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: <<prev 1 2 3 next>>
Sep 12, 2019 06:46:02   #
rumitoid (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
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...


That is an acceptable view, but our own people, to me, is humanity. No states, borders, ethnicity, or any differences to a person in need, like the hated Samaritan helping a Jew.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 06:49:04   #
rumitoid (a regular here)
 
Gatsby wrote:
You condone abortion, and yet would lecture others about "Care, Compassion and the good Samaritan?

What a sick, twisted little mind.


2 funny the third time tonight. I have always condemned abortion in my approximately 10 years here.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 07:04:23   #
Gatsby (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
2 funny the third time tonight. I have always condemned abortion in my approximately 10 years here.


Abortion on demand is a cornerstone of the Democratic party platform.

You cannot support the party, without supporting their agenda.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 07:26:07   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
That is an acceptable view, but our own people, to me, is humanity. No states, borders, ethnicity, or any differences to a person in need, like the hated Samaritan helping a Jew.


That is an acceptable viewpoint...

I am very nationalistic...

I would help others... But not at the expense of mine own...

I would point out that helping others is on my terms...Not instituted by the government...

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 07:27:33   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Gatsby wrote:
Abortion on demand is a cornerstone of the Democratic party platform.

You cannot support the party, without supporting their agenda.


You can support a party without supporting certain policies...

Difficult to overlook abortion though...

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 08:33:43   #
Pennylynn (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
That is an acceptable view, but our own people, to me, is humanity. No states, borders, ethnicity, or any differences to a person in need, like the hated Samaritan helping a Jew.


You do know that the Samaritan and the Jew is a parable? Parables are used to teach, the story does not need to be true. Notice that Jesus did not say, one day I saw this happen. He responded to the questions by telling them a story they could relate to.


So your imaginary perfect world would be where no individual stands out--Stepford Wives. Thanks, I will pass!

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 10:35:10   #
bahmer (a regular here)
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
You just hate losing all those illegal Democrat votes.


Amen and Amen

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 10:35:13   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Pennylynn wrote:
You do know that the Samaritan and the Jew is a parable? Parables are used to teach, the story does not need to be true. Notice that Jesus did not say, one day I saw this happen. He responded to the questions by telling them a story they could relate to.


So your imaginary perfect world would be where no individual stands out--Stepford Wives. Thanks, I will pass!


Interesting take on it...

Thanks... Will consider this

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 12:42:30   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
All I can say is that this ruling was a bit of a surprise to me..

the reading I had done on the law was that a refuge had to apply for asylum at the first "safe" country they came to..

In the words often shouted from the orange fiasco mouth, Mexico is a crime infested, corrupt nation, unsafe for anyone.

drug cartels and local crime killing on the whim of the moment..

So this sort of nation would not seem to be a "safe" nation for anyone to seek asylum in..

While this is a setback for humanity, several other legal issues pertaining to this subject are still ongoing and may become effective..

Anyone know the exact point of law which was under consideration?\

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 13:22:22   #
Peewee (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
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.


How bad do you feel about the seven rapes of Americans in Maryland by MS-13? Not much it seems.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 14:09:16   #
Louie27 (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)


Injustices by the Trump administration? The real injustice is the Dems seeking for more of these people to travel from South America. Let us talk about blind hatred by those on the left. No Republican or conservative has ever endorsed the harassments of any of the oppositions party or their administrations to the extent the deranged liberals and progressives taken to a new height of perversion. As for being a dictatorship, Trump is far removed from that area. As far as I know he has abided by laws enacted by Congress and the Constitution and followed all legal ways to approach his decisions. When he has been defeated by the Ninth Circuit Court he then follows their decision and then asks for a quick resolution by a higher court. The Dems take upon themselves to try to find some fault by Trump even when many investigations have shown no crimes committed. To hell with the American people and onward toward proving they don't like this country and anyone who opposes their authority. Your last sentence only points out the faults of the Democratic party, who want to take many rights, afforded by our Constitution, to gain power over all of Americans. With the elite having total control of all thing in America. Under Trump that will never happen.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 14:25:41   #
bggamers (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)


Rumi these people come here most go for welfare/food stamps/free medical free housing very few try to work the only ones that are working to pay for all of this is us the tax payer. I am sorry but there is a legal way and them storming our doors are not and they put all of us in a very unsafe position.How many are MS13 how many are terrorist how many bring in diseases we are not use to and if you read many of the diseases we don't even worry about are coming back. If your so worried about these people and not the people of your own country that's on you but most of us have family that we are trying to protect all our laws are there to protect us and legal imagration is one of them.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 16:22:09   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret. (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)


Care to say what the problem is? We are a sovereign nation, we get to say where someone applies for asylum and if they get in. Otherwise you have anarchy.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 21:14:04   #
Navigator (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)


Nice informative post except for the last part that confuses me: "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." What you refer to as spreading fear I believe to be merely the realistic informing of the populace about what will happen if the leftists gain complete control of the government but it also appears that you are including this SCOTUS decision as something unjust and done only out of blind hatred of the left. In fact, this decision had nothing to do with hate, was pretty much bi-partisan, was just and was intended to support the rule of law.

| Reply
Sep 12, 2019 22:21:59   #
Peewee (a regular here)
 
Navigator wrote:
Nice informative post except for the last part that confuses me: "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." What you refer to as spreading fear I believe to be merely the realistic informing of the populace about what will happen if the leftists gain complete control of the government but it also appears that you are including this SCOTUS decision as something unjust and done only out of blind hatred of the left. In fact, this decision had nothing to do with hate, was pretty much bi-partisan, was just and was intended to support the rule of law.
Nice informative post except for the last part tha... (show quote)


Bingo! Laws are worthless if not enforced!

| Reply
Page: <<prev 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.