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.
That was the entire point of the POTUS' idea of trolling the left. Some of them got the idea, most of them don't see their own hypocrisy.
Anyone caught entering illegally should automatically be denied asylum.If you want to request asylum you should request at a legal point of entry, or better yet, at one of the 11 US Consulates throughout Mexico rather than dragging your wife and daughters through the rape routes of Northern Mexico. Parents are so certain their daughters will be raped during the illegal crossing that they put them on birth control before making the trip. How anyone can claim keeping these rape routes open is "compassionate" makes no sense at all.Learn to Goggle dipshit.Source for that claim?They show up for their first appearances to make a plea. They don't show up for their final appearance when the court decides their fate.
DHS Report: 84% of Illegal Alien Adults Not In Court For Final Case Hearing
DHS Report: 84% of Illegal Alien Adults Not In Court For Final Case Hearing
Clearly letting them into our country and letting the, go and trust they will comeback isn’t working. We need to change something, otherwise we will continue to have illegal immigrants. If they were truly seeking asylum they would have stuck around and followed our legal path to citizenship.
To claim asylum, you have to be in the country. Don't suggest you and Trump have any compassion considering you are helping the drug cartels.
\Trump did try that but once again, a liberal activist judge stopped him. Trump said nobody caught here illegally can apply for asylum.
Actually, I agree with that about illegals. If they are caught on US Soil and not turning themselves in at the border then you are right. But, most of these people find the nearest Border Agent and immediately turn themselves in. They don't really qualify as Illegal Aliens.
The problem is (I believe mostly because of this ruling by the court) is that they illegally cross the border, and when caught, claim they are seeking asylum and the agents are forced to treat them that way even though it's all BS.
This is the law.
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Obtaining Asylum in the United States
- Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
- You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
(CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal judge's order blocking the Trump administration's new asylum restrictions.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in the 5-4 ruling.
The administration's policy, signed on November 9, would temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the southern border from seeking asylum outside of official ports of entry. A federal judge in California quickly blocked the order, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
Supreme Court upholds block on Trump's asylum ban - CNNPolitics
A court that has someone who committed sexual assault. The Republicans are finished after 2020 and this pours more coal on the fire. The first thing Democrats should do is open a criminal investigation of Kavanaugh.
Nah, but don’t let the truth get in front of your lies.
Again, too funny to watch you guys say "how High" when your cult leader says "Jump".
You are back to trolling. Bye.
The truth hurts you brainless troll.
No.
The democratic party policy (if you want to call it “my side”) is that illegals should be treated as humanely as possible pending deportation. Your wanting to throw them into a wood chipper is brazenly callus and very un-American by the way.
Then Democrats should proactively embrace all illegals into their sanctuary cities. I don’t want them to be thrown into a wood chopper. I want them to respect US law and process.
I would like a law that doesn’t allow for kidnapping and kids having to defend themselves in court.
So you prefer to leave them in control of human traffickers and smugglers.
I would prefer a process to completely vet the adults as much as possible to mitigate the risk of human smuggling and traffickers. Catch and release is no sustainable and can grow into a major vulnerability from a security perspective; both to US citizens and innocent children being brought in.
How are you doing to do that?
Ok, unless you mean shuttered military bases, that wont happen. The u.s. government is not going to house non military personnel on an active military base.Do you think putting them in sanctuary cities is wrong? If so, why? Where do you think they should go?How is it retribution?
The left support these people coming here anyway they can get them. They tell us these are wonderful family people only looking to support themselves. But now that Trump wants to give the left what they want, it's considered punishment by the liberals?
Well if you consider this punishment, then what you are saying is that Democrats want to punish the entire country by letting these people in.
It is clearly political retribution. Even you recognize that. Do really think an action like that by the POTUS is appropriate?
“Those people” are amnesty seekers. That is a legal, not illegal status. Do you and Trump have a problem with legal immigrants?
No, why do you?
Please explain to me how it's retribution when Trump puts these people in liberal cities and it's not retribution when Democrats put them everywhere else. If these people being in our country is a negative, then they should not be in our country period. If they are not a negative as Democrats claim, they should have no problem welcoming in all those asylum seekers.
If Hillary were President, and she got disgusted with the Republicans demand for lower corporate taxes, and she allowed lower corporate taxes in red and purple states, how would that be retribution to Republicans? We would welcome such a move by the President.
Trump is admitting that he wants to put these refugees in sanctuary cities solely because they are sanctuary cities. That is political retribution. There is no evidence Democrats have ever done the same. Obama sent refugees to red and blue states. There is no evidence they are against taking their fair share.
Obama sent them to both red and blue states. We could move them to military bases or any other government facility which people can stay with dignity.
Do you think putting them in sanctuary cities is wrong? If so, why? Where do you think they should go?How is it retribution?
The left support these people coming here anyway they can get them. They tell us these are wonderful family people only looking to support themselves. But now that Trump wants to give the left what they want, it's considered punishment by the liberals?
Well if you consider this punishment, then what you are saying is that Democrats want to punish the entire country by letting these people in.
It is clearly political retribution. Even you recognize that. Do really think an action like that by the POTUS is appropriate?
“Those people” are amnesty seekers. That is a legal, not illegal status. Do you and Trump have a problem with legal immigrants?
No, why do you?
Please explain to me how it's retribution when Trump puts these people in liberal cities and it's not retribution when Democrats put them everywhere else. If these people being in our country is a negative, then they should not be in our country period. If they are not a negative as Democrats claim, they should have no problem welcoming in all those asylum seekers.
If Hillary were President, and she got disgusted with the Republicans demand for lower corporate taxes, and she allowed lower corporate taxes in red and purple states, how would that be retribution to Republicans? We would welcome such a move by the President.
Trump is admitting that he wants to put these refugees in sanctuary cities solely because they are sanctuary cities. That is political retribution. There is no evidence Democrats have ever done the same. Obama sent refugees to red and blue states. There is no evidence they are against taking their fair share.
Obama sent them to both red and blue states. We could move them to military bases or any other government facility which people can stay with dignity.
A compromise would be nice.What, Trump's loonie suggestion?How does that make the country better off?
I think it is aimed at helping the left and right come to a compromise?
That was the entire point of the POTUS' idea of trolling the left. Some of them got the idea, most of them don't see their own hypocrisy.
Hopefully Cher will extrapolate her concern for her community out to the entire nation now? ? ? . . . .
It's not a constitutional issue, it's a presidential issue.
It's not a constitutional issue, it's a presidential issue.
The President's powers come from the Constitution. There's nothing in Article 2 that grants the President the power to relocate people because he finds it convenient to do so.
There is nothing in the Constitution stopping him either.
There is nothing in the Constitution stopping him either.
The constitution does not limit an otherwise all powerful federal government, it empowers an otherwise impotent federal government. Is that not the conservative point of view? At least, it was until Donald urinated in a Gatorade bottle for your drinking pleasure.
There is nothing in the Constitution stopping him either.
The constitution does not limit an otherwise all powerful federal government, it empowers an otherwise impotent federal government. Is that not the conservative point of view? At least, it was until Donald urinated in a Gatorade bottle for your drinking pleasure.
No. If you listen to any conservative broadcaster, you'd realize that we believe the Constitution was not to empower government, the Constitution was created to limit government. That's why many conservatives (smaller government people) are for constitutionalism, and the Democrats (large overpowering government) are anti-constitutionalists.
The law should be changed allowing for application for asylum from our consulates. With all the rapes that occur during the trek across Northern Mexico, no one should before forced to make that trek in order to apply for asylum.\Anyone caught entering illegally should automatically be denied asylum.If you want to request asylum you should request at a legal point of entry, or better yet, at one of the 11 US Consulates throughout Mexico rather than dragging your wife and daughters through the rape routes of Northern Mexico. Parents are so certain their daughters will be raped during the illegal crossing that they put them on birth control before making the trip. How anyone can claim keeping these rape routes open is "compassionate" makes no sense at all.Clearly letting them into our country and letting the, go and trust they will comeback isn’t working. We need to change something, otherwise we will continue to have illegal immigrants. If they were truly seeking asylum they would have stuck around and followed our legal path to citizenship.
Trump did try that but once again, a liberal activist judge stopped him. Trump said nobody caught here illegally can apply for asylum.
