View Full Version : U.S. appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban
We are being led by the Marx Brothers.
A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday unanimously upheld a temporary suspension of President Donald Trump's order that restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling came in a challenge to Trump's order filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine the case's final outcome.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS
And...conservatives won't be in the streets breaking other people's property - they will simply drive on.
Compare that to the other side and their political setbacks.
No surprise here, the chances that the 9th Circuit would rule in favor of Trump were about zero. It is BS that 4 activist judges and big corporations can at this point decide national security.
IMO, it looks like Trump may have jump the shark on this one being that the SCOTUS is short one person and the best decision Trump would get is a draw.
I was wondering if Trump could rescind the current EO and issue a new EO or EO's that would thwart or bypass the current ruling.
Waiting for RL and Craigpo to unwind this ruling......:munchin
Link to the decision for those so inclined...
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
And...conservatives won't be in the streets breaking other people's property - they will simply drive on.
Compare that to the other side and their political setbacks.
We would be better off taking heads than driving on.
We would be better off taking heads than driving on.
You can always drive on at many levels...
Link to the decision for those so inclined...
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
Sounds like the 9th Circuit received the same talking points as Mayor DeBlasio
avoiding separation of families
Sounds like the 9th Circuit received the same talking points as Mayor DeBlasio
They all watch CNN.
As you said, this decision was not at all unexpected coming out of the hot tub circuit.
It was as I expected but irritating non the less. The next 4 years are going to be crazy.
Next on today's agenda: We need to transfer the nuclear codes to the Courts, too. The reply to a nuclear attack can then be the product of an esteemed committee, and would be argued and defended fairly.
Next on today's agenda: We need to transfer the nuclear codes to the Courts, too. The reply to a nuclear attack can then be the product of an esteemed committee, and would be argued and defended fairly.
Lol, didn't CNN already try to slip the codes to Occupy Wall Street.
It pains me to think that they (some of the commies and SJWs) actually would if they could...
Trapper John
02-09-2017, 19:13
Looks to me as if the POTUS has brought forward and spotlighted one of his key issues - judicial activism. That's what we have here plain and simple.
The Admin will ultimately prevail on the merits - that's also pretty clear. This is going to be another arrow in his quiver going forward.
Waiting for RL and Craigpo to unwind this ruling......:
Chef Penn is on the money, as this ruling needs practical analysis from those who understand and practice law, IMO.
Though some may jump on the "Trump is not doing this right" bandwagon, I must say, just wait! President Trump may have set-backs, and he may have learning opportunities, but by God, He is doing what successful businessmen do...going for it!
I applaud, and will keep doing so, for each and every precious day He is Our CIC.
Rather than the alternative, hildabeast.:munchin
Holly
No surprise here, the chances that the 9th Circuit would rule in favor of Trump were about zero. It is BS that 4 activist judges and big corporations can at this point decide national security.
IMO, it looks like Trump may have jump the shark on this one being that the SCOTUS is short one person and the best decision Trump would get is a draw.
I was wondering if Trump could rescind the current EO and issue a new EO or EO's that would thwart or bypass the current ruling.
Agreed , maybe just do a little creative tweaking on the original EO.
IMO, this is a political battle as much if not more than a legal battle, per se. The fight is merely taking place in the judicial arena.
The law is fairly clear on the matter of presidential authority in these types of things.
Trapper John touches on another matter at issue here - judicial activism. Should some judges in a liberal judicial circuit substitute their judgment on matters of national security for the judgement of the president?
Interesting times.
Looks to me as if the POTUS has brought forward and spotlighted one of his key issues - judicial activism. That's what we have here plain and simple.
The Admin will ultimately prevail on the merits - that's also pretty clear. This is going to be another arrow in his quiver going forward.
Agreed. It seems to me that the courts have thus far ignored the letter of the law, usurped their authority and may have put our country in harms way in the process.
Agreed , maybe just do a little creative tweaking on the original EO.
Alan Dershowitz suggested the same.
Badger52
02-09-2017, 20:24
If percentile of reversed rulings counted for a traditional letter grade the 9th Circuit gets a B/B+.
GratefulCitizen
02-09-2017, 20:32
Maybe he could sign an order stopping ALL immigration and refugees, until such time as he can work with congress to pass legislation clarifying jurisdiction.
