One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
U.S. Supreme Court backs Trump on asylum crackdown
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Sep 11, 2019 20:16:57   #
rumitoid (a regular here)
 
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump's administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies.

The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 limited a federal judge's injunction blocking the rule to the nine Western states over which it has jurisdiction including the border states of California and Arizona. That had left open the possibility that the rule could be applied in the two other border states, Texas and New Mexico.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration's policy in federal court said it violates U.S. immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-222638710.html

Many on the Right here probably like this ruling, maybe even rejoice in it. Cheering the ongoing and growing injustices by the Trump Administration as if they are the poem on the Statue of Liberty--and all out of blind hatred for the left...and the fear the WH stokes and Conservative media duly spreads. I pledge I will not say I told you so about this president when it all falls apart under its own megalomaniacal and destructive weight: you will be hurting far worse than me.

| Reply
Sep 11, 2019 20:20:23   #
Liberty Tree (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump's administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies.

The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 limited a federal judge's injunction blocking the rule to the nine Western states over which it has jurisdiction including the border states of California and Arizona. That had left open the possibility that the rule could be applied in the two other border states, Texas and New Mexico.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration's policy in federal court said it violates U.S. immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-222638710.html

Many on the Right here probably like this ruling, maybe even rejoice in it. Cheering the ongoing and growing injustices by the Trump Administration as if they are the poem on the Statue of Liberty--and all out of blind hatred for the left...and the fear the WH stokes and Conservative media duly spreads. I pledge I will not say I told you so about this president when it all falls apart under its own megalomaniacal and destructive weight: you will be hurting far worse than me.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday gr... (show quote)


You just hate losing all those illegal Democrat votes.

| Reply
Sep 11, 2019 20:37:47   #
vernon (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump's administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies.

The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 limited a federal judge's injunction blocking the rule to the nine Western states over which it has jurisdiction including the border states of California and Arizona. That had left open the possibility that the rule could be applied in the two other border states, Texas and New Mexico.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration's policy in federal court said it violates U.S. immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-222638710.html

Many on the Right here probably like this ruling, maybe even rejoice in it. Cheering the ongoing and growing injustices by the Trump Administration as if they are the poem on the Statue of Liberty--and all out of blind hatred for the left...and the fear the WH stokes and Conservative media duly spreads. I pledge I will not say I told you so about this president when it all falls apart under its own megalomaniacal and destructive weight: you will be hurting far worse than me.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday gr... (show quote)



You need to get a grip .you seem to twist everything that happens is bad if it doesn't agree with your
and obamas judges. even when you say the ruling was bad it was done in a court that even supported
Trump.

| Reply
Sep 11, 2019 20:39:38   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump's administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies.

The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 limited a federal judge's injunction blocking the rule to the nine Western states over which it has jurisdiction including the border states of California and Arizona. That had left open the possibility that the rule could be applied in the two other border states, Texas and New Mexico.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration's policy in federal court said it violates U.S. immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-222638710.html

Many on the Right here probably like this ruling, maybe even rejoice in it. Cheering the ongoing and growing injustices by the Trump Administration as if they are the poem on the Statue of Liberty--and all out of blind hatred for the left...and the fear the WH stokes and Conservative media duly spreads. I pledge I will not say I told you so about this president when it all falls apart under its own megalomaniacal and destructive weight: you will be hurting far worse than me.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday gr... (show quote)




7-2 SCOTUS vote... Sounds pretty bipartisan...

Glad to see he (POTUS) is remaining strong (and right...in the legal sense) on this issue...

KAG

| Reply
Sep 11, 2019 22:05:53   #
karpenter (a regular here)
 
What Is Going To Fall Apart Under It's Own Weight
If They Have To Apply For Asylum At A Closer Country To Their Home
That Isn't The Law Already ??
That's What I've Been Hearing For Over A Year

| Reply
Sep 11, 2019 23:44:21   #
rumitoid (a regular here)
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
You just hate losing all those illegal Democrat votes.


Ah, I see. Any care or compassion for a person in need or the downtrodden should be avoided lest the cynical see it as opportunism. Like the Samaritan. Doing that just to get his fifteen minutes of fame in the Bible. Is it any kind that isn't for selfish or base reasons? Do you personally helping the poor and disadvantages out of fear the Left will say that you are trying to steal their turf? Best to avoid care and compassion because people may get the wrong idea?

Tell me who you would vote for. The party that won't help you or the one that does? Which may mean the GOP is responsible itself to possibly losing those votes to democrats. A little more concern and stop cutting programs needed for their well-being and maybe those votes can be yours, which is all we are talking about here, not real people with pressing problems, God forbid.

| Reply
Sep 11, 2019 23:47:24   #
rumitoid (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
7-2 SCOTUS vote... Sounds pretty bipartisan...

Glad to see he (POTUS) is remaining strong (and right...in the legal sense) on this issue...

KAG


Really? Changing immigration that violates both our laws and international laws pertaining to asylum, never possibly sentencing many of those people to real mortal danger or miserable lives in dire circumstance, and he's strong? Just a thought.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 01:25:56   #
karpenter (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
Changing immigration that violates both our laws and international laws pertaining to asylum
The United States Supreme Court Disagrees With You
As You Were Already Told...
Including Stephan Beyer And Elena Kagan
Maybe You're Mistaken About The Law
Maybe You're Unqualified To Even HAVE An Opinion On What The Law Is
Quote:
Just a thought.
Yes
These Are Just Your Thoughts
Clipped From Some Op-Ed
With No Idea What The Laws Really Are

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 01:27:08   #
Gatsby (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump's administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies.

The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 limited a federal judge's injunction blocking the rule to the nine Western states over which it has jurisdiction including the border states of California and Arizona. That had left open the possibility that the rule could be applied in the two other border states, Texas and New Mexico.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration's policy in federal court said it violates U.S. immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-222638710.html

Many on the Right here probably like this ruling, maybe even rejoice in it. Cheering the ongoing and growing injustices by the Trump Administration as if they are the poem on the Statue of Liberty--and all out of blind hatred for the left...and the fear the WH stokes and Conservative media duly spreads. I pledge I will not say I told you so about this president when it all falls apart under its own megalomaniacal and destructive weight: you will be hurting far worse than me.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday gr... (show quote)


An excellent reaffirmation of the "Any Port in a Storm" tradition!

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 01:33:01   #
rumitoid (a regular here)
 
karpenter wrote:
Yes
These Are Just Your Thoughts
Clipped From Some Op-Ed
With No Idea What The Laws Really Are


I am unqualified to have an opinion on the law. And yes, these are not even my thoughts but just those of an Op-Ed. I depend perhaps too much on law experts and other experts--but wisely that Trump has a thing against people from Mexico (or just immigrants in general) and is looking to do away with what may be their last chance for life and peace from violent and poor countries. End a policy we have had for decades.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 02:52:59   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
Really? Changing immigration that violates both our laws and international laws pertaining to asylum, never possibly sentencing many of those people to real mortal danger or miserable lives in dire circumstance, and he's strong? Just a thought.


According to SCOTUS it doesn't violate your laws... In fact it enforces them...

I'm young...I don't see the benefit in allowing people to take advantage of our policies..

They certainly don't seem grateful...

And yes... Strong is the correct word...

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 05:34:26   #
rumitoid (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
According to SCOTUS it doesn't violate your laws... In fact it enforces them...

I'm young...I don't see the benefit in allowing people to take advantage of our policies..

They certainly don't seem grateful...

And yes... Strong is the correct word...


I saw that. Yet America has a generous and compassionate policy up until Trump. Should be precedent. We know where they want to go for a real chance. Some of the countries asylum seekers pass through are worse than where they came from. A democrat would amend the law to follow decades of precedent out of basic compassion. Compassion is absent from the WH.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 05:59:31   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
I saw that. Yet America has a generous and compassionate policy up until Trump. Should be precedent. We know where they want to go for a real chance. Some of the countries asylum seekers pass through are worse than where they came from. A democrat would amend the law to follow decades of precedent out of basic compassion. Compassion is absent from the WH.


Compassion is a great thing...

But look closely at what you just wrote...

Change one's lawsuit of compassion

How about starting with one's own people?

Protect your own first...

Showing compassion by betraying your own is insanity...

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 06:42:38   #
rumitoid (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
According to SCOTUS it doesn't violate your laws... In fact it enforces them...

I'm young...I don't see the benefit in allowing people to take advantage of our policies..

They certainly don't seem grateful...

And yes... Strong is the correct word...


No, you have a valid point. The law is the law. What was our policy previously? Gracious, compassionate, welcoming, and maybe overextending ourselves to save some lives and give children a chance. That is my America. Trump has pissed on that.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 06:45:55   #
Gatsby (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
Ah, I see. Any care or compassion for a person in need or the downtrodden should be avoided lest the cynical see it as opportunism. Like the Samaritan. Doing that just to get his fifteen minutes of fame in the Bible. Is it any kind that isn't for selfish or base reasons? Do you personally helping the poor and disadvantages out of fear the Left will say that you are trying to steal their turf? Best to avoid care and compassion because people may get the wrong idea?

Tell me who you would vote for. The party that won't help you or the one that does? Which may mean the GOP is responsible itself to possibly losing those votes to democrats. A little more concern and stop cutting programs needed for their well-being and maybe those votes can be yours, which is all we are talking about here, not real people with pressing problems, God forbid.
Ah, I see. Any care or compassion for a person in ... (show quote)


You condone abortion, and yet would lecture others about "Care", "Compassion" and the Good Samaritan?

What a sick, twisted little mind.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.