i don't capitalize unless it's the whole word in lieu of italics..therefore 'you' wasn't an error.
In ultimate alpha move, trump orders tear gas to be fired at shoeless children
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
So Mueller has emails connecting the dots. Trumpeters don't care. Fascists
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nope. Wrong again Nazi boy.
Trump's administration is not following either the intent or the letter of US law. Trump should follow the law or work with Congress to change it. "Everything" (LOL) you've read must be coming from Stormfront.
Washington Post has a good article about a judge's ruling on the matter that says Trump is not following the law. Trump should follow the law.
Laughing at your citing Encyclopedia Brittanica as if it were US law. Too funny that.
Also laughing at your words "Everything I've read about the actual US law is it's only recommended but not a requirement." What does "everything" mean to you? One Stormfront propaganda banner, perhaps? A single search would have corrected your false belief but then again you didn't want factual news, did you? That kerfluffle with the Chief of SCOTUS, for example was entirely based upon Trump's complaint about what a US judge ruled regarding the illegality of his policies.
Trump lashes out at judge after order to allow illegal border crossers to seek asylum
November 20
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/judges-ruling-means-trump-administration-must-allow-illegal-border-crossers-to-seek-asylum/2018/11/20/1aebd608-ecc1-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html?utm_term=.8c18ab566532
The Trump administration must once again process asylum claims from migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, a bitter blow for a president who has waged an all-out effort — including the deployment of thousands of military troops — to stanch the flow of Central American families into the country.
“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” the judge, appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote in his 37-page ruling.
Above in blue font is a link to the entire 37 page ruling. These are facts and not be be confused or with your false belief. Trump is not following the law.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
smokegreenshlt
Well-Known Member
Why a period then?
Buddha2525
Well-Known Member
@Fogdog
The wording is may. May means the seeker can seek without penalty. The word may is an imperative. The word may does not prohibit the state from not allowing. I don't care if some liberal do gooding idiot judge with an axe to grind decided to read more into what's written. If a party is prohibited from doing an action it would say so.
For example the fair employment act explicitly says any employer is prohibited from discrimination based on a protected class. It then goes on to explicitly list all protected classes. It also then describes the penalty against the employet and the retribution the employee may take never is just the word"a employer may not descriminate.
Whereas 1158 only says may then goes on to say the asylum seeker is required to provide all burden of proof and find a proper official all on their own.
Sorry liberal pinky, you lose!
Which states:
prev | next
alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
alien if the Attorney Generaldetermines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence)
The wording is may. May means the seeker can seek without penalty. The word may is an imperative. The word may does not prohibit the state from not allowing. I don't care if some liberal do gooding idiot judge with an axe to grind decided to read more into what's written. If a party is prohibited from doing an action it would say so.
For example the fair employment act explicitly says any employer is prohibited from discrimination based on a protected class. It then goes on to explicitly list all protected classes. It also then describes the penalty against the employet and the retribution the employee may take never is just the word"a employer may not descriminate.
Whereas 1158 only says may then goes on to say the asylum seeker is required to provide all burden of proof and find a proper official all on their own.
Sorry liberal pinky, you lose!
Which states:
- U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part I › § 1158
prev | next
alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
alien if the Attorney Generaldetermines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence)
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Wow, you totally stuck it to us by restating that refugees are allowed to seek asylum, just like we’ve been saying all along
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Have you ever even seen an immigrant anywhere other than the internet you fake ass dip stick?
Are you afraid of the dark too?
Buddha2525
Well-Known Member
@UncleBuck
Show me in 1158 where an intervening entity is prohibited to deny entry of an alien seeking asylum?
1158 is the justification the judge used. Irrespective of whether you agree with the ruling, this provides precedence to allow reinterpretation of any law.
What happens when the next time this happens it's a judicial action you don't agree with?
Say if a judge declares you're criminal. Any amount of marijuana can land you with a $1 million fine and paraphernalia of $250,000 fine.
Which means you're going to jail for a VERY long time since I doubt you can come up with $1.25 million.
That would really suck but rulings based on a single judge is able to reinterpretate laws using judicial review alone you're screwed. And if such happened to you, you'd deserve it because you thought this ruling which was opinion and not based on an actual law.
You're a hypocrite. You claim popular vote should decide things, and otherwise is a dictatorship. But when such happens with a ruling you agree with you cheer. But if the ruling was done in such a fashion you didn't agree, you'd whine like a little baby and want antifa thugs to start a riot while you hid in your lily white high class expenive hood.
Hilarious!
Show me in 1158 where an intervening entity is prohibited to deny entry of an alien seeking asylum?
1158 is the justification the judge used. Irrespective of whether you agree with the ruling, this provides precedence to allow reinterpretation of any law.
What happens when the next time this happens it's a judicial action you don't agree with?
Say if a judge declares you're criminal. Any amount of marijuana can land you with a $1 million fine and paraphernalia of $250,000 fine.
Which means you're going to jail for a VERY long time since I doubt you can come up with $1.25 million.
That would really suck but rulings based on a single judge is able to reinterpretate laws using judicial review alone you're screwed. And if such happened to you, you'd deserve it because you thought this ruling which was opinion and not based on an actual law.
You're a hypocrite. You claim popular vote should decide things, and otherwise is a dictatorship. But when such happens with a ruling you agree with you cheer. But if the ruling was done in such a fashion you didn't agree, you'd whine like a little baby and want antifa thugs to start a riot while you hid in your lily white high class expenive hood.