What I find really interesting about all of this, besides the fact that POTUS has full power over immigration regulation and enforcement, is that the politicians opposing this do not seem to be considering the biggest drawback to fighting this. If, in the future, a person from one of the 7 countries in question enters the US after this point and kills Americans, they will have to directly answer for it.
The GOP and Trump will hammer it in the next election of this were to happen, over and over and over and over again. Trump would score a huge victory by saying, simply, I tried to stop this and they actively prevented me from protecting you. Your blood is on their hands.
It seems a little shortsighted to me. Those 7 countries are not exactly bastions of stability.
This decision, along with many others such as not allowing Arizona to enforce existing federal immigration law, has turned the concept of the judiciary, as described in Federalist No. 78, on it's head. If they get away with this, which they likely will for a time at least, judges have stepped in and decided that they are better suited to make and enforce immigration law than those the people freely elected. And they don't care what you or I think about it. They are smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. And next week or next month, you can replace immigration with any other issue (abortion, gun rights, free speech) and the response will be the same. What Pres. trump should do is ignore the ruling (as Andrew Jackson did). But he won't. Which means for the next four years at least, progressives will see judge shopping and the courts as their best way to thwart him. And it will likely work.
From Pat Buchanan on the topic and I think he is right: http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2017/02/10/trump-must-break-judicial-power-n2283830
We really do not live in a constitutional republic any longer. As much as I'd like to believe we do, wishing it doesn't make it so. Not sure what type of government we do live under any more, or that it really even matters. As long as the citizenry can get Whataburger when they want, watch MTV, football, get a drink and go to a movie in relative freedom, NOTHING will change.
Voting has become the true opiate of the masses.
rsdengler
02-10-2017, 05:55
We would be better off taking heads than driving on.
I like the thought of "taking heads", it would definitely
be a attention grabber....:)
Badger52
02-10-2017, 06:39
I have yet to hear what makes it illegal. I found the US code that says he can do it yet not one peep of why he can not.The 9th Circuit often finds that invoking heresy like US statutes does not bring a compelling case when presented against emotion. They are just a step on the way to SCOTUS (full or not); reversed much they are.
Trapper John
02-10-2017, 06:55
This decision, along with many others such as not allowing Arizona to enforce existing federal immigration law, has turned the concept of the judiciary, as described in Federalist No. 78, on it's head. If they get away with this, which they likely will for a time at least, judges have stepped in and decided that they are better suited to make and enforce immigration law than those the people freely elected. And they don't care what you or I think about it. They are smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. And next week or next month, you can replace immigration with any other issue (abortion, gun rights, free speech) and the response will be the same. What Pres. trump should do is ignore the ruling (as Andrew Jackson did). But he won't. Which means for the next four years at least, progressives will see judge shopping and the courts as their best way to thwart him. And it will likely work.
From Pat Buchanan on the topic and I think he is right: http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2017/02/10/trump-must-break-judicial-power-n2283830
We really do not live in a constitutional republic any longer. As much as I'd like to believe we do, wishing it doesn't make it so. Not sure what type of government we do live under any more, or that it really even matters. As long as the citizenry can get Whataburger when they want, watch MTV, football, get a drink and go to a movie in relative freedom, NOTHING will change.
Voting has become the true opiate of the masses.
And that rat there is the goal of the neo-fascists: control the education system, control the judiciary, control health care, control the income of the masses, control, the message and voila, Fascism - everything from the state, through the state, and by the state!
I'm not quite so pessimistic as you appear to be. I think people are waking up. But, having said that we are clearly in a Battle for our Republic and the stakes couldn't be higher.
This may be the last opportunity we have to correct course in our lifetimes, certainly in mine. Time to ruck-up for one more!
Trapper John
02-10-2017, 06:59
They are just a step on the way to SCOTUS (full or not); reversed much they are. :D
Good one Yoda (aka Badger)!
Not sure what type of government we do live under any more, or that it really even matters.
Pardon my rambling here.
In simplified terms I would say the government we live under is a mess...and personally I don't see much changing until enemies of the state like Soros and John McCain are put in check.
In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.
Maybe this is what a democracy looks like, I mean that is what the 'Protestors' i.e. useful idiots have been chanting and Hillary is alleged to have won the popular vote by 3 million votes.
Plus a good pinch of Corporatocracy and Socialism...
