Partisan reactions please! Gorsuch sides with liberals to invalidate part of deportation law!

Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.
Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.
He’s not a citizen or deportation wouldn’t be possible at all. Any other status he may have is not permanent and can be revoked at any time.
 
Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.
Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.
He’s not a citizen or deportation wouldn’t be possible at all. Any other status he may have is not permanent and can be revoked at any time.
I agree but that is an administrative/judicial decision not a decision based on law.
It is completely reasonable to disagree with the decision but that doesn't make it controversial.
 
ROTFLMFAO!

I just realized the feelings of betrayal the Right would feel---if Gorsuch turned out to be another Justice Kennedy......I mean, I've read countless times about how important the SCOTUS appointment was..and how that alone justified Trump's election--how ironic if their pick goes rogue on them!
 
Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.
Where did you get the idea the immigrant in question was illegal? I missed that in the articles I read. Do you have a link?
2nd paragraph of article states he is a legal immigrant from the Philippines.
Not a citizen. His legal status can be revoked because he’s committing crimes.
 
It was not ruled the burglar was innocent, just that his crime did not fit the over vague definition of a violent crime.

At least read the article before making an ass out of yourself
I read the blurb and I don't care if it's violent or not. The creep probably has a record and his greasy ass doesn't belong here.


Don't you believe in the rule of law? And do you know the difference between burglary and robbery?
Well, a burglary calls for a 12 gauge and a robbery calls for an AR-15 w/bumpstock.
People who shoot burglars sometimes find themselves charged with manslaughter or murder. Shooting someone for armed robbery where your life is in danger is not the same as shooting someone unarmed trying to steal a lawnmower out of your shed or garage.
 
Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.
Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.
He’s not a citizen or deportation wouldn’t be possible at all. Any other status he may have is not permanent and can be revoked at any time.
I agree but that is an administrative/judicial decision not a decision based on law.
It is completely reasonable to disagree with the decision but that doesn't make it controversial.
Two burglaries should count as grounds for deportation don’t you think?
 
Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.
Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.
He’s not a citizen or deportation wouldn’t be possible at all. Any other status he may have is not permanent and can be revoked at any time.
I agree but that is an administrative/judicial decision not a decision based on law.
It is completely reasonable to disagree with the decision but that doesn't make it controversial.
Two burglaries should count as grounds for deportation don’t you think?
Yes but it isn't my decision to make.
 
It was not ruled the burglar was innocent, just that his crime did not fit the over vague definition of a violent crime.

At least read the article before making an ass out of yourself
I read the blurb and I don't care if it's violent or not. The creep probably has a record and his greasy ass doesn't belong here.


Don't you believe in the rule of law? And do you know the difference between burglary and robbery?
Well, a burglary calls for a 12 gauge and a robbery calls for an AR-15 w/bumpstock.
People who shoot burglars sometimes find themselves charged with manslaughter or murder. Shooting someone for armed robbery where your life is in danger is not the same as shooting someone unarmed trying to steal a lawnmower out of your shed or garage.
I live in two states that says if someone forces their way into your residence or business then their ass is mine. I prefer a Glock 17 though. Easier to clean.
 
Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.
Where did you get the idea the immigrant in question was illegal? I missed that in the articles I read. Do you have a link?
2nd paragraph of article states he is a legal immigrant from the Philippines.
Not a citizen. His legal status can be revoked because he’s committing crimes.
Actually, that's at the heart of the ruling....as to whether or not his status can be terminated. Right now..SCOTUS is saying that it cannot be.
 
I agree but that is an administrative/judicial decision not a decision based on law.
It is completely reasonable to disagree with the decision but that doesn't make it controversial.

You don't have a clue how our judicial system works do you?

Not based on law?

If you weren't born here, you would be too stupid to be allowed to stay.
 
Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.
Where did you get the idea the immigrant in question was illegal? I missed that in the articles I read. Do you have a link?
2nd paragraph of article states he is a legal immigrant from the Philippines.
Not a citizen. His legal status can be revoked because he’s committing crimes.
Actually, that's at the heart of the ruling....as to whether or not his status can be terminated. Right now..SCOTUS is saying that it cannot be.
Which is ridiculously stupid.
 
ROTFLMFAO!

I just realized the feelings of betrayal the Right would feel---if Gorsuch turned out to be another Justice Kennedy......I mean, I've read countless times about how important the SCOTUS appointment was..and how that alone justified Trump's election--how ironic if their pick goes rogue on them!

Would be hilarious.
 
Well, a burglary calls for a 12 gauge and a robbery calls for an AR-15 w/bumpstock.

Don't you like your neighbors. An AR015 will put a hole through two walls and into your neighbors house.
You watch too much CNN.

A .22 LR will go through a 2X4 and most walls are just sheet rock and exterior plywood. You sound like the people who get their gun knowledge from TV. Where you see a cop hiding behind his car door as somebody shoots at him. Even with a 9mm if you don't get behind something solid like behind the car, or better yet, behind the engine block, the bullet will go right through it.
 
Well, a burglary calls for a 12 gauge and a robbery calls for an AR-15 w/bumpstock.

Don't you like your neighbors. An AR015 will put a hole through two walls and into your neighbors house.
You watch too much CNN.

A .22 LR will go through a 2X4 and most walls are just sheet rock and exterior plywood. You sound like the people who get their gun knowledge from TV. Where you see a cop hiding behind his car door as somebody shoots at him. Even with a 9mm if you don't get behind something solid like behind the car, or better yet, behind the engine block, the bullet will go right through it.

Thanks for the info.
 
I live in two states that says if someone forces their way into your residence or business then their ass is mine. I prefer a Glock 17 though. Easier to clean.

It's called the castle doctrine. Basically, somebody breaks into your house, you have no duty to retreat, and you can take any action necessary to subdue them.

If they were in your garage, you would need to be in a "make my day" law states, which allow lethal force for protection of property, other than one's home.
 

Forum List

Back
Top