Actually, I agree with that about illegals. If they are caught on US Soil and not turning themselves in at the border then you are right. But, most of these people find the nearest Border Agent and immediately turn themselves in. They don't really qualify as Illegal Aliens.
The problem is (I believe mostly because of this ruling by the court) is that they illegally cross the border, and when caught, claim they are seeking asylum and the agents are forced to treat them that way even though it's all BS.
This is the law.
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Obtaining Asylum in the United States
- Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
- You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
There is nothing in the Constitution stopping him either.
The constitution does not limit an otherwise all powerful federal government, it empowers an otherwise impotent federal government. Is that not the conservative point of view? At least, it was until Donald urinated in a Gatorade bottle for your drinking pleasure.
No. If you listen to any conservative broadcaster, you'd realize that we believe the Constitution was not to empower government, the Constitution was created to limit government. That's why many conservatives (smaller government people) are for constitutionalism, and the Democrats (large overpowering government) are anti-constitutionalists.
So you're telling me that the federal government can do anything it wants, as long as the constitution doesn't prohibit it? No wonder Obamacare turned out to be constitutional.
The law should be changed allowing for application for asylum from our consulates. With all the rapes that occur during the trek across Northern Mexico, no one should before forced to make that trek in order to apply for asylum.\Anyone caught entering illegally should automatically be denied asylum.If you want to request asylum you should request at a legal point of entry, or better yet, at one of the 11 US Consulates throughout Mexico rather than dragging your wife and daughters through the rape routes of Northern Mexico. Parents are so certain their daughters will be raped during the illegal crossing that they put them on birth control before making the trip. How anyone can claim keeping these rape routes open is "compassionate" makes no sense at all.
Trump did try that but once again, a liberal activist judge stopped him. Trump said nobody caught here illegally can apply for asylum.
Actually, I agree with that about illegals. If they are caught on US Soil and not turning themselves in at the border then you are right. But, most of these people find the nearest Border Agent and immediately turn themselves in. They don't really qualify as Illegal Aliens.
The problem is (I believe mostly because of this ruling by the court) is that they illegally cross the border, and when caught, claim they are seeking asylum and the agents are forced to treat them that way even though it's all BS.
This is the law.
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Obtaining Asylum in the United States
- Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
- You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
\The problem is (I believe mostly because of this ruling by the court) is that they illegally cross the border, and when caught, claim they are seeking asylum and the agents are forced to treat them that way even though it's all BS.
This is the law.
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Obtaining Asylum in the United States
- Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
- You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
(CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal judge's order blocking the Trump administration's new asylum restrictions.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in the 5-4 ruling.
The administration's policy, signed on November 9, would temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the southern border from seeking asylum outside of official ports of entry. A federal judge in California quickly blocked the order, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
Supreme Court upholds block on Trump's asylum ban - CNNPolitics
A court that has someone who committed sexual assault. The Republicans are finished after 2020 and this pours more coal on the fire. The first thing Democrats should do is open a criminal investigation of Kavanaugh.
Trying to change the subject when proven wrong. How liberal of ya.
That is going to be 1 reason why Trump is defeated in 2020 and the matter will be decided.
The law should be changed allowing for application for asylum from our consulates. With all the rapes that occur during the trek across Northern Mexico, no one should before forced to make that trek in order to apply for asylum.\Anyone caught entering illegally should automatically be denied asylum.If you want to request asylum you should request at a legal point of entry, or better yet, at one of the 11 US Consulates throughout Mexico rather than dragging your wife and daughters through the rape routes of Northern Mexico. Parents are so certain their daughters will be raped during the illegal crossing that they put them on birth control before making the trip. How anyone can claim keeping these rape routes open is "compassionate" makes no sense at all.
Trump did try that but once again, a liberal activist judge stopped him. Trump said nobody caught here illegally can apply for asylum.
Actually, I agree with that about illegals. If they are caught on US Soil and not turning themselves in at the border then you are right. But, most of these people find the nearest Border Agent and immediately turn themselves in. They don't really qualify as Illegal Aliens.
The problem is (I believe mostly because of this ruling by the court) is that they illegally cross the border, and when caught, claim they are seeking asylum and the agents are forced to treat them that way even though it's all BS.
This is the law.
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Obtaining Asylum in the United States
- Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
- You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