Then add the US Government is the largest single employer with 2,711,000 employees as of 2015......I can recall 40 years ago when people who worked for the government were kind of looked down upon, and they were considered those who couldn't hold a job in the private sector. 40 years ago government pay was low but the benefits were great, and now the pay averages more than the private sector and the benefits are golden.
The other 99 of the Top 100 employers are large corporations nearly all of which produce little more than imported goods, services, low wages and share holder profits.
In my simple way of ciphering things, that all equates to far more money going out than coming in and a dismal outlook for the future.
40 years ago most all my friends came from family owned small businesses, they all worked in those businesses and we all worked during the summers. 40 years alter the vast majority of parents work for some corporation and the kids are either digging through heaps of home work, cramming for a test, on their phones and/or being shuttled to a sporting event.....few if any work even in the summers.
A little change of direction here, but one of the things I keep reflecting back on is that as far back as nearly 2 years ago many libs I ran into were deathly afraid Trump would win and they all equated him to the next Hitler. TWO YEARS ago.....at a time when nearly everyone laughed at his entering the arena and gave him zero chance of succeeding.
It is an interesting game of chess and it will be more interesting to see who is the chess master.
What I find really interesting about all of this, besides the fact that POTUS has full power over immigration regulation and enforcement, is that the politicians opposing this do not seem to be considering the biggest drawback to fighting this. If, in the future, a person from one of the 7 countries in question enters the US after this point and kills Americans, they will have to directly answer for it.
The GOP and Trump will hammer it in the next election of this were to happen, over and over and over and over again. Trump would score a huge victory by saying, simply, I tried to stop this and they actively prevented me from protecting you. Your blood is on their hands.
It seems a little shortsighted to me. Those 7 countries are not exactly bastions of stability.
Hammer it all they want. The people who should be "getting it" are the same folks who feel that the United States is Constitutionally obligated to open its arms to any and all immigrants, regardless of race/creed/religion, and that if those immigrants blow us up, its our fault to begin with.
I haven't been in a Church since I don't remember when...
I listened to the preacher, as he told me what to do, He said you can't go hating others, who have done wrong to you.
I considered this a lot lately as the circus known as the 9th has continued down the road of disregard for the well being of our nation. I don't wish any of them ill, so like the wise man once said, Let the good lord do his job, and you just pray for them.
I'm really glad I found my way to church - 'Cause I'm already feelin' better and I thank God for the words. Yeah I'm goin' take the high road, and do what the preacher told me to do.
Just know wherever you are, near or far, in your house or in your car, wherever you are 9th Circuit, I pray for you.
9th = black (robe) block...
doctom54
02-10-2017, 08:50
The courts are the same in other countries.
Kenya’s High Court on Thursday overturned a government order to close the world’s biggest refugee camp, home to more than 300,000 Somali refugees, including some who have lived there more than 20 years.
The Kenyan government announced in 2015 it would close the Dadaab refugee camp, sending many people back to Somalia, arguing the camp was "an existential security threat to Kenya,” and a “nursery for Al Shabab,” the Al Qaeda linked Somali extremist group.
The court said "The government's decision specifically targeting Somali refugees is an act of group persecution, illegal, discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional,” Mativo said.
http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-kenya-somali-refugees-20170209-story.html
Fascinating...so according to the judiciary in Kenya they can't close the world's largest refugee camp...
...I don't think we want to overtake them as far as being the world's largest refugee camp...
...but, I very well could be wrong.
bblhead672
02-10-2017, 14:13
This case won't likely get to SCOTUS until there is a full 9 justice panel. Even then, with Trump's SCOTUS nominee publicly chastising the POTUS statement about activist judges, who's to say that Gorsuch won't side with the 9th Circuit?
The fact that he accepts it all or waits for the supreme court is the same as admitting that the judiciary IS the most powerful branch and that he needs them to affirm it. Proving my point that the judiciary has become the law of the land with the legislature AND the executive branch suborned to it.
Given this: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/the_law_that_never_was.html
These justices could easily be impeached by a GOP controlled congress......but they won't.
Also here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/a_legal_analysis_of_the_ninth_circuits_dangerous_u surpation_of_presidential_power.html
Trump should disavow their decision and direct DHS to follow his EO.....but I'm betting he won't either.
This case won't likely get to SCOTUS until there is a full 9 justice panel. Even then, with Trump's SCOTUS nominee publicly chastising the POTUS statement about activist judges, who's to say that Gorsuch won't side with the 9th Circuit?
The specific law in question is fairly clear. The president has the authority in matters of national security (the EO that caused the ruckus needs to be withdrawn and a modified and a new EO issued limiting the scope a bit and track with language in the applicable statute in question) then, let the Washington state clowns refile and see what happens. But, whatever the administration does DO NOT let the lawyer who argued before the 9th - and lost - near oral arguments in this case.
To be fair, although no one actually "knows" - Gorsuch, however, is not known to be an activist judge - he reportedly does not have a pattern of making new law. The 9th arguably made new law.
In any event, I suspect that if you travel in from one of the 7 countries - better add some extra time (and maybe bring your proctologist along) for your trip. DHS still works for the Executive not the judicial.
frostfire
02-10-2017, 15:21
The people who should be "getting it" are the same folks who feel that the United States is Constitutionally obligated to open its arms to any and all immigrants, regardless of race/creed/religion,
Well, the US like to flaunt the following to the the world on our high horse:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
That, and "we are a nation of immigrants"
So when the world takes those in literal sense.....the old archaic Constitution does not stand a chance against from emotional standpoint.
Forgive my ignorance, but are there other countries facilitating anchor babies?
Badger52
02-10-2017, 17:37
This case won't likely get to SCOTUS until there is a full 9 justice panel. Even then, with Trump's SCOTUS nominee publicly chastising the POTUS statement about activist judges, who's to say that Gorsuch won't side with the 9th Circuit?He's not confirmed yet; he would get asked either way. I don't find it odd at all that a jurist up for SCOTUS would remark that Trump's quips aren't helpful. He can cite that as evidence of objectivity, or some Republican Senator will feed it to him thus. No matter how he words it, won't matter. He's up for confirmation, not the President.
Anyone remember "Clearly, the Cambridge Police acted stupidly" ?
Badger52
02-10-2017, 17:39
But, whatever the administration does DO NOT let the lawyer who argued before the 9th - and lost - near oral arguments in this case.+10
:rolleyes:
sfshooter
02-10-2017, 18:15
The fact that he accepts it all or waits for the supreme court is the same as admitting that the judiciary IS the most powerful branch and that he needs them to affirm it. Proving my point that the judiciary has become the law of the land with the legislature AND the executive branch suborned to it.
Given this: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/the_law_that_never_was.html
These justices could easily be impeached by a GOP controlled congress......but they won't.
Also here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/a_legal_analysis_of_the_ninth_circuits_dangerous_u surpation_of_presidential_power.html
Trump should disavow their decision and direct DHS to follow his EO.....but I'm betting he won't either.
Well stated Sinjefe
Impeachment for these judges should begin immediately. If this is not done then these courts will continue to control the Trump administration for the duration of his term(s).
Disregard the 9th's decision and go about the business of protecting this country. Sure the neo-fascists will wine to high heaven but since he has broken no law and is following the letter of the law and precedents set by numerous other presidents, there is nothing that can be done to him.
It doesn't take an attorney, all it takes is a high school education in English to read the US Code cited for the EO and the wording of the EO to see that no law has been broken or the Constitution violated.
He's not confirmed yet; he would get asked either way. I don't find it odd at all that a jurist up for SCOTUS would remark that Trump's quips aren't helpful. He can cite that as evidence of objectivity, or some Republican Senator will feed it to him thus. No matter how he words it, won't matter. He's up for confirmation, not the President.
Anyone remember "Clearly, the Cambridge Police acted stupidly" ?
Anything he says that might be remotely construed as negative regarding Trump can only serve to endear him to the lefties, like perhaps a future "Maverick" that whole dust up may very well be a ruse. YMMV
Seems to me that what this judge and the 9th circuit are saying is that, now, anyone in the world, US or not, who thinks a Presidential policy / action MIGHT harm them, can now sue him in a US Federal court completely changing the idea have having standing. I'd like to know what our lawyers on this board think of this.
Alan Dershowitz: Trump Should Withdraw Travel Ban and Come Up with New One That Passes Muster
by Josh Feldman | 8:20 pm, February 9th, 2017
Alan Dershowitz said on MSNBC tonight that while he doesn’t think the court ruling on President Trump‘s travel ban was particularly solid, the president should withdraw the order anyway and come up with one that passes legal muster.
He first told Chris Matthews, “This is not a solid decision. This is a decision that looks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality. There are many, many flaws.”
