Refugee Crisis in the U. S. (?)

[Deranged Rhino]

44 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

It's just odd to me that Trump's policies has improved border security to the point it's the lowest in 15 years and now he's sending the National Guard there which kind of minimizes that accomplishment.  

 

There's more than meets the eye here. It's not about immigration alone. Think trafficking.

[Tiberius]

Trump back to his racist stereotyping and scapegoating of immigrants. He's throwing around rape allegations, crime wave hysteria 

Cato has found this to be more lies and misinformation 

 

 

“Empirical studies of immigrant criminality generally find that immigrants do not increase local crime rates and are less likely to cause crime than their native-born peers, and that natives are more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants. . . . The incarceration rate was 1.53 percent for natives, 0.85 percent for illegal immigrants, and 0.47 percent for legal immigrants.”)

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-reform-bulletin/criminal-immigrants-their-numbers-demographics-countries

[B-Man]

 Arizona Supreme Court strikes down in-state tuition for ‘dreamers.’

[Tiberius]

7. RULE OF LAW

4 hours ago

SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Law Requiring Deportation of Immigrant Felons

 

 

 

 

REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a statute requiring the deportation of noncitizens who commit felonies is “unlawfully vague” on Tuesday, with Justice Neil Gorsuch siding with four liberal justices, according to Reuters. The case involved James Garcia Dimaya, a legal immigrant from the Philippines who was convicted of burglary in California. The Justice Department sought to deport him, claiming that his burglary was a “crime of violence.” A lower court ruled in 2015 that Dimaya’s deportation “created uncertainty over which crimes may be considered violent," and that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The case was originally heard in January 2017, before Gorsuch was sworn-in, and was decided in June when all the seats in the court had been filled.

 

READ IT AT REUTERS

[Koko78]

Gee, a guy who was put on the bench to uphold the Constitution is actually upholding the Constitution.

 

What a shock!

[Nanker]

We’ve had a very long history of military involvement on the Mexican border. We had a war with them, Pancho Villa and his la cucaracha we’re a huge PIA.

We invaded that shithole country. About six Presidents sent troops to, at, near, or over that !@#$ing damned border. As Stokley Carmichael might say, sending troops there is as American as cherry pie. 

[Cinga]

Apparently the Koch brothers have re-aligned themselves. In favor of DACA, looks like they are Democrats after all. WOndfering aloud if all the liberals will now take back all the names they have called them over the years... :-)

[Tiberius]

YES!!

 

 

 

Quote

A District of Columbia federal court judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, held on Tuesday that the rescission of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) “was arbitrary and capricious because the Department [of Homeland Security] failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful. Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program.” DACA was ordered to be reinstated, and DHS must “accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications.”

 

[B-Man]

I'm sure there are plenty of legal arguments,

 

but the idea that one president can unilaterally enact policy

 

and yet the next one has to explain himself to the courts when undoing that same policy seems highly political.

 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

I'm sure there are plenty of legal arguments,

 

but the idea that one president can unilaterally enact policy

 

and yet the next one has to explain himself to the courts when undoing that same policy seems highly political.

 

A Bush judge, so...

As to your argument of one president enacting and the other subtracting, the court found that Trump's arguments, well Sessions, were simply arbitrary and capricious--political??--and gave them 90 days to show the original order violated law. So they can come back and say the law violates law, but the court justly ruled, basically, that Sessions was just trying to f u c ^ over these people because, and that was not good reason. 

[Deranged Rhino]

"A Bush judge"...

 

Said by someone who still doesn't understand where the battle lines have been drawn. 

[Tiberius]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

"A Bush judge"...

 

Said by someone who still doesn't understand where the battle lines have been drawn. 

No! I do understand, I'm sorry, I forgot.

