Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because they know they've lost a really big fight.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.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?
Now, none of those Central Americans can qualify for asylum.
I don't think they even know it yet.Because they know they've lost a really big fight.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?
Now, none of those Central Americans can qualify for asylum.
But what happened to expected yee-haws on the right ?
What makes you think human-trafficking is legal?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.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
But what happened to expected yee-haws on the right ?
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...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.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
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...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.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
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.
FYIBut 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.
.
What law is the administration breaking?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...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.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
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.
in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?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...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.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
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.
So let Trump do it by EO...in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?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...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.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
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.
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.in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?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...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.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
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.
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.
FYI
only 2 justices objected. 7 of the 9 agreed to this decision is what I had read...
oh dear goodness...Everything you posted is worthless without a link.in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?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...Something you can't seem to admit to yourself about is the fact that what the Democrats are doing is wrong.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
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.
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.
oh dear goodness...Everything you posted is worthless without a link.in my post above...What law is the administration breaking?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...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.
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.
I ALREADY GAVE you THE LINK
in post 11 above