However, Dershowitz went on to say that since Trump’s argument is that national security is at risk without the order, he needs to withdraw this one and go back to the drawing board to come up with one that won’t run into these same issues, “otherwise you won’t be protecting the security of the United States.”
As he acknowledged, doing this would require Trump to admit that he was wrong, but Dershowitz insisted, “I don’t think he has any option but to withdraw this order now and come up with an order that’s constitutional.”
Link with video: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-dershowitz-trump-should-withdraw-travel-ban-and-come-up-with-new-one-that-passes-muster/
I'd go Dershowitz one better and get a friendly AG in a more conservative appellate district to file the suit immediately after it's signed. If it's going to be fought in the courts at least fight on friendly terrain.
Pat
GratefulCitizen
02-11-2017, 13:08
Dershowitz is setting up future political spin.
Right now, if any terrorism comes from people let in who would've been kept out, the left and the judiciary own it politically.
He is attempting to cast it as Trump's fault for not writing the order better, giving the left cover should anyone let in actually be a problem.
Rewriting the order would also have the effect of tacitly acknowledging judicial supremacy.
Trump needs to stick to his guns.
Make the left and judiciary back down, or make them own the consequences.
Old Dog New Trick
02-22-2017, 22:58
Anyone else notice the new lexicon for what was once called: 'alien', 'illegal', and recently becoming 'undocumented'?
Well, now the MSM and SJWs have dropped all the pronouns or adjectives and everyone is just an...
IMMIGRANT
As in, this nation was founded on immigrants, immigrants are the social fabric of the American culture, and immigrants contribute billions of dollars per year to the local economy and the IRS in taxes making them the most valuable asset our nation requires.
Only one thing is missing from the media hail storm being unleashed in the news and the social upheaval being shouted by protesters in the streets and airports.
Those "immigrants" came here through the 'legal' process, they want to work hard to make and have a better future for themselves and their children and they paid a high financial price and personal sacrifice to become an "American."
Then again maybe we should just focus on Melania's accent and the need to dismiss her humble process of coming to America through less than honest procedures to become a naturalized citizen while marrying a really rich guy who successfully became President of the United States of America.
For f_cks sake, Christopher Columbus wasn't welcomed here for long either but he sure left an indelible mark behind after returning home with the riches and rewards of the native inhabitants and people flocked to the new world with dreams of a better life.
I welcome immigrants from all countries of the world to come here. My wife is from another country and we paid a handsome price in money, time and patience with the bureaucracy called the INS.
I don't like immigrants to cross our borders in the night carrying drugs for the cartels, or to be smuggled in through seaports by criminal enterprises in human trafficking just to become slaves and a financial burden to a system that is already overburdened with its own citizens.
Yes, there is a pronoun and/or an adjective before 'immigrant' it's "legal" or "illegal" and one is within the law and the other is not. I don't understand the confusion these people and the media have.
We are either a nation of laws or we are not a nation at all. And if we do get to start picking which laws to follow and which laws to ignore than allow me to choose to ignore the laws that provide you the protections to ignore the law.
Badger52
02-23-2017, 05:53
We are either a nation of laws or we are not a nation at all. And if we do get to start picking which laws to follow and which laws to ignore than allow me to choose to ignore the laws that provide you the protections to ignore the law.For me there are immigrants, or there are invaders. Maybe I need to re-read the thread where the media said it's their job to tell us how to think, because I'm still not listening to them. (x-thread points :D ).
This is an example of how they maneuver the narrative. I don't play that game; I continue to use the same perjoratives I've always used. And, when in doubt, US statutes work. Lib butterflies hate being pinned for display.
Muhammad Ali Jr....detained at airport despite being a citizen.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/24/muhammad-ali-jr-detained-immigration-officials-fla-airport/98379082/
tom kelly
02-25-2017, 20:00
YANKEE GO HOME.....THE UGLY AMERICAN WILL EVENTUALLY COME OUT OF THE CLOSET......TK
Anyone else notice the new lexicon for what was once called: 'alien', 'illegal', and recently becoming 'undocumented'?
Well, now the MSM and SJWs have dropped all the pronouns or adjectives and everyone is just an...
IMMIGRANT
Actually, the new, PC, open-borders, globalist word is: Migrants, as though these people were geese, caribou, wildebeast, et. al.
Well, the animal type of "migrants" don't demand welfare, housing, medical care; and they sure as hell don't attempt to subvert the culture or rule of law.
Well... I wonder how the appeals court jesters would rule on the Machado case?
I am still confused about one little bit of trivia:
when is it ok to pretend that the word "alleged" is not needed?
If a cop shows up at your house and you have a fucking carving knife in one hand and a goddamned disembodied human head in your other hand, do we REALLY need to use the word "alleged"
YGTBFSM
...wait - this one is worthy of being spelled out
YOUVE
GOT
TO
BE
FUCKING
SHITTING
ME
So the Charlotte Observer decide to word the sentence as such"
"Oliver Funes-Machado, who is charged with first-degree murder for allegedly cutting off the head of his mother...."
For those with any decency in your heart, this family, as well as the emergency workers that had to respond to this savagery, are deserving of prayers and sympathy.
...an illegal alien, hanging out and getting by on taxpayer resources because of close to a decade of weak governance at the hands of an activist sympathizer.
Alleged
What the fuck is wrong with this world?
miclo18d
03-08-2017, 05:13
Well... I wonder how the appeals court jesters would rule on the Machado case?
I am still confused about one little bit of trivia:
when is it ok to pretend that the word "alleged" is not needed?
If a cop shows up at your house and you have a fucking carving knife in one hand and a goddamned disembodied human head in your other hand, do we REALLY need to use the word "alleged"
YGTBFSM
...wait - this one is worthy of being spelled out
YOUVE
GOT
TO
BE
FUCKING
SHITTING
ME
So the Charlotte Observer decide to word the sentence as such"
"Oliver Funes-Machado, who is charged with first-degree murder for allegedly cutting off the head of his mother...."
For those with any decency in your heart, this family, as well as the emergency workers that had to respond to this savagery, are deserving of prayers and sympathy.
...an illegal alien, hanging out and getting by on taxpayer resources because of close to a decade of weak governance at the hands of an activist sympathizer.
Alleged
What the fuck is wrong with this world?
Not that I agree, but in all fairness, the way I heard it explained is that news organizations use the word alleged(edly) to avoid libel/slander, just on the slightest chance that the person is exonerated and sues, even when all evidence points to the correct conclusion. It is annoying as hell!
Of course this is never a problem when it is a republican of any type that does something even minutely wrong, like allegedly talk to a Russian ambassador. Then it's guilty until proven innocent!
Actually, the new, PC, open-borders, globalist word is: Migrants, as though these people were geese, caribou, wildebeast, et. al.
Well, the animal type of "migrants" don't demand welfare, housing, medical care; and they sure as hell don't attempt to subvert the culture or rule of law.
We're calling them trespassers not immigrants.
Of course this is never a problem when it is a republican of any type that does something even minutely wrong, like allegedly talk to a Russian ambassador. Then it's guilty until proven innocent!
You have captured my point perfectly.
...its only an alleged crime when it damages a narrative. If this fucking shit bag was a tea party guy, we would already be hearing wails of support for the government to do something so this can never happen again.
but the guys was a fucking illegal alien - so the focus is more about his meds and mental status
Meanwhile, Hawaii has decided to challenge the presidents new immigration plan in court.
...because we need more illegal aliens in this country.
The media, politicians, courts, and countrymen that chose not to recognize the POTUS have lost my respect as an American. I am more afraid of judges, democrats, and liberals protecting my freedoms than I am of Russia, North Korea, or China harming them.
Golf1echo
03-08-2017, 10:08
So the Charlotte Observer decide to word the sentence as such"
"Oliver Funes-Machado, who is charged with first-degree murder for allegedly cutting off the head of his mother...."
Not a new strategy for the left but one might call it the Flavor of the day. Liberal media is facing a $hit storm of criticism over pushing their own agendas so how do they choose to handle it....
By waving the word truth in association with their propaganda.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/public-erupts-on-n-y-times-ad-promoting-paper-as-truth/
I'd like to think it's funny but it more akin to stepping into a hot steamy pile of dog p00 with bare feet.
bblhead672
03-08-2017, 11:58
We're calling them trespassers not immigrants.
I forget now where I read it that we should start calling them invaders.
rsdengler
03-08-2017, 12:17
The Liberalization of the United States, come on over, we will pay for your entire future. But don’t worry, you don’t have to go through the process. Let the Poor American Smuck tax payers pay your way. OK, want to go to College, tax payers will pay, OK, no Insurance, go ahead and see a doctor, tax payers will pay, let’s give you a safe haven, go ahead, cut off your mother’s head, we will take care of you…..In Liberal Maryland, Howard Co. wanted to pass a law to be a “sanctuary" for undocumented immigrants (you mean Illegals). The Howard bill would prohibit police officers, and other county employees from enforcing immigration law, helping immigration agents collect information or asking people about their nationality or immigration status, or about the status of another person.
My father came to the US in the 1950’s. Before he came over, he had to have a sponsor (the Govt. wanted to make sure he was not a card carrying Nazi), and once here, he had to go through the whole process (background, are you a criminal, yada, yada, yada). He even had to take English Language classes. 7 years later, he was a citizen. If you want to stay here, go through the channels, do it legally. But because we are so “Politically Correct”, and have become so lax in our Immigration Laws, it is OK, have a Free Lunch on the American Citizens; it will suck us dry. Sorry, I sure as Hell cannot afford to pay for “Millions of Trespassers”, I am “sucked dry” as it is……
So, what is the correct term? Migrant, Undocumented, Unauthorized, Illegal, Trespassers, Invaders? I cannot keep it straight anymore. If you came to this country and did not go through the process of becoming a “Legal” citizen then you are, well Illegal, you are a "Trespasser" (like that word):D
ddoering
03-08-2017, 13:25
We don't have an immigration problem, we have a politician problem. You have to fix them first.
I forget now where I read it that we should start calling them invaders.
You are correct. In reality, with this mass movement of people, they do constitute an invasion. So the term "invader" is indeed appropriate.
So what does the U.S. Constitution say in Article IV Section 4 about one of the few enumerated powers of the federal government?
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
So tell me, just what part of "invasion" doesn't the loony left - both in and out of government - understand?
doctom54
03-08-2017, 15:55
We don't have an immigration problem, we have a politician problem. You have to fix them first.
I concur!
bblhead672
03-09-2017, 09:39
You are correct. In reality, with this mass movement of people, they do constitute an invasion. So the term "invader" is indeed appropriate.
So what does the U.S. Constitution say in Article IV Section 4 about one of the few enumerated powers of the federal government?
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
So tell me, just what part of "invasion" doesn't the loony left - both in and out of government - understand?
I believe they understand it quite well. The problem is that the invaders are part of the left's plans.
ddoering: We don't have an immigration problem, we have a politician problem. You have to fix them first.
This as well is part of the problem, especially on the "right" side of the aisle.
Meanwhile, Hawaii has decided to challenge the presidents new immigration plan in court.
I caught that on the news when it came out on the same day the admin made the announcement. Wasn't surprised at all since it is Obama's home state. I'm sure he and his merry gang of OFA twits had HI teed up and ready to roll ages ago. Back to the 9th we go! :rolleyes:
Badger52
03-09-2017, 11:11
I'll be delighted, either way, to see how SanFran & the others fare in their challenge over de-funding sanctuary cities. Know-better-than-you-peasant-statists challenging on the basis of "states' rights" - the irony is so thick you'd need a Yarborough to cut it.
Both the San Francisco and Massachusetts actions contend that Trump's orders in question violate the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that powers not granted to the federal government should fall to the states.
Michael Hethmon, senior counsel with the conservative Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, called the San Francisco lawsuit a "silly political gesture," noting that prior federal court decisions make clear that the U.S. government "can prohibit a policy that essentially impedes legitimate federal programs."
Reuters' link (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-sanfrancisco-idUSKBN15F2B1)
rsdengler
03-10-2017, 09:30
You have captured my point perfectly.
...
The media, politicians, courts, and countrymen that chose not to recognize the POTUS have lost my respect as an American. I am more afraid of judges, democrats, and liberals protecting my freedoms than I am of Russia, North Korea, or China harming them.
I am definitely with you on this, all respect has been lost a long time ago. It is very frustrating. Besides losing respect, I don't trust the entire lot who are willing to throw us under the bus, and run us over again and again....I am beginning to feel abused....:)
searching for Dutch election results this article attracted my attention. Interesting to read a different position on the issue, one that will never surface on main stream US media.
Saudi princess says new travel rules 'not ban on Muslims'
http://www.dw.com/en/saudi-princess-says-new-travel-rules-not-ban-on-muslims/av-37464990