Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Agree,It would sure help a lot if just one part of one law were changed....if that were feasible it would have been done already, if that has been done already, then this is likely why they are crossing outside of the legal entry which has been essentially shut down with waiting lists of up to a year. And the law allows them to cross any which way but loose, and still get their due process in court, with no black marks held against them for crossing illegally.Because the law states that we have to give the asylum seekers, due process.Why aren't the savages just send the fuck back immediately? Why are illegal invaders entitled to any due process? Also, dems need to install Planned Parenthood facilities in the area the illegal invaders are coming from. Something is wrong when all "refugees" can do is have unprotected sex before deciding to take Soros cash to drop off the crap in the USA.
they have to have a hearing, in an immigration court with a Judge, to determine if they qualify for Refugee status, before we can deport them, if they fail in court.
It's the law.
This is why one of the solutions to this cluster F, is to stack the immigration courts with Judges, from here to Kingdom Come, so that we can process the asylum seekers QUICKLY, instead of having 6 months to a year wait... and us having them pile up and up and up....waiting their turn.
Or do as Trump suggested and have them apply for asylum in their country or from Mexico. They can wait somewhere else until their court date, then arrive in the US for that hearing, and if it's ruled they are not applicable, escorted back over the border.
comprehensive immigration reform has to be done, and both your side and my side need to be statesmen, and compromise, to get it done.... my way or the highway, won't cut it.
And I maintain my position, staffing the immigration courts to the hilt, will help ease this present problem, get them thru the courts expeditiously, and save us an enormous amount of tax dollars that we are paying.
that if a person is apprehended crossing the border illegally, there is no chance for an asylum claim or any other request. They are going home. Period. Forever.
It would sure help a lot if just one part of one law were changed....
that if a person is apprehended crossing the border illegally, there is no chance for an asylum claim or any other request. They are going home. Period. Forever.
if that were feasible it would have been done already, if that has been done already, then this is likely why they are crossing outside of the legal entry which has been essentially shut down with waiting lists of up to a year. And the law allows them to cross any which way but loose, and still get their due process in court, with no black marks held against them for crossing illegally.Because the law states that we have to give the asylum seekers, due process.Why aren't the savages just send the fuck back immediately? Why are illegal invaders entitled to any due process? Also, dems need to install Planned Parenthood facilities in the area the illegal invaders are coming from. Something is wrong when all "refugees" can do is have unprotected sex before deciding to take Soros cash to drop off the crap in the USA.
they have to have a hearing, in an immigration court with a Judge, to determine if they qualify for Refugee status, before we can deport them, if they fail in court.
It's the law.
This is why one of the solutions to this cluster F, is to stack the immigration courts with Judges, from here to Kingdom Come, so that we can process the asylum seekers QUICKLY, instead of having 6 months to a year wait... and us having them pile up and up and up....waiting their turn.
Or do as Trump suggested and have them apply for asylum in their country or from Mexico. They can wait somewhere else until their court date, then arrive in the US for that hearing, and if it's ruled they are not applicable, escorted back over the border.
comprehensive immigration reform has to be done, and both your side and my side need to be statesmen, and compromise, to get it done.... my way or the highway, won't cut it.
And I maintain my position, staffing the immigration courts to the hilt, will help ease this present problem, get them thru the courts expeditiously, and save us an enormous amount of tax dollars that we are paying.
comprehensive immigration reform has to be done, and both your side and my side need to be statesmen, and compromise, to get it done.... my way or the highway, won't cut it.
WE JUST FINISHED a couple of years ago, 700 miles of new walls, barriers and fences passed in 2006/7 in to law.... How's that working out for us? these people are hopping the barriers, but the barriers do work in the sense that it slows them down, giving enough time for border patrol to be there, when there is a breach...A modern wall structure would stop most of it from happening, but as we all know, the Democrats don't want any walls because walls would stop most of them.
It would sure help a lot if just one part of one law were changed....
that if a person is apprehended crossing the border illegally, there is no chance for an asylum claim or any other request. They are going home. Period. Forever.
That would be a great idea if not for these commie leftist activist judges.
By Maria Sacchetti and
Isaac Stanley-Becker
November 20, 2018
[UPDATE: Judge’s ruling means Trump administration must allow all border-crossers to seek asylum, including those who cross illegally]
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, saying the president violated a “clear command” from Congress to allow them to apply.
In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy President Trump announced Nov. 8, which he billed as an urgent attempt to stop the flow of thousands of asylum-seeking families across the border each month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...nter-illegally-mexico/?utm_term=.2eba70707f8e
I couldn't read either of the articles, because of the paywall. I would like to know what that "clear command" was. Is it a piece of existing legislation? If so, it's not that surprising that the Court would tell Trump no.It would sure help a lot if just one part of one law were changed....
that if a person is apprehended crossing the border illegally, there is no chance for an asylum claim or any other request. They are going home. Period. Forever.
That would be a great idea if not for these commie leftist activist judges.
By Maria Sacchetti and
Isaac Stanley-Becker
November 20, 2018
[UPDATE: Judge’s ruling means Trump administration must allow all border-crossers to seek asylum, including those who cross illegally]
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, saying the president violated a “clear command” from Congress to allow them to apply.
In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy President Trump announced Nov. 8, which he billed as an urgent attempt to stop the flow of thousands of asylum-seeking families across the border each month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...nter-illegally-mexico/?utm_term=.2eba70707f8e
It would sure help a lot if just one part of one law were changed....
that if a person is apprehended crossing the border illegally, there is no chance for an asylum claim or any other request. They are going home. Period. Forever.
That would be a great idea if not for these commie leftist activist judges.
By Maria Sacchetti and
Isaac Stanley-Becker
November 20, 2018
[UPDATE: Judge’s ruling means Trump administration must allow all border-crossers to seek asylum, including those who cross illegally]
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, saying the president violated a “clear command” from Congress to allow them to apply.
In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy President Trump announced Nov. 8, which he billed as an urgent attempt to stop the flow of thousands of asylum-seeking families across the border each month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...nter-illegally-mexico/?utm_term=.2eba70707f8eI couldn't read either of the articles, because of the paywall. I would like to know what that "clear command" was. Is it a piece of existing legislation? If so, it's not that surprising that the Court would tell Trump no.It would sure help a lot if just one part of one law were changed....
that if a person is apprehended crossing the border illegally, there is no chance for an asylum claim or any other request. They are going home. Period. Forever.
That would be a great idea if not for these commie leftist activist judges.
By Maria Sacchetti and
Isaac Stanley-Becker
November 20, 2018
[UPDATE: Judge’s ruling means Trump administration must allow all border-crossers to seek asylum, including those who cross illegally]
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, saying the president violated a “clear command” from Congress to allow them to apply.
In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy President Trump announced Nov. 8, which he billed as an urgent attempt to stop the flow of thousands of asylum-seeking families across the border each month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...nter-illegally-mexico/?utm_term=.2eba70707f8e
WE JUST FINISHED a couple of years ago, 700 miles of new walls, barriers and fences passed in 2006/7 in to law.... How's that working out for us? these people are hopping the barriers, but the barriers do work in the sense that it slows them down, giving enough time for border patrol to be there, when there is a breach...A modern wall structure would stop most of it from happening, but as we all know, the Democrats don't want any walls because walls would stop most of them.
I have no problems with filling in the small gaps left in the 700 miles of it, to strengthen it or even adding some more in places that need to be added to the heavy corridors that were picked in 2007 by border Patrol of where they felt the 700 miles funded, would be most effective.
I have a problem with spending the money for a fence across the entire southern border, in places like mountainous regions and desserts a few hundred miles in all directions... when the money could be spent elsewhere in border security measures like more Border Patrol agents in heavy trafficked areas, that are more effective...
but ALL of those measures are very long term and will not solve the humanitarian crisis we are in right now....
Ideally, we need to focus on staffing our legal border points, and letting these asylum seekers in the way they are suppose to come in when requesting asylum, thru the gate, and not over the fence, we need to retain them together as a family for the 20 days allowed, and having enough judges to process them within that time period.... most asylum seekers are turned down once heard by the court, something like 95% of them do not meet the administration's requirements, only around 5% do...
but because we do not have the courts staffed with enough immigration judges to hear their cases within this time frame, the wait to see a judge in court for their due process, is 6 months to a year.... we are overloaded with people in detention due to it, and the Trump admin is having to release them in to the public, and come 6 months or a year from now when their court cases FINALLY come around, many disappear....
If we had enough Judges to hear their cases within the 3 weeks, they could be quickly denied by the courts, and deported the day they were denied...
In my thought out opinion, doing this over and over and over again, would be a real disincentive for coming here for the rest of their countrymen... the word gets out and all of their neighbors see that after a 2000 mile walk, they are denied and back home within weeks, and in even worse shape, because they sold all that they owned, only to be quickly denied.
right now, the denials coming 6 months to a year later by a slow moving court, allows them time to go under the radar, meld in to society, get a taste of the good life and a number of other things that ends up encouraging the rest of their countrymen to follow them.
The government had said it would allow only people who cross at legal checkpoints to request asylum. Those entering elsewhere could seek a temporary form of protection that is harder to win and doesn’t yield full citizenship. The changes would amount to a transformation of long-established asylum procedures, codified both at the international level and by Congress.
The government had said it would allow only people who cross at legal checkpoints to request asylum. Those entering elsewhere could seek a temporary form of protection that is harder to win and doesn’t yield full citizenship. The changes would amount to a transformation of long-established asylum procedures, codified both at the international level and by Congress.
the changes broke the law of the Land, and International law we are treaty to.
Your way, breaks every law and regulation on the books regarding asylum seekers....WE JUST FINISHED a couple of years ago, 700 miles of new walls, barriers and fences passed in 2006/7 in to law.... How's that working out for us? these people are hopping the barriers, but the barriers do work in the sense that it slows them down, giving enough time for border patrol to be there, when there is a breach...A modern wall structure would stop most of it from happening, but as we all know, the Democrats don't want any walls because walls would stop most of them.
I have no problems with filling in the small gaps left in the 700 miles of it, to strengthen it or even adding some more in places that need to be added to the heavy corridors that were picked in 2007 by border Patrol of where they felt the 700 miles funded, would be most effective.
I have a problem with spending the money for a fence across the entire southern border, in places like mountainous regions and desserts a few hundred miles in all directions... when the money could be spent elsewhere in border security measures like more Border Patrol agents in heavy trafficked areas, that are more effective...
but ALL of those measures are very long term and will not solve the humanitarian crisis we are in right now....
Ideally, we need to focus on staffing our legal border points, and letting these asylum seekers in the way they are suppose to come in when requesting asylum, thru the gate, and not over the fence, we need to retain them together as a family for the 20 days allowed, and having enough judges to process them within that time period.... most asylum seekers are turned down once heard by the court, something like 95% of them do not meet the administration's requirements, only around 5% do...
but because we do not have the courts staffed with enough immigration judges to hear their cases within this time frame, the wait to see a judge in court for their due process, is 6 months to a year.... we are overloaded with people in detention due to it, and the Trump admin is having to release them in to the public, and come 6 months or a year from now when their court cases FINALLY come around, many disappear....
If we had enough Judges to hear their cases within the 3 weeks, they could be quickly denied by the courts, and deported the day they were denied...
In my thought out opinion, doing this over and over and over again, would be a real disincentive for coming here for the rest of their countrymen... the word gets out and all of their neighbors see that after a 2000 mile walk, they are denied and back home within weeks, and in even worse shape, because they sold all that they owned, only to be quickly denied.
right now, the denials coming 6 months to a year later by a slow moving court, allows them time to go under the radar, meld in to society, get a taste of the good life and a number of other things that ends up encouraging the rest of their countrymen to follow them.
The reason they come is because we do allow them to enter and disappear. All you have to do is apply for asylum, and you're in. Now if we stopped application in the US, and asylum seekers could only apply outside of our country and not be allowed in until the day of court, many would not come because they know it will be a waste of time, and the Get Into America Free card will no longer exist.
Once in the country, they flee to the one of dozens of sanctuary cities and are protected by the Democrats who run them. Now Democrat strongholds even expand to sanctuary states exasperating the problem even more.
Without the resistance from Democrats in Congress, Democrat activist judges, Democrat organizations who send lawyers over the border to teach invaders how to lie on applications and how to answer questions, Trump would have stopped this problem his first month in office.