 

These damn globalists! These deep staters! Trump is trying to Make America Great Again and this fifth column is trying to turn us into Kenya! Just because I totally 100% believe these Dreamers and immigrants in general are way way better people than the lazy people that put Trump in the WH doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy of insiders, career officials and HILLARY trying to make us Kenya

[3rdnlng]

49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

"A Bush judge"...

 

Said by someone who still doesn't understand where the battle lines have been drawn. 

What does the fact that she is a female have to do with things? Besides we've grown away from terms like that.

[TakeYouToTasker]

[Cinga]

This judge needs impeached for ignorance.... Since when does an Executive Order override a law? And since when does an executive who changes said unconstitutional and illegal law have to explain why he did it?\

 

Here's an idea... Drag Obama's ass back in to explain WHY his executive order was legal? How bout we start there?

[DC Tom]

22 minutes ago, Cinga said:

This judge needs impeached for ignorance.... Since when does an Executive Order override a law? And since when does an executive who changes said unconstitutional and illegal law have to explain why he did it?\

 

Here's an idea... Drag Obama's ass back in to explain WHY his executive order was legal? How bout we start there?

 

That's not an accurate accounting of the ignorance:

 

1) It's not an executive order.  It's a goddamn DHS memo written by Napolitano.

2) The memo explicitly says it's an exercise in prosecutorial discretion.  It's the title of the memo: "Exercising Prosetcuorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children".

 

Someone please explain to me how the **** does a judge decide that it's illegal for prosecutorial discretion to be altered?  What's more, the memo explicitly states:

 

Quote

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.

 

So how in the ever-loving !@#$ can a judge decide that a memo that is predicated on the exercise of discretion by the executive branch under the framework of existing law cannot legally be rescinded by the executive branch exercising discretion under the existing law?

[Tiberius]

30 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's not an accurate accounting of the ignorance:

 

1) It's not an executive order.  It's a goddamn DHS memo written by Napolitano.

2) The memo explicitly says it's an exercise in prosecutorial discretion.  It's the title of the memo: "Exercising Prosetcuorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children".

 

Someone please explain to me how the **** does a judge decide that it's illegal for prosecutorial discretion to be altered?  What's more, the memo explicitly states:

 

 

So how in the ever-loving !@#$ can a judge decide that a memo that is predicated on the exercise of discretion by the executive branch under the framework of existing law cannot legally be rescinded by the executive branch exercising discretion under the existing law?

Oh brother! The dunce loser is trying to interpret the law and precedence 

 

Go have another beer and read Dear Abby 

[B-Man]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

"A Bush judge"...

 

Said by someone who still doesn't understand where the battle lines have been drawn. 

 

Amen.

 

But he also used the Bush Judge silliness as a shield to ignore the common sense in my reply.

 

Who the judge was doesn't enter into it, but with gator's shallowness, you come to expect that kind of reply.

 

 

 

.

1 hour ago, Cinga said:

This judge needs impeached for ignorance.... Since when does an Executive Order override a law? And since when does an executive who changes said unconstitutional and illegal law have to explain why he did it?\

 

Here's an idea... Drag Obama's ass back in to explain WHY his executive order was legal? How bout we start there?

 

 

Exactly the point sir.

 

EO, or prosecutorial discretion............its not a law.

 

That's what Gator keeps missing...........................it is not the judge..............it is the bad decision

 

 

 

.

Edited April 25, 2018 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Amen.

 

But he also used the Bush Judge silliness as a shield to ignore the common sense in my reply.

 

Who the judge was doesn't enter into it, but with gator's shallowness, you come to expect that kind of reply.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Exactly the point sir.

But then how is your point valid that it was political if it was a Republican appointed judge? 

[DC Tom]

27 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But then how is your point valid that it was political if it was a Republican appointed judge? 

 

That does not preclude the judge from being an idiot.  

 

What you fail to understand is that most people aren't raging partisan dipshits like yourself.  We read that and see horrible decision from the bench and nothing else.  YOU see a Republican judge and nothing else.  Stop projecting your raging partisan dipshittery on everyone else.