Emergency or not. It’s not an excuse for the Executive Branch to move money against the Constitution. Only Congress allots funds, not ANY president.
How many times does this need to be stressed?
1 Like
They are allowed to seek asylum. But we are not obligated to let them in our country until it is granted. That’s how. It keeps them out of our detention centers.
Hmmm… You must be reading a different law… care to cite where we are not obligated to let them in our country?
National emergencies have been declared about 60 times. And I’m betting that each time money was involved. The supreme court will make the final decision. I like our odds.
I’ll take that bet… Please tell us the national emergency that reprogrammed funds…
1 Like
Fine, why wasnt the law changed the last two years when the GOP was in complete control?
Its like people really dont understand how they get played time and time again by the politicians they swear are doing what they voted them to do.
But here we are, the GOP had their chance to shine and do what they campaigned on and what did they do? Not a damn thing. When it came time to be held accountable for this, what did they do? Blamed democrats for not going along with them. How did that work out? They got smoked in the midterms in the house and managed to pick up a few seats in the senate only because they defended like what, 9 seats.
Last time the dems held all 3 branches they got something done. Now as it turns out it wasnt the greatest for everyone, but it did help a lot of people. Then the GOP spent some 6 years running against it, then given the chance to fix it, what did they do? Punted.
This story keeps playing out over and over and some keep voting for Republicans thinking its gonna be different next time.
Id say maybe next time around they will learn, but we all know they wont. Step into the ballot box thinking this time its gonna be different. Labeling GOP candidates as RINOs and liberal rupublicans wont do a damn bit of good. Stop voting for them if you cant figure out they arent gonna represent what you believe, and stop being short sighted in thinking that situation is any better than not voting.
1 Like
Care to cite where we are? The border patrol has stated that good barriers have reduced border crossings by 90 percent. So obviously we are not letting them in if we can keep them out.
Not sure what happened there. You were on your way to agreeing that there was a logical and bipartisan way to address this problem. You claimed this was like a divorce between the two parties that were fighting over a wall.
The you describe your enemy and explain how all of this is their fault.
There is no open border crowd. The Dems aren’t the enemy. Your description of their position is wholly inaccurate. I recognize that there are Trump supporters out there that are smart enough to understand that the wall is not the definitive answer.
Your disdain for the other side is exactly what you described in your post about a divorce between the Dems and Reps fighting over a toy. You don’t seem interested in a solution, just an argument.
Sure… 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Have any other questions?
Not even your standard national emergency, a “full fledged national emergency” 
Yes. I have a question. I did not see anything that states if they are in a foreign country we must bring them into our country when they apply. I may have missed it.
If they get to the border and are interviewed, are they then on American soil?
Republicans never dug in their heels. They followed Trump like lost puppies. Had Trump actually asked for billions, the Republicans would have given him whatever he wanted.
This was never an emergency until Democrats were poised to re-take the House. I give it to Trump, he masterfully used this emergency to try and create an illusion that Democrats are evil for not funding his precious wall and Republicans were heroes for wanting to save America from the evils of boarder crossers.
Fortunately for you, a federal judge will soon decide whether the MPP policy violates federal law…
No. They are on American soil once they cross the border. Then it’s catch and release. We need to prevent that.
They have to be on American soil to apply for asylum. Does the law allow removing them from our country while asylum proceedings are underway?
Fortunately for me, while the dems fiddle fart around for years, trying to decide if they should charge President Trump, he is appointing a huge number of federal judges. This will go to the supreme court. I like our odds.
Yeah, I’ll be happy to update you the outcome of this lawsuit…
You are correct,
Your shortsightedness has left you in the position of thimking that Republican appointed judges will rule the way you think they will. To which i point out the ACA ruling. Remember Roberts? That hasnt changed. And if you believe it has then i dont care to hear a peap about how justices should rule based on the constitution and not ideology. Its about as stupid as thinking those labeled as liberal judges dont rule based on the same constitution.
Me personally. I think chief justice will whip his judges into shape as he seems to recognize the courts place.
1 Like
