sponsored by the New York University School of Law. 90% And don't forget for most of that time he had at least a few competent people working for him. Of course, those dudes are long gone now and they're the one's calling Trump retarded. Even healthcare, which I forgot he even tried to do anything on, after lying about his upcoming bill for so long. Turns out he tried to do some stupid sheet (of course going after contraception) that no surprise got struck down. Quote Health-care programs States challenged Trump administration regulations that would permit employers to stop covering workers’ birth control under the Affordable Care Act for religious or moral reasons. Basically, he just lost a sheetload of court cases because he was a sheety President who implemented sheety policies and hired sheety people and then, of course, tossed those sheety people under the bus whenever it benefited him to do so and hired even sheetier people to replace them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/ So, looks like the grand total of all the litigation brought against the administration for all their executive action was 246 challenges, with a success rate of...... 22% https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup
Create an account or sign in to comment