Where are the migrant children, Biden-Harris?

LeftofLeft

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
29,205
Reaction score
20,006
Points
1,405

Did they stop serving your cause? As the proud parent of Latino children, I am beyond disgusted how you and your supporters show little to no concern over migrant children being exploited for sex, rape and drugs.

No wonder you PigFuckers lost Latino support.
 

Did they stop serving your cause? As the proud parent of Latino children, I am beyond disgusted how you and your supporters show little to no concern over migrant children being exploited for sex, rape and drugs.

No wonder you PigFuckers lost Latino support.
Organ harvesting, Adrenochrome, forced prostitution or worse.
These people have no souls.
 

Did they stop serving your cause? As the proud parent of Latino children, I am beyond disgusted how you and your supporters show little to no concern over migrant children being exploited for sex, rape and drugs.

No wonder you PigFuckers lost Latino support.
Looks like the pig fuckers who were the parents of the kids lost them.
 
And they bitched about Trump keeping them in cages...they bitched because democrats couldn't get to them!

And the latest number is 320,000 children.
IMG_5772.webp
 
Seems that Trump don't give a shit neither right along with Biden...
 
Seems that Trump don't give a shit neither right along with Biden...
Trump is not the President. Who has been in charge and accountable since January 2021? Who is in charge and accountable right now?
 
Organ harvesting, Adrenochrome, forced prostitution or worse.
These people have no souls.

Don't forget that a lot of these kids were eaten by Haitians in Ohio due to the Trump-imposed pet shortage. :smoke:
 
15th post
Were these kids born in an incubator or were they delivered via vagina from a penis penetration? Where are their parents?
children being exploited by drug dealers, rapists, and sex traffickers and this is the best you’ve got?
 
Homan said his top 3 priorities are...

1-Close the border
2-Detain/deport the most violent illegals
3- FIND THOSE CHILDREN!
If the southern border is closed:

More sweeping action by the President or DHS to limit entry at ports of entry might raise additional legalissues. For example, the extent of the authority that the port of entry and border operations statutes grantDHS remains untested. Although 19 U.S.C. § 1318 was invoked during the COVID-19 public healthemergency to restrict and place conditions on travel over land borders (e.g., vaccination requirements),federal courts have not explored whether the statutory authority provided to CBP to close “any” port ofentry “temporarily” would sustain the closure of many or all ports. Likewise, courts have not examinedthe bounds of the statute’s authorization to close a port “temporarily” and only for “a specific threat tohuman life or national interests.”Beyond the question of statutory authority, sweeping action to close many or all ports of entry could raiseissues under at least two countervailing legal considerations. First, the Supreme Court has recognizedthat, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, U.S. citizens possess a “substantive right ...to enter” the United States and that an LPR cannot be denied entry without a fair hearing on his or heradmissibility. Any executive branch action that prevents U.S. citizens or LPRs from reentering thecountry through a port of entry could therefore raise constitutional questions. Second, the provisionsgoverning the admissibility of aliens and the procedures that immigration officers must follow to evaluateadmissibility are found in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. For instance, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 provides that any alien“who arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum. Citing this statutory right, the Ninth Circuitinvalidated President Trump’s proclamation that declared those arriving illegally at the southern borderwithout going through ports of entry as ineligible for asylum. Challengers to any executive action thatrestricts entry at the border might argue that the action contravenes § 1158 by preventing asylum seekersfrom pursuing applications. A federal district court held that CBP’s former metering policy, whichrequired asylum seekers who had not yet crossed the international boundary line at the southern border towait in Mexico if there were insufficient resources to process them at U.S. ports of entry, violatesstatutory requirements concerning the inspection and processing of asylum seekers at U.S. ports of entry.The appeal is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. More broadly, challengers might argue thatclosing all ports of entry at the southern border is inconsistent with the statute’s general scheme fordetermining which aliens are admissible to the United States as immigrants and nonimmigrants.It remains unclear whether challenges asserting that a closure of a port of entry conflicts with statutoryprovisions would succeed, particularly if the closure is premised on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The SupremeCourt has “assume[d]” without deciding that the President lacks the power under § 1182(f) to imposeentry restrictions that override other provisions within Title 8 (as opposed to entry restrictions that merely

 
Back
Top Bottom