Third Country Asylum Decision, How Big a Deal?

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,379
Points
280
Ds are generally ignoring SCOTUS on this one while the usual "This is the final nail in the coffin of the fascists" pack are not acting as if this is a big deal either. Why the deafening silence?
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,078
Reaction score
19,064
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
Ds are generally ignoring SCOTUS on this one while the usual "This is the final nail in the coffin of the fascists" pack are not acting as if this is a big deal either. Why the deafening silence?
Because they know they've lost a really big fight.
Now, none of those Central Americans can qualify for asylum.
 
OP
william the wie

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,379
Points
280
Ds are generally ignoring SCOTUS on this one while the usual "This is the final nail in the coffin of the fascists" pack are not acting as if this is a big deal either. Why the deafening silence?
Because they know they've lost a really big fight.
Now, none of those Central Americans can qualify for asylum.
But what happened to expected yee-haws on the right ?
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,078
Reaction score
19,064
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
Ds are generally ignoring SCOTUS on this one while the usual "This is the final nail in the coffin of the fascists" pack are not acting as if this is a big deal either. Why the deafening silence?
Because they know they've lost a really big fight.
Now, none of those Central Americans can qualify for asylum.
But what happened to expected yee-haws on the right ?
I don't think they even know it yet.
I know it....but they're probably listening to Fox News which hasn't spent more than a few seconds covering it.
Fox is concentrating on the Democrat Debate, the firing of Bolton, and this new sex accusation against Kavanaugh.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
52,957
Reaction score
11,846
Points
2,070
Location
Maine
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,078
Reaction score
19,064
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
What makes you think human-trafficking is legal?
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,078
Reaction score
19,064
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
 

Pete7469

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
21,793
Reaction score
5,294
Points
280
Location
The Real World
But what happened to expected yee-haws on the right ?
It was the decision I expected when only 4 of 9 judges on the bench are certified lunatics. I don't know what sort of pictures they have of Roberts, but since Epstein died maybe he has less to worry about and can be counted on to stick to the COTUS.

.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
52,957
Reaction score
11,846
Points
2,070
Location
Maine
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
52,957
Reaction score
11,846
Points
2,070
Location
Maine
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
The Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the US asylum system

The Supreme Court lifted that block Wednesday night, but has only reinstated the rule while the case goes through appeals in lower courts and has not yet decided whether it is legal.

Opponents of the rule have argued that it violates longstanding principles in the Refugee Act of 1980, in which the US codified its international human rights obligations as a party to the 1951 United National Refugee Convention.

The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.

The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.

Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rulemaking requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.

So the justices may still choose to strike down the rule as unlawful.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
52,957
Reaction score
11,846
Points
2,070
Location
Maine
But what happened to expected yee-haws on the right ?
It was the decision I expected when only 4 of 9 judges on the bench are certified lunatics. I don't know what sort of pictures they have of Roberts, but since Epstein died maybe he has less to worry about and can be counted on to stick to the COTUS.

.
FYI
only 2 justices objected. 7 of the 9 agreed to this decision is what I had read...
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,078
Reaction score
19,064
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
What law is the administration breaking?
 
OP
william the wie

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,379
Points
280
the Ds simply want to get slaves cheap from the cartels in a way that is camera ready.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
52,957
Reaction score
11,846
Points
2,070
Location
Maine
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
What law is the administration breaking?
in my post above...

The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.

The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.

Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
 

Obiwan

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
9,598
Reaction score
3,823
Points
390
Location
Indianapolis
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
What law is the administration breaking?
in my post above...

The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.

The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.

Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
So let Trump do it by EO...

That's how Jug Ears did it...
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,078
Reaction score
19,064
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
What law is the administration breaking?
in my post above...

The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.

The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.

Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
Everything you posted is worthless without a link.
 

Pete7469

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
21,793
Reaction score
5,294
Points
280
Location
The Real World
FYI
only 2 justices objected. 7 of the 9 agreed to this decision is what I had read...
OK, I really didn't read much about it. I heard "Trump won again", I said "that's good" and drove on.

When 2 of the 4 lunatics sided with him, you know it was a bad ruling they overturned. I'm going to guess you aren't thrilled with the result, but please watch this for some perspective.


We would have to conquer the earth, kill all the resisters, line up the remaining people and change their culture.

Not even a rational solution.


.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
52,957
Reaction score
11,846
Points
2,070
Location
Maine
because the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts... The supreme court ruling of allowing it to temporarily stop the flow, is a premature celebration....

I just want it to be done LEGALLY and not illegally.... which the case working through the court, will determine such
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
What law is the administration breaking?
in my post above...

The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.

The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.

Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
Everything you posted is worthless without a link.
oh dear goodness... :lol:

I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK

in post 11 above
 

Dr Grump

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
27,024
Reaction score
4,189
Points
280
Location
From the Back of Beyond
Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.
Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal, but it is also a massive expense to the taxpayer.
But I don't think you give a flying-fuck about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.
actually, it's the administration that is breaking the law, according to the suit.... because there is no agreement signed with Mexico for third country seekers, as there is with Canada and the USA...
What law is the administration breaking?
in my post above...

The Refugee Act says that any noncitizen in the US can apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of [their immigration] status.” The only exceptions are for those who were “firmly resettled” in another country before they arrived in the US or if they passed through another country with which the US had a “Safe Third Country” agreement. A Safe Third Country agreement is a bilateral treaty under which one country can reject and return an asylum seeker to another safe country.

The US currently only has a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. The Trump administration is working on negotiating such agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico and Panama, but immigrant advocates say that those countries are far from safe for asylum seekers.

Opponents also argue that the Trump administration also skirted rule making requirements by issuing the rule without giving the public notice and the opportunity to submit comments on it.
Everything you posted is worthless without a link.
oh dear goodness... :lol:

I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK

in post 11 above
It is Mud y'know....
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top