Trump signs executive order to stop family separations at border

a reply to: DBCowboy

Open borders does not remove the legal jurisdictions provided by borders

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Open borders does not remove the legal jurisdictions provided by borders

It makes a nation just an idea on paper and eliminates a country's identity in a practical sense.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: howtonhawky

So we should have laws that we follow only when it suits our needs, suits our agendas, or if we feel like it.

If a law is bad, can be bad, can be abused, then we should eliminate that law, not play candy-ass as to when it should be enforced.

Lock up every kid going through puberty or use discretion to determine intent and consider all the circumstances surrounding the situation and make a constitutional informed decision.

Do you understand that discretion is indeed a legal tool that can be used when applying the law justly?

Quite telling how you choose to ignore 90% of logic being told to you.

As if you are not able to understand things but i know you get it but choose to ignore it.

a reply to: howtonhawky

So you want laws that can be followed or not based on who is in power.

You want laws that can be followed (or not) at the discretion of someone in power.


You don't want laws.

You want privileges given by those with whom you agree with.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: howtonhawky

So you want laws that can be followed or not based on who is in power.

You want laws that can be followed (or not) at the discretion of someone in power.


You don't want laws.

You want privileges given by those with whom you agree with.

Geese you are being purposefully thick headed.

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A WARNING TICKET?

Do not try to discern what i want. I am being very clear here and you jump around the point with silly retorts.

a reply to: howtonhawky

No.

I'm talking about laws.

If a law is so terrible, and has people literally voiding their bowels into their shorts over it, why have it in the first place.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra
How about legal immigration?

More people want in than our immigration process allows for.

That's always been the case.

There is no right to enter the United States.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: howtonhawky

No.

I'm talking about laws.

If a law is so terrible, and has people literally voiding their bowels into their shorts over it, why have it in the first place.

Feel free to make sense.

Speak out of the other end...

FYI There is a way for states to keep out anyone they choose if they just adhere to the constitution.

Just as another poster just stated there is nothing in the constitution that says it is a right to enter the usa.

We just have to do things correctly just as california is doing but in reverse if a state chooses.

The feds are free to naturalize anyone the states allow in. That means they can make sure the new peeps speak english and follow our borders language and culture if the feds. choose.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Do you agree with our current immigration laws?

If not, what would you change?

a reply to: Aazadan

Come on...did you even read any of the documentation related to the case?

Yes, they entered at a port of entry, but per SCOTUS ruling and agreement in the Flores case, minors can only be held for so long before necessitating transfer to an authorized facