Supreme Court hands Biden victory, allows end to 'Remain in Mexico' policy

[Meister]

You are just flailing now. Throwing your arms around trying to find something to latch onto. I'm simply stating our laws and the Constitution. Ive not once stated a position.

There was a legal avenue that worked just fine through Trump's EO.
Not good enough for you and your ilk.

 

[pknopp]

In the US *OR A PORT OF ENTRY*

please tell me where within all that you've posted that is says the US cannot setup a court at said port of entry and hear the asylum cases at said point.

you are so hellbent on what is written you fail to see im still complying with how it is written AND working to stop the abuse.

They can set up a court most likely. People can still come across elsewhere and apply.

 

[iceberg]

Yes either or. It's not your choice to make.

im offering a solution.

you're being obtuse and not even trying to resolve a problem.

what i have suggested again, falls within the law and stops the abuse. but what i can't stop you doing is anal insistence in your replies.

 

[pknopp]

As with gun laws, the laws regarding immigration are already in the US constitution and the bylaws.

How about this administration enforcing those existing immigration laws?

I've argued that for years and years and years. We need to strongly address our immigration employment laws. Why does no one do that?

 

[skews13]

A small bone when compared to the EPA ruling.

Much REEEEEEing will follow for years to come with that one.....Half of it from congress since they will be forced to legislate now.

Yes. They can dump all of the sulphur dioxide, benzene, and mercury into the waterways they want now, with none of that big ‘gubmint regulation.

Big win for the conservative side.

 

[pknopp]

im offering a solution.

you're being obtuse and not even trying to resolve a problem.

what i have suggested again, falls within the law and stops the abuse. but what i can't stop you doing is anal insistence in your replies.

You don't get to offer a "solution" and then ignore the Constitution.

 

[iceberg]

They can set up a court most likely. People can still come across elsewhere and apply.

then ship 'em off to where we hold these border courts for their hearing.

 

[iceberg]

You don't get to offer a "solution" and then ignore the Constitution.

show me where what i have suggested ignores the constitution.

i have shown the links / info. courts can be setup where the US deems necessary.

hear their cases, make a decision, and get this done.

where is the anti constitutional crime here?

 

[pknopp]

then ship 'em off to where we hold these border courts for their hearing.

You can not expel a person from the United States without a hearing, due process and all that stuff you consider mumbo jumbo it would seem.

 

[Meister]

They can set up a court most likely. People can still come across elsewhere and apply.

But, instead of setting up a court, just bus them, or fly them all over the United States.
Sounds legit to me that Brandon is serious about the Constitution.

 

[pknopp]

show me where what i have suggested ignores the constitution.

i have shown the links / info. courts can be setup where the US deems necessary.

hear their cases, make a decision, and get this done.

where is the anti constitutional crime here?

I said do so. Why didn't Trump? I simply noted that it wouldn't stop people coming over illegally as described in our laws and the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

There is nothing illegal about coming here to seek asylum. It is fully laid out in the Constitution. What other Constitutional items do you wish to do away with?

And it was an EO. Following administrations have always been allowed to overturn previous EO's.

Please quote where the Constitution says anyone at all can come here requesting asylum.

What the Constitution says is that Congress will make immigration law. Until Congress passes inside-the-US asylum applications, it is against the law.

International law says asylum seekers stop at the first country so the US has no obligation to accept them at all. Until Congress passes some law allowing the exception to International law, then following International law in this case is the law. It's not the US making laws against Americans using International law, it's expecting the international community to follow their agreements.

 

[pknopp]

But, instead of setting up a court, just bus them, or fly them all over the United States.
Sounds legit to me that Brandon is serious about the Constitution.

Why didn't Trump and as much as you will protest, Trump shipped people also.

 

[pknopp]

Please quote where the Constitution says anyone at all can come here requesting asylum.

What the Constitution says is that Congress will make immigration law. Until Congress passes inside-the-US asylum applications, it is against the law.

International law says asylum seekers stop at the first country so the US has no obligation to accept them at all. Until Congress passes some law allowing the exception to International law, then following International law in this case is the law. It's not the US making laws against Americans using International law, it's expecting the international community to follow their agreements.

This is always a fun one. You are arguing that some sort of International law should trump US law. What other international laws do you support over riding U.S. laws. Are you some sort of globalist?

 

[Meister]

Why didn't Trump and as much as you will protest, Trump shipped people also.

Like Congress would have worked with Trump?
Immigration was not a huge problem under Trump, then Biden put up his vacancy sign.

 

[iceberg]

You can not expel a person from the United States without a hearing, due process and all that stuff you consider mumbo jumbo it would seem.

for someone so anal on words, you sure seem to miss my own.

Asylum - apply in the US *or* a Port of Entry.

if someone comes through via that port, hear their case and make a decision.
if someone comes through 100 miles away in a swimfest, drive them to the court so they can have their case heard as soon as possible

i am giving them their "due process" according to

Due Process for Undocumented Immigrants, Explained (Published 2018)

President Trump wants unauthorized immigrants and asylum seekers deported “with no Judges or Court Cases.” What due-process rights do migrants have?

www.nytimes.com

you are simply being stubborn and putting your hands over your ears at this point. i have setup court and provided due process in accordance with our laws. your cleverly placed NUH UNH isn't holding up well.

 

[JGalt]

I've argued that for years and years and years. We need to strongly address our immigration employment laws. Why does no one do that?

And at the same time, you were against Trump's wall, and the Remain in Mexico policy?

I'm calling BS on you, so just stop already. Do you even realize that you're justifying those Mexican coyotes, drug cartels, and human traffickers?

 

[pknopp]

Like Congress would have worked with Trump?
Immigration was no a huge problem under Trump, then Biden put up his vacancy sign.

The only thing stopping Trump would have been funding and he was able to get around this with the wall, right?

 

[iceberg]

I said do so. Why didn't Trump? I simply noted that it wouldn't stop people coming over illegally as described in our laws and the Constitution.

trump has nothing to do with what i am talking about, sideshow bob. the court has ruled on it and i am focused on what can be done within the laws to deal with an obvious problem.

you're just trying to be "right" all the time and ignoring what i am saying so you can get a shot in.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This will end when Americans pick up whatever they can use as a weapon and drive them back.

Camp of the Saints in real time.