Liberal Judge Invites More Hispanics to US Soil

[P@triot]

You think everything is A-OK in the Northern Triangle?

Crime, poverty, etc. are not grounds for asylum sweetie. There are no human atrocities going on that would warrant the need for asylum. No religious persecution. No ethnic-cleansing. Nothing.

 

[Nova78]

<< Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court >>

Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court - Reuters

screw that judge, he is an idiot ,send his ass back.

 

[P@triot]

It was right there all you had to do was click the link, I knew you would fail.

It's not my job to do your research for you. When I make a claim, I post the full contents along with the link. Stop being so fuck'n lazy.

Also, you had no clue what you were talking about. None. You just want along with what a fellow lib said you got LUCKY to stumble across something that supported your claim.

Oh...and not for nothing Joy...but this doesn't even support the argument here anyway. The argument is - these people are NOT seeking "asylum". If they were, they would report to the U.S. Embassy in (Honduras/Nicaragua/etc.) and request it. Or they would request it at the border of the first nation they reach.

Know why they don't? Because they KNOW they will be rejected. Know why? Their nations are not experiencing the human atrocities necessary to request "asylum". Game over. Thanks for playing.

 

[lennypartiv]

<< Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court >>

Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court - Reuters

screw that judge, he is an idiot ,send his ass back.

Ain't it the truth. Send them all back.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

<< Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court >>

Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court - Reuters

screw that judge, he is an idiot ,send his ass back.

Ain't it the truth. Send them all back.

Liberals follow the rule of law and Constitution.

Trump and other hateful, bigoted conservatives don’t.

 

[pknopp]

Again...it is not the law. Stop claiming something is “law” when it isn’t.

Take it up with the courts. Good luck.

Why? The courts aren't claiming it's law either. Only you and whack-job Joy are doing that.

A U.S. federal judge on Friday struck down one of President Donald Trump’s initiatives to curtail asylum claims, ruling that the government could not reject migrants who had crossed the border illegally.

The ruling on Friday by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C. went further by finding the Trump rule violated immigration law.

Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court - Reuters

Is this the last step the administration can take this to? No but let's see if they appeal it all the way. If ruled against.......... I say they drop it before it gets that far.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Every single step of the way liberals fight to continue the invasion.

 

[dudmuck]

<< Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court >>

Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court - Reuters

screw that judge, he is an idiot ,send his ass back.

This federal judge is telling the executive branch that they do not have they power to change the law. Under our current system a person can make an asylum claim regardless of how the enter the United States. That doesn’t mean they made a lawful entry under Section 1325. It simply means the government can’t dismiss their claim on those grounds.

 

[P@triot]

This federal judge is telling the executive branch that they do not have they power to change the law.

Where was that federal judge when Obama was changing federal law?!?

 

[HappyJoy]

It was right there all you had to do was click the link, I knew you would fail.

It's not my job to do your research for you. When I make a claim, I post the full contents along with the link. Stop being so fuck'n lazy.

Do your research? I posted my link before you even asked for it, I can't help if you breezed right by it or didn't bother to understand why Trump lost in court. Idiot.

Also, you had no clue what you were talking about. None. You just want along with what a fellow lib said you got LUCKY to stumble across something that supported your claim.

That's too fucking funny, you're proven wrong but it's my fault. Moron.

 

[HappyJoy]

It was right there all you had to do was click the link, I knew you would fail.

It's not my job to do your research for you. When I make a claim, I post the full contents along with the link. Stop being so fuck'n lazy.

Also, you had no clue what you were talking about. None. You just want along with what a fellow lib said you got LUCKY to stumble across something that supported your claim.

Oh...and not for nothing Joy...but this doesn't even support the argument here anyway. The argument is - these people are NOT seeking "asylum". If they were, they would report to the U.S. Embassy in (Honduras/Nicaragua/etc.) and request it. Or they would request it at the border of the first nation they reach.

Know why they don't? Because they KNOW they will be rejected. Know why? Their nations are not experiencing the human atrocities necessary to request "asylum". Game over. Thanks for playing.

Do you enjoy being stupid? The case was specifically about asylum seekers.

 

[HappyJoy]

Every single step of the way liberals fight to continue the invasion.

Not an invasion. Seeking asylum is a legal act upheld by the judge. Why don't you want your government to follow the law?

 

[pknopp]

This federal judge is telling the executive branch that they do not have they power to change the law.

Where was that federal judge when Obama was changing federal law?!?

Obama was overturned a lot. Far too many 9-0 rulings for a "Constitutional Scholar".

 

[P@triot]

The case was specifically about asylum seekers.

Yeah stupid....and we cited how they are not seeking asylum. They are trying to leverage it illegally. This has also been explained throughout the thread and you would realize that if you weren’t illiterate. For the love of fuck, please ask an adult to read this thread to you before commenting again.

 

[HappyJoy]

The case was specifically about asylum seekers.

Yeah stupid....and we cited how they are not seeking asylum. They are trying to leverage it illegally. This has also been explained throughout the thread and you would realize that if you weren’t illiterate. For the love of fuck, please ask an adult to read this thread to you before commenting again.

They are seeking asylum, the people who sued were seeking asylum. The ruling only effects people seeking asylum.

You're priceless. You were proven wrong and you're just marching in your one man victory parade.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This will be overturned.

 

[HappyJoy]

This will be overturned.

It might, but why make proclamations? You want it to be overturned, you do not know it will be.

 

[pknopp]

This will be overturned.

I'm betting it isn't appealed.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This will be overturned.

I'm betting it isn't appealed.

It should be, this is a horrible precedent. Rewarding criminals.

 

[P@triot]

They are seeking asylum, the people who sued were seeking asylum.

Yeah...to skirt around the LAW. To avoid the standard immigration process. To jump in line. That's what we're trying to explain to your ultra dumb ass. Good God.

Why do you think they aren't reporting to an embassy or point of entry to request "asylum", dumb ass?