permafrost Loc: Minnesota

LOL, a fabulous photo archie,,, that must be a young you, addressing the bull...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Martsiva.... you have always shown a great deal of conflicted thinking in your posts.. you need a great deal of remedial instruction to catch up..
But this evening I want to address only one.. the one above.. You seem convinced Biden is violation the immigrations laws.. now you do know that those laws are quite different and intended results were written by the people wanting cheap labor for such things as crop work, meat processing , gardening and other assorted unpleasant work.. but now to the point.

be specific, what i*********n l*w do you think Biden has violated by allowing immigrants into our country?

describe what unlawful deeds he has done. provide some source or link if you can...

I will look it over, see if I can refute any part of it.... after I knock you out of the park.. we can, if you want move to other problems you believe..

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Nice attempt at deflection and changing the subject. Why don't you first define what you mean by the term "Immigration" versus "I*****l I*********n". You can't possibly be that naive and unaware of what has occurred since Biden took office if you even occasionally look at OPP because this topic has been discussed here ad infinitum. Martsiva referred to "I*****l I*********n" and you try to deflect it as Immigration. A favorite tactic of the left. They can never honestly debate any issue without resorting to tactics that obfuscate, convolute, and conflate the language. It's the only way they can get an upper hand in a debate... by frustrating the other side by shifting the language so that they can never be pinned down. However, Nice try.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

so, to cut to the chase.... what law do you think Biden has violated at the border with Mexico?

Try and give a quote of link..

Justice101

https://spectator.org/biden-immigration-law/

Even if the Republicans gain a strong majority in the House and enough v**es in the Senate to stop a filibuster, they still wouldn't be able to make the executive branch enforce the i*********n l*ws while Biden is in the White House.

It’s apparent that he does not want to enforce them. He’s been undermining enforcement since his first day in office.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

what is the law which you think is not enforced?

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

The Constitution! Instead, terrorists, gang members, human trafficking, drug cartel smuggling, disease, etc are coming across the border at Biden's encouragement, overwhelming the Border Patrol, because he decided he can choose which laws to follow and which laws to ignore, through unconstitutional executive orders that circumvent the legislative process.

Turtle keeper

Just curious. Have you seen 2000 Mules?
Just a yes or no answer will be enough

Turtle keeper

The Supreme Court can stop EOs. IF they feel they are unconstitutional except if the Supreme Court is a Democrat majority. Then they can stop it just because they don’t like it.
The Congress needs to pass new i*********n l*ws. Of course Biden will not sign it but then you would have a Democrat President proving to the country that he and the Democrats all care more about i*****l i*******ts than they do of the citizens of this country. The Latino population of the Country are seeing it and now starting to move away from the Democrats

Justice101

Frosty, didn't you read the article link that I provided?

Excerpt from the article:

8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) says that the government “shall take into custody” certain classes of aliens upon their release, including controlled substance offenders and aliens with “moral turpitude” convictions (e.g., fraud, theft, and sex offenses). This covers numerous aliens listed in Exhibit A-1.

DHS, therefore, is violating the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits federal agencies from acting contrary to law.

It also means that the president is failing to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” as called for by Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

To be clear, the Constitution’s “take care” clause, as it’s known, makes no exception for presidents who, like Joe Biden, suffer from delusional ideologies (like wokeness) or serious cognitive decline.

Does this qualify?

Justice101

You're correct, Biden would veto the laws. They would need 67 Senators to override the veto.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

You miss the point.. or simply can not name a law...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

So now you insist that all of the 1000s of those attempting to cross to the US fall into these groups? wow that seems to include the population of large cities.. and who do you think checks the background of the criminals storming our land????

OH, it would qualify, I just do not think it exists in the number you promote..

Justice101

Well, if you take into consideration all of these "Asylum Seekers", then you're right on target for the majority of the i*****l m*****ts clamoring to gain entrance to the USA.

Biden Would Not Properly Vet Asylum Seekers
As noted, asylum claims that meet the “credible fear” threshold undergo “further consideration.” This has always been done in immigration court, where government attorneys can contest suspect asylum claims with cross-examination and impeachment evidence.

That’s key, because the credible fear interview is a low threshold. As the Supreme Court recently noted in DHS v. Thuraissigiam, “[t]he applicant need not show that he or she is in fact eligible for asylum.” Most applicants with a positive credible fear determination are not ultimately awarded asylum, the court noted, as many abscond, withdraw their applications, or are denied asylum when their cases are vetted in immigration court.

But the left-wing activists in charge of Biden’s immigration policy don’t want asylum cases vetted. Under the asylum rule, the same U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers who conduct credible fear interviews would be allowed to grant asylum.

They, not Department of Justice immigration judges, would do the “further consideration” in “non-adversarial hearings,” with no government attorney challenging the many meritless and fraudulent cases, although asylum applicants would be allowed to have counsel. Speaking of left-wing activists, before being installed as head of USCIS, Ur Jaddou was employed by an anti-enforcement outfit on the left called “America’s Voice.”

Indeed, USCIS co-wrote the proposed rule. In justifying it, the administration emphasizes that the law does not explicitly state that the “further consideration” must be conducted by immigration judges. But a rule that makes it more difficult to detect meritless and fraudulent asylum claims goes against the whole point of expedited removal.

Administration’s Real Goal
The administration reveals its real intention by proposing in the rule that anyone subject to expedited removal could be paroled (released) into the United States whenever “detention is unavailable or impracticable” (emphasis added), even before the credible fear interview. Never mind that under law, parole may be granted only on a “case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.”

In claiming a general parole authority that doesn’t exist, the administration is doing what it has done since Inauguration Day with its immigration policy — namely, dispensing with the law under the guise of prioritizing resources, in this case, to “prioritize use of its limited detention bed space.”

The administration stresses that the number of asylum cases has increased dramatically since 1996, creating backlogs in immigration court. Why not, the reasoning goes, clear the backlogs by allowing the credible fear interviewers to also grant asylum?

Well, for starters, the rule t***sforms expedited removal into expedited admission. Once it becomes final, it will incentivize even more inadmissible migrants to stream towards the border, enriching the cartels that control the smuggling routes.

Meanwhile, Americans who object to the rule will be attacked as “xenophobes,” and if the inevitable legal challenges ultimately reach the Supreme Court, Democrats will threaten to pack it. All of this, of course, will promote “unity.”

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/22/biden-plans-to-further-break-the-border-with-fraudulent-asylum-seekers/

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Good projection and deflection. I did name a law Mr. Dumass. The supreme law of the land (Do you even know what that is?). Others have also mentioned laws in so many other threads. Your remarks are redundant and not worthy of consideration because you react with feeling instead of rationality. Every time someone here disagrees they want proof even though the proof has been supplied time and time again. I'm sorry you can't do research on your own and insist on listening to the narrative put forth by the mainstream media and the progressive l*****t socialist Marxist c*******t f*****t bi-government bureaucratic elitist g*******t Democrats. Ignoring what you don't like doesn't make it go away.