Third Country Asylum Decision, How Big a Deal?

[william the wie]

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]

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.

 

[william the wie]

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]

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.

 

[william the wie]

Well at least that makes sense.

 

[Care4all]

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]

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]

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-**** about the expense, or right and wrong as long as you can get Democrats into power.

 

[Pete7469]

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]

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-**** 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]

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-**** 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]

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]

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-**** 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?

 

[william the wie]

the Ds simply want to get slaves cheap from the cartels in a way that is camera ready.

 

[Care4all]

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-**** 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]

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-**** 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]

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-**** 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]

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]

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-**** 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...

I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK

in post 11 above

 

[Dr Grump]

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-**** 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...

I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK

in post 11 above

It is Mud y'know....