The blame for this problem lies solely with the Democrats.
me thinks you read too much, far right wing media and bloggers!The government had said it would allow only people who cross at legal checkpoints to request asylum. Those entering elsewhere could seek a temporary form of protection that is harder to win and doesn’t yield full citizenship. The changes would amount to a transformation of long-established asylum procedures, codified both at the international level and by Congress.
the changes broke the law of the Land, and International law we are treaty to.
Then break the treaty and change the laws. But we both know Democrats would laugh at the suggestion.
The one thing you're going to have to come to terms with is Democrats have zero interest in stopping immigration. They want as much of it as they can. The DNC is now the anti-white party, and their entire goal is to make whites a minority ASAP.
The only goal Democrats have is ultimate unchallenged power. They don't care how many Americans it puts out of work, how many Americans are competing wage wise with foreigners, how many Americans get sick or die from diseases brought over, how many Americans are raped or killed. All they care about is power.
Now if you can't come to terms with that, then this will always be a dilemma to you. As for the courts, they have no jurisdiction on international treaties--only US law which again, can be changed in one day.
Your way, breaks every law and regulation on the books regarding asylum seekers....WE JUST FINISHED a couple of years ago, 700 miles of new walls, barriers and fences passed in 2006/7 in to law.... How's that working out for us? these people are hopping the barriers, but the barriers do work in the sense that it slows them down, giving enough time for border patrol to be there, when there is a breach...A modern wall structure would stop most of it from happening, but as we all know, the Democrats don't want any walls because walls would stop most of them.
I have no problems with filling in the small gaps left in the 700 miles of it, to strengthen it or even adding some more in places that need to be added to the heavy corridors that were picked in 2007 by border Patrol of where they felt the 700 miles funded, would be most effective.
I have a problem with spending the money for a fence across the entire southern border, in places like mountainous regions and desserts a few hundred miles in all directions... when the money could be spent elsewhere in border security measures like more Border Patrol agents in heavy trafficked areas, that are more effective...
but ALL of those measures are very long term and will not solve the humanitarian crisis we are in right now....
Ideally, we need to focus on staffing our legal border points, and letting these asylum seekers in the way they are suppose to come in when requesting asylum, thru the gate, and not over the fence, we need to retain them together as a family for the 20 days allowed, and having enough judges to process them within that time period.... most asylum seekers are turned down once heard by the court, something like 95% of them do not meet the administration's requirements, only around 5% do...
but because we do not have the courts staffed with enough immigration judges to hear their cases within this time frame, the wait to see a judge in court for their due process, is 6 months to a year.... we are overloaded with people in detention due to it, and the Trump admin is having to release them in to the public, and come 6 months or a year from now when their court cases FINALLY come around, many disappear....
If we had enough Judges to hear their cases within the 3 weeks, they could be quickly denied by the courts, and deported the day they were denied...
In my thought out opinion, doing this over and over and over again, would be a real disincentive for coming here for the rest of their countrymen... the word gets out and all of their neighbors see that after a 2000 mile walk, they are denied and back home within weeks, and in even worse shape, because they sold all that they owned, only to be quickly denied.
right now, the denials coming 6 months to a year later by a slow moving court, allows them time to go under the radar, meld in to society, get a taste of the good life and a number of other things that ends up encouraging the rest of their countrymen to follow them.
The reason they come is because we do allow them to enter and disappear. All you have to do is apply for asylum, and you're in. Now if we stopped application in the US, and asylum seekers could only apply outside of our country and not be allowed in until the day of court, many would not come because they know it will be a waste of time, and the Get Into America Free card will no longer exist.
Once in the country, they flee to the one of dozens of sanctuary cities and are protected by the Democrats who run them. Now Democrat strongholds even expand to sanctuary states exasperating the problem even more.
Without the resistance from Democrats in Congress, Democrat activist judges, Democrat organizations who send lawyers over the border to teach invaders how to lie on applications and how to answer questions, Trump would have stopped this problem his first month in office.
The blame for this problem lies solely with the Democrats.
And will take years of lawsuits, where you will be shot down.... or years of fighting some sort of legislation changes to allow what is illegal, under new law or a new treaty that would make it legal, not an easy process...
It's dead, before you can start, when it comes to handling the humanitarian crisis we are in now...
And I suppose that is Trump's goal, he needs this issue to hang around, so he can rile his fervent supporters up, at will, and get them to the polls.... he has no intention of solving the problem.... nor do you.