Hilarious!
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
From the very text you excerpted from the US Code, the law specifically states that the person seeking asylum may apply at a designated port of arrival or anywhere else. There is no latitude granted to the state to deny their petitioning for asylum. A ruling confirming this has already been made by a US district judge.
The law explicitly says that people have the right to apply for asylum in the US and a judge explicitly ruled Trump's actions are illegal when he orders the Border police to turn asylum seekers away. It doesn't matter what you think or believe, sociopath.
Perhaps your mother did you a disservice when she told you that you were smart and you believed her.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Buddha2525
Well-Known Member
@tangerinegreen555
Yes I see those traitors wave their red, white, and green flag all the time. Countries like Japan don't put up with that nonsense and kick you out if you display subversive behavior.
In Japan they don't allow aliens to do what happens here. They're called zainichi and have zero rights. If you complain, you're sent to jail or shipped out.
You like to complain how horrible America is to aliens, but no other country gives those who aren't citizens the rights we do.
Instead of being overjoyed at being in America they bitch and say how wonderful the shithole country they left is.
I would feel otherwise if aliens tried their damnedest to assimilate, showed gratitude, and didn't lie about how unfairly they're treated. Let's see them find ANY other country who would put up with that garbage.
Yes I see those traitors wave their red, white, and green flag all the time. Countries like Japan don't put up with that nonsense and kick you out if you display subversive behavior.
In Japan they don't allow aliens to do what happens here. They're called zainichi and have zero rights. If you complain, you're sent to jail or shipped out.
You like to complain how horrible America is to aliens, but no other country gives those who aren't citizens the rights we do.
Instead of being overjoyed at being in America they bitch and say how wonderful the shithole country they left is.
I would feel otherwise if aliens tried their damnedest to assimilate, showed gratitude, and didn't lie about how unfairly they're treated. Let's see them find ANY other country who would put up with that garbage.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Buddha2525
Well-Known Member
"Shut the fuck up," is what one says when they know they've lost.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Your feelings are hurt when people say they miss their country of origin?
Immigrants in this country pay taxes, marry, have children, work, go to church, go to school and support their local economy. Isn't that "assimilate" enough for you? What would it take to satisfy you? Be specific, please.
Buddha2525
Well-Known Member
@Fogdog
Why should I care if a person goes to church? A person who bases their political beliefs on their spiritual beliefs is very dangerous. Politics should be religion agnostic. Most of these migrant aliens are Catholic and that alone, not their being a foreigner, makes them dangerous. Since Christianity is the fourth most dangerous religion below Scientology, Islam, and Scientism
I only go to church if someone invites me. I mostly chant, meditate, and pray in private. But if I do happen to go, I don't pay much attention and contemplate the current issues.
Buddhism is one of the few religions which separate church and state. With the exception of a few draconian states like Burma which will imprison you for making a Techno version of Buddha wearing headphones. That completely goes against Buddhist teachings which encourage followers to make their own dharma path.
Buddhism contains no dogma that's set in stone and are more of recommendations rather than commandments.
Why should I care if a person goes to church? A person who bases their political beliefs on their spiritual beliefs is very dangerous. Politics should be religion agnostic. Most of these migrant aliens are Catholic and that alone, not their being a foreigner, makes them dangerous. Since Christianity is the fourth most dangerous religion below Scientology, Islam, and Scientism
I only go to church if someone invites me. I mostly chant, meditate, and pray in private. But if I do happen to go, I don't pay much attention and contemplate the current issues.
Buddhism is one of the few religions which separate church and state. With the exception of a few draconian states like Burma which will imprison you for making a Techno version of Buddha wearing headphones. That completely goes against Buddhist teachings which encourage followers to make their own dharma path.
Buddhism contains no dogma that's set in stone and are more of recommendations rather than commandments.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Hey canna sylvan@Fogdog
Why should I care if a person goes to church? A person who bases their political beliefs on their spiritual beliefs is very dangerous. Politics should be religion agnostic. Most of these migrant aliens are Catholic and that alone, not their being a foreigner, makes them dangerous. Since Christianity is the fourth most dangerous religion below Scientology, Islam, and Scientism
I only go to church if someone invites me. I mostly chant, meditate, and pray in private. But if I do happen to go, I don't pay much attention and contemplate the current issues.
Buddhism is one of the few religions which separate church and state. With the exception of a few draconian states like Burma which will imprison you for making a Techno version of Buddha wearing headphones. That completely goes against Buddhist teachings which encourage followers to make their own dharma path.
Buddhism contains no dogma that's set in stone and are more of recommendations rather than commandments.
Shut the fuck up
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I don't even read your posts and my first thought when I see them is "shut the fuck up". You come across as a lying, hypocritical, long-winded, narcissistic, authoritarian-loving blowhard.
Maybe if you used different margins.
blu3bird
Well-Known Member
I thought you called him Nancy boy when I first read that lol
Ripped Farmer
Well-Known Member
So if you are choosing to work for someone else, how is anyone suppose to know what you are capable of if you are sand bagging all the time? Do you not want to climb the ladder? I mean, if you are happy in your current situation and if morally you dont have a problem with stealing from your company (not working/sand bagging while being paid to work is stealing) then I guess you are living the dream!