Not true.
Your opinion is not factual. You are assuming each has the same set of circumstances.
Do you believe this is a novel argument that wasnāt brought up by the defense in these cases? Do you think that if this argument were to be brought up in the civil phase of these trials that these cases would suddenly be thrown out?
I fail to see the purpose of your statement.
Emotions and law are two different things.
If it is a foregone conclusion, why would they settle?
Yes. Almost like too much ground to be covered by people and a wall to keep them all out. If only someone had brought that up during the 16 primaries. Oh wait.
And you fail to see the purpose because you refuse to acknowledge when and where the rule of law was originally violated.
JWK
Again, take it up with the courts, who know far more about any of this than you do.
They can point to rulings that have already happened that would go in their favor.
The child separation policy was unconstitutional. That has already been determined. The Trump administration accepted that ruling and stopped the policy.
Anyone affected by that policy would have zero problem arguing that the US Government is guilty of violating their rights and that they deserve redress.
The only question is how much the US Government owes to them.
Either they settle it out of court or it goes to trial and the US Government pays even more because it is really really easy to show malicious intent in this policy.
I know you donāt accept thatā¦ but here in the real world that is what is going on.
Iām not buying this imageā¦in the back portion the perspective is off.
1 Like
When one violates our law and placed in detention, they have no right to not be separated from their child. If I am in error, please feel free to cite the statutory law.
JWK
āprotects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonmentā
Habeus Corpus.
Boy, that was easy.
When someone violates the law, the US Government cannot violate their rights.
Their rights got violated.
That is what the ruling was that determined that the Child Separation Policy was unconstitutional and the Trump Administration agreed.
We can both repeat the same thing over and overā¦ but one of the things is rooted in what actually happened and the other is rejection of reality.
Nevermind that the separation policy was invoked prior to determining their legal status. Hence, Habeus Corpus being violated. But again, when you treat illegals like they donāt have rights, the courts will step in and correct it. And rightly so.
1 Like
Once again you simply make stuff up.
The fact is, in 2018 the House of Representatives rejected passage of H.R. 6136, the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act, which included a provision to eliminate the existing and legal separation of families at the border.
Stop making stuff up!
Making stuff up? Like the legal authority to illegally detain people for an indeterminate amount of time in violation of Habeus Corpus when no such legal authority exists?
Speaking of Habeus Corpus violationsā¦ There are countless other examples where the government was actively trying to deport US citizens before determining their legal status. Almost like the entire system of enforcement is broken or something. If theyāre supposed to be going after illegals, how are legal citizens being caught in the net?
1 Like
I see that there is going to be plenty of things thrown up against the wall to see if it sticks to distract from the fact that the court found that the Child Separation Policy was unconstitutional and was violating the rights of the people who were affected by it and the Trump administration agreed.
Anything I guess to avoid the understanding that the Trump administration instituting a policy that they knew was harmful to children comes with a cost.
Once again, I encourage you to feel free to cite the statutory law prohibiting the separation of a child from a parent who enters our country illegally and is legally placed in federal detention.
JWK
And round and round we go.
