simool Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Quote Judge rules illegals have constitutional right to ‘say goodbye’ to family Illegal immigrants snared by deportation officers have “the freedom to say goodbye” to their families, a federal judge in New York ruled Monday, ordering the government to release a prominent activist to his family. Judge Katherine B. Forrest, an Obama appointee to the bench, said the government was following the law when it picked up Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir, the illegal immigrant. But she said there were “larger, more fundamental” rights at stake that were trampled on. “In sum, the court finds that when this country allowed petitioner to become a part of our community fabric, allowed him to build a life with and among us and to enjoy the liberties and freedom that come with that, it committed itself to allowance of an orderly departure when the time came,” she wrote. “By denying petitioner these rights, the government has acted wrongly.” ~Link I am interested to know what my fellow Bills fans think of a case like this? For me personally, it chaps my ass. First, where does the Constitution indicate an illegal alien has any rights at all? Second, just forget about the first problem because if interpreted correctly, there would be no second. Why does the illegal alien need to be released to say good-bye? I am so frigging sick of reading stories like this, this Judge lacks even a basic understanding of the constitution. Her delusional interpretation of it is an embarrassment. Before anyone starts flaming, you cannot classify me as left or right. I kind of hit both sides depending on topic. I definitely did not vote for that Chatty Cathy doll in the White House, and I would have sooner taken a bullet than vote for Hillary. I strongly believe our founding fathers were geniuses. I also believe having a large centralized federal government goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended. In fact, it is the primary reason for the polarity we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 I'm fine with the end result...but the judge's argument is completely bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 13 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I'm fine with the end result...but the judge's argument is completely bonkers. 13 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I'm fine with the end result...but the judge's argument is completely bonkers. There are visiting rooms in such places as jails and prisons. Those are as good of a place to say goodbye as any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 In this day and age wouldn't a text message goodbye be sufficient? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: In this day and age wouldn't a text message goodbye be sufficient? I once ended a 9-month relationship with a text that simply said quote "okay, bye" So You have a great point. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 They will all be back in the US a week later 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Do the rest of the illegal alien's family really want to come in to the ICE offices and say goodbye before he is deported ? or is the judge just trying to score points..................... , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 "Right to an orderly departure?" Judge is funny. Just gotta define, "orderly departure" properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, Paulus said: "Right to an orderly departure?" Judge is funny. Just gotta define, "orderly departure" properly. Suggestions ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) This is orderly. Edited January 30, 2018 by Paulus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Quote “In sum, the court finds that when this country allowed petitioner to become a part of our community fabric, allowed him to build a life with and among us and to enjoy the liberties and freedom that come with that, it committed itself to allowance of an orderly departure when the time came,” Uh, when did this country allow the illegal immigrant "to become part of our community fabric"? He was !@#$ing here illegally! There was no "allow" about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: Uh, when did this country allow the illegal immigrant "to become part of our community fabric"? He was !@#$ing here illegally! There was no "allow" about it. This country allowed it when it chose not to enforce immigration law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 43 minutes ago, DC Tom said: This country allowed it when it chose not to enforce immigration law. Yes, and it is time to change that ****. Slam the doors but deal with what is here. The 2-year old DACA kid needs to know that we welcome her. Their parents who were the cause can go !@#$ themselves. American citizens can always visit their people in Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Yes, and it is time to change that ****. Slam the doors but deal with what is here. The 2-year old DACA kid needs to know that we welcome her. Their parents who were the cause can go !@#$ themselves. American citizens can always visit their people in Mexico. None of which changes the judge's point: this country allowed the illegal immigrant to become part of our community fabric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: None of which changes the judge's point: this country allowed the illegal immigrant to become part of our community fabric. How is that different than what I said? Accept the kids (even if they are 30 years of age) Let the parents visit their kids.No problem. No voting rights for ANYONE entering this country illegally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Justice Kennedy determined the Constitution stated you can do whatever you want whenever you want with no need to worry about how it destroys other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: How is that different than what I said? Accept the kids (even if they are 30 years of age) Let the parents visit their kids.No problem. No voting rights for ANYONE entering this country illegally. Well, unless you're the People's Democratic Republic of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (Kay whimpers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simool Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 10 hours ago, DC Tom said: None of which changes the judge's point: this country allowed the illegal immigrant to become part of our community fabric. I get what you are trying to say here but where in the constitution is this mentioned? It's not. The federal courts most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. At the point these judges go off the reservation and interpret the law in a way that appears to be legislating, Congress should act. Since Congress has been impotent for years, the President should act. If the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it. It seems to be lost to history that Federal Courts have limited power to implement the decisions they make. This is no different than when Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court, who had ruled against removing the Cherokee from their land. Jackson disagreed with the Supreme Court and he removed them anyway. The Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision. Obviously we really screwed over the Indians, so this is not a great example but it illuminates that Andrew Jackson was probably our last President that had a set. In my opinion ignoring these instances of judicial activism is no different than the federal government ignoring immigration laws. You reap what you sow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts