woodguru

They are atheists, and atheist don't give a damn about religion as long as it isn't used to step on anyone else's rights.

Smedley_buzkill

You are not an immigration lawyer? You could have fooled me, with your amateurish attempts at redefining the United States Code. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't know much about the law of the land either, since they overturned the lower court ruling and upheld Trump's temporary ban in a 5-4 decision.

I guess Bill Clinton isn't much of an immigration lawyer either. His ban on Haitians, I believe is still in effect.

Saying that he feared a mass exodus of Haitians unless he acted, President-elect Bill Clinton announced today that he would at least temporarily abandon a campaign pledge and would continue the Bush Administration's policy of forcibly returning Haitians who try to emigrate to the United States.

It was Mr. Clinton who helped create the expectation of an exodus from Haiti when he condemned the Bush Administration for a "cruel policy of returning Haitian refugees to a brutal dictatorship without an asylum hearing."

Mr. Clinton had promised to give Haitians refuge and make it easier for them to apply for political asylum until democracy is restored in their country. At one point in the campaign he said, "If I were President, I would -- in the absence of clear and compelling evidence that they weren't political refugees -- give them temporary asylum until we restored the elected Government of Haiti."

That promise prompted Haitians to build nearly 1,000 boats that could accommodate as many as 150,000 people, many of whom are poised to set sail in stormy seas in the hopes of arriving on American shores at the moment of Mr. Clinton's inauguration Wednesday. Intercepting Refugees

But in a bluntly worded taped radio message broadcast this morning directly to Haiti and Haitian communities in the United States, Mr. Clinton said that Haitians who fled by boat would be intercepted and returned to the island. He also emphasized that he would enforce current United States immigration policy, which prevents Haitians escaping poverty -- but not those fleeing political persecution -- from seeking asylum in the United States.
Mr. Clinton's announcement was met with dismay in Haiti and among American refugee groups that have worked closely with the transition team to forge a new appraoch to the problem of boat people. [ Page A2. ]

"The practice of returning those who flee Haiti by boat will continue, for the time being, after I become President," Mr. Clinton said in the broadcast. "Those who leave Haiti by boat for the United States will be intercepted and returned to Haiti by the U.S. Coast Guard. Leaving by boat is not the route to freedom.

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/15/world/clinton-says-us-will-continue-ban-on-haitian-exodus.html

Ooops. I guess you were mistaken, except about the part where you said you are not a lawyer.

herbie

you always have an excuse for Trump losing, you can`t just admit that he clearly does not know what he is doing. if it was a Democrat in office right now the shoe would be on the other foot and you would be taking the opposite side, such an idiot !!!!!!!!!

Jean Deaux

Simply check the number of decisions they have made that have been overturned.

Jean Deaux

Argue as you will, the Bible and its account of Moses and the Ten Commandments lays the basis for a great deal of our law and mores, and provides a common sense basis for guiding our lives. No Supreme Court Justice is always absolutely right, that is why there are multiple justices; it gives us the benefit of various points of view in interpreting the Constitution and the majority provide necessary interpretation. To remove the Bible and religion from the court room would remove such laws as Thou Shalt not Murder: to what end? You have to have a basis for law and the Bible provides a very common sense approach to guiding our lives and laws. Your desire for complete removal of religion is the antithesis of a lawful existence for our society.

Smedley_buzkill

If you use the quote reply option, people will know to whom your reply is directed. I mean, you are the one calling someone a moron. See to the newspaper in your own birdcage.

Common_Sense_Matters

The amateur here is you, it is perfectly clear to any with the comprehension to understand the laws that the Hart−Celler Act of '65 trumps Trump's "Muslim ban" just because it is over your head, doesn't mean it isn't so. I would suggest that you go read 8 U.S. Code § 1182 again but as I am coming to the conclusion that you are intelligent enough to comprehend it, that would just be a waste of time wouldn't it.

I guess I will just have to say drop the subject since you can't comprehend it, you likely won't, but that is okay, this is a free country and I can choose not to respond if I do not wish to.

Smedley_buzkill

I would appreciate your choosing not to respond, as you have already stated as your choice. If you wish further debate, I have a couple of precocious houseplants that could spot you 50 IQ points and still make it a squeaker. I mean, I have no desire to debate anyone who in his own mind is smarter than five Supreme Court Justices.

Common_Sense_Matters

The number has nothing to do with "liberal bias", the only bias would be based on the content, not the number. Of course everything is about political bias with Trump supporters, they can't see past their own political bias so they don't think others can either. Since you are the one that is claiming bias, shouldn't it be your responsibility to back your claims? You people expect everyone else to back their own claims and now it seems that you expect everybody else back your claims for you too, talk about lack of work ethic.

No problem, I shall now consider you an opinionated blowhard that can't/won't back up their own claims. You have opinions on things but don't have ANY facts to back your claim. Tell me, who gave you your opinions?

Smedley_buzkill

An opinionated blowhard? You mean like one who insists that a piece of legislation passed in 1965 (pardon the pun) trumps established law, and invalidates the opinion of a majority of the SCOTUS? You have not backed up your claims at all in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your argument is "This is my opinion so it must be right."

Jean Deaux

I said if you want to find liberal bias, simply check the number of decisions rendered by the 9th Circuit Court that have been overturned by the Supreme Court. Since the 9th Circuit Court is frequently the court used by liberals to try and establish law that they have not been able to pass through the Legislative Branch, many of their decisions fail to pass the legal challenges imposed by law. I am frankly not concerned by any of your considerations on anything; your intended insult flew into the void of extraneous, irrelevant and immaterial. Some of my opinions are drawn from common sense! Yours?

Jean Deaux

I presume your definition of "crazy right wing territory" is any opinion that is not in lock step with liberals? Too often, liberals borrow the Russian philosophy that "What is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable." Since the fact that it has been Trump that has been supporting the Constitution, unlike obama's theory that "I have a phone and a pen" or his un-Constitutional edict that forced everyone to participate and pay premiums and ever increasing deductibles, into his cockamamy obamacare disaster, you have little to cackle about.

Jean Deaux

Again, simply check the number of cases the liberals have had reversed by the Supreme Court. If they can't legislate victory, they try a flank attack through the courts. And then the Supreme Court cuts them off at the knees. Perhaps the libs should test some of their desires as being in accordance with the Constitution before they try to get them off the ground.

Smedley_buzkill

It would seem the egg he was cackling about ended up on his face.

Jean Deaux

A good place to start is with the unemployment figures for both blacks and Hispanics. Jobs mitigate income inequities and particularly so those with increasing wages. No more of obama's anti police propaganda and scorn. Giving people pride again since they are no longer as dependent on welfare as they were during the obama years among other reasons.