Biden wants to give out $450000 per person for separated illegal migrants

[Jezcoe]

@Striker840

Again, cite the law the government broke please.

The Constitution.

[wiley8425]

Supreme law of the land, except when it isn’t. Clearly.

[kingarthur65]

@Striker840

@kingarthur65

Maybe you should let the Judges that have heard these arguments know this.

Feel free to cite the specific law that states this.

So here YOU are asking for a law citation yet when you are asked, all you say is “due process”. Again, cite the law the government broke please.

Thanks

I was advising JWK to feel free to cite the laws when he makes his argument to the Judge.

[Striker840]

@Jezcoe

@Striker840

Again, cite the law the government broke please.

The Constitution.

Wow I didn’t know the Constitution was also law. Care to tell us where murder is prohibited, or robbery, or fraud, etc is specified in the Constitution. PRETTY sure laws are voted on and enacted via the Legislative process.

[Striker840]

@wiley8425

Technically not illegal doesn’t work as a defense at this point. The courts have already ruled.

Technically not illegal, which means NO LAWS WERE BROKEN as you and a few others have been repeating like parrots.

Now we are getting somewhere. Since, as you have stated “technically no laws were broken” this smells like good old distribution of wealth.

Just be honest about the motives here, that’s all we have asked.

[Jezcoe]

@Striker840

@Jezcoe

@Striker840

Again, cite the law the government broke please.

The Constitution.

Wow I didn’t know the Constitution was also law. Care to tell us where murder is prohibited, or robbery, or fraud, etc is specified in the Constitution. PRETTY sure laws are voted on and enacted via the Legislative process.

Derp Derp

[Striker840]

@Jezcoe

@Striker840

@Jezcoe

@Striker840

Again, cite the law the government broke please.

The Constitution.

Wow I didn’t know the Constitution was also law. Care to tell us where murder is prohibited, or robbery, or fraud, etc is specified in the Constitution. PRETTY sure laws are voted on and enacted via the Legislative process.

Derp Derp

So by your immature response, you cannot answer the question. I asked what law, you said “The Constitution”. So, what amendment covers murder, should be easy for you since you are so smart.

[Jezcoe]

@Striker840

So by your immature response, you cannot answer the question. I asked what law, you said “The Constitution”. So, what amendment covers murder, should be easy for you since you are so smart.

I am not sure if this is a serious question or not.

But let us go with it.

The Constitution deals with the power of the State when it comes to the citizens.

The question at hand is was due process afforded and the judgement against the US government was in the negative. That the US government violated the rights of these people.

Now… when it comes to the Constitution, are you ready to argue that the US Government has the power to murder people without due process?

[Striker840]

@Jezcoe

@Striker840

So by your immature response, you cannot answer the question. I asked what law, you said “The Constitution”. So, what amendment covers murder, should be easy for you since you are so smart.

I am not sure if this is a serious question or not.

But let us go with it.

The Constitution deals with the power of the State when it comes to the citizens.

The question at hand is was due process afforded and the judgement against the US government was in the negative. That the US government violated the rights of these people.

Now… when it comes to the Constitution, are you ready to argue that the US Government has the power to murder people without due process?

Nope, I just was trying to get a straight answer. NO laws were broken, BUT, possibly their rights.

In this entire thread you and others have been repeating ad nauseum that laws were broken. As you and King Arthur FINALLY admitted no laws were broken.

Now that we have that cleared up, we can address the core issue at hand. On this I doubt either of us will agree, as I believe this is entirely political. The individuals involved had to know that the kids they brought with wouldn’t be detained with the adults if apprehended. This entire thing was planned in order to game the system, and it worked, so far.

[johnwk2]

@kingarthur65

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

They violated the constitution.

Which article?

From the Judges order denying motion to dismiss. Apparently, he thought there was a violation of constitutional rights.

At a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government
conduct at issue “shocks the conscience” and violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to family integrity. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim is denied.

Where is the constitutional right found of a parent of a child who is an American citizen, and who breaks the law and is put in detention and the child is placed in the custody of a child protection agency, thereby violating the supposed right of “family integrity”

JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, has now GONE MAD

,

[johnwk2]

@Striker840

@Jezcoe

@Striker840

So by your immature response, you cannot answer the question. I asked what law, you said “The Constitution”. So, what amendment covers murder, should be easy for you since you are so smart.

I am not sure if this is a serious question or not.

But let us go with it.

The Constitution deals with the power of the State when it comes to the citizens.

The question at hand is was due process afforded and the judgement against the US government was in the negative. That the US government violated the rights of these people.

Now… when it comes to the Constitution, are you ready to argue that the US Government has the power to murder people without due process?

Nope, I just was trying to get a straight answer. NO laws were broken, BUT, possibly their rights.

In this entire thread you and others have been repeating ad nauseum that laws were broken. As you and King Arthur FINALLY admitted no laws were broken.

Now that we have that cleared up, we can address the core issue at hand. On this I doubt either of us will agree, as I believe this is entirely political. The individuals involved had to know that the kids they brought with wouldn’t be detained with the adults if apprehended. This entire thing was planned in order to game the system, and it worked, so far.

And, if anyone is to be sued and punished it should be the parents of the children! Not American Citizens who are about to be fleeced by a scam cooked up by the ACLU and the Biden Administration who is about to agree to put its hands in the pockets of American citizens and spread their hard earned wealth.

JWK

[Jezcoe]

@Striker840

Nope, I just was trying to get a straight answer. NO laws were broken, BUT, possibly their rights.

In this entire thread you and others have been repeating ad nauseum that laws were broken. As you and King Arthur FINALLY admitted no laws were broken.

Now that we have that cleared up, we can address the core issue at hand. On this I doubt either of us will agree, as I believe this is entirely political. The individuals involved had to know that the kids they brought with wouldn’t be detained with the adults if apprehended. This entire thing was planned in order to game the system, and it worked, so far.

Violating the Constitution is violating the law.

But let us address the idea that they came here explicitly to have their rights violated so there would be a big payout.

That is bonkers.

[johnwk2]

@Jezcoe

@Striker840

Again, cite the law the government broke please.

The Constitution.

I see you still have not cited the statutory law prohibiting an illegal entrant with a child from being put in federal detention, and their child being placed in the custody of a child protection service.

I guess you were trying to fool us all the time.

JWK

[johnwk2]

@Jezcoe

Violating the Constitution is violating the law.

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.

Separating an illegal entrant parent and their child at the border is not violating the Constitution. Stop suggesting it is.

JWK

[DougBH]

There has not been a single case determining liability, or that if there is any liability that it should be in a significant amount. Leave that to a jury and see how they feel about awarding fortunes based on being here illegally, then settle based on the results of those trials. It’s not going to be any $400k.
Then get a Congress and President that is serious about removing illegals from this country instead of rewarding them.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

Like COVID case counts, a useless metric.

You said this and were serious

[Jezcoe]

@johnwk2

@Jezcoe

@Striker840

Again, cite the law the government broke please.

The Constitution.

I see you still have not cited the statutory law prohibiting an illegal entrant with a child from being put in federal detention, and their child being placed in the custody of a child protection service.

I guess you were trying to fool us all the time.

JWK

Quick question.

What was the judgement that caused the Trump administration to end the Child Separation policy?

What right did that judgement say that the US Government violated?

[PurpnGold]

@Jezcoe

But let us address the idea that they came here explicitly to have their rights violated so there would be a big payout.

They took advantage of Trumps incompetence? Seems to be on brand with other excuses.

[Jezcoe]

@DougBH

There has not been a single case determining liability, or that if there is any liability that it should be in a significant amount. Leave that to a jury and see how they feel about awarding fortunes based on being here illegally, then settle based on the results of those trials. It’s not going to be any $400k.
Then get a Congress and President that is serious about removing illegals from this country instead of rewarding them.

It would likely be higher.

There is a really good case that could be brought that this policy was done with malicious intent… because… well… it was.

[DougBH]

It was done with the intent to enforce our laws, something which a President takes an oath to do. Biden isn’t even trying.
Whether it would be higher or not is something we could determine with a few trials.