When the 9th circuit stops Trump blocking and rules appropriately…it tells me they are paying attention to what the public sentiment is.
Your results may vary.
Strike 3.
I can’t say I understand the need to make things up to get a point across because of a tingle up my leg for Trump. But this ruling is certainly no indicator that public opinion has shifted as much as you think.
Polling could demonstrate that, but a ruling from a 3-judge panel does not.
how well did Republican do in the mid-terms with their migrant carvan coming to destory America talking poiint.
Just a reminder: Trump’s 3rd wife - the one he cheated on with a porn star shortly after she gave birth to their son - was in the country illegally when they were dating, and her parents were beneficiaries of chain migration.
Cool. I agree with this ruling.
But this ruling doesn’t have anything to do with Trump’s National emergency declaration to build a border wall. I believe that the courts will strike that one down.
They gained in the Senate and shed a lot of dead wood globalists fighting against Trump’s fulfilling his promises. To get good production you need to prune.
What a stupid, stupid post.
2 Likes
Lock her up! Lock her up!
They had the Senate before mid-terms.
Say what?
Courts relying on public sentiment to make rulings… thats odd I could have sworn that the very same thing has been decried a thousand times over on these boards. It would seem that like fiscal responsibility, that talking point has fallen by the way side. At least people can’t stop pretending now, bravo.
And by shed, you mean the Dems picked up 40 house seats, 7 governorships, 6 state legislative hours, and 300 state congressional seats, all in exchange for a couple of senate seats that do nothing to change how legislation moves in congress.
Trump will get precisely zero legislation through congress that he wants. Maybe he would like to try his hand at another shutdown again. That will be fun to see.
1 Like
I was making an observation. According to this site ( Immigration | Gallup Historical Trends ) in 2016, 76% of respondents wanted immigration either reduced or kept at 2016 levels. 60% were worried about illegal immigration a great deal or a fair amount. So, it would seem that citizens wanted a lower immigration than is happening in 2019. Hence, the court decision was in line with what people voted for in opinion polls in 2016. Trump is delivering on their wishes. 60 - 70% of Americans appear to be getting what they wanted at election time and should be happy with the court’s decison.
“They gained in the Senate.” They have more seats now than before.
Then they didn’t gain the senate they increased their control over the senate.
“The policy was introduced to deal with a growing number of asylum-seeking families from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador arriving at the U.S. border with Mexico. Under a court order, children generally cannot be detained more than 20 days, which has led to widespread releases of families almost immediately after they are stopped by authorities.”
Finally some action. And naturally Dems will be outraged but have no alternative plan for enforcing our immigration laws.
Another reason why I am glad I voted for Trump instead of Hillary.
1 Like
That’s right, CanadianJoe. “They gained IN the senate.”
“The three-judge appeals court panel cited Mexico’s position to reject the argument that asylum seekers were at risk in Mexico. The judges said the “likelihood of harm is reduced somewhat by the Mexican government’s commitment to honor its international law obligations and to grant humanitarian status and work permits to individuals returned” under the Migrant Protection Protocols.”
You know Mexican government doesn’t give a crap what some Judge in America says right?
Well, Mexico can always send them back to Guatemala etc to wait for Mexico to rule on applications for asylum in Mexico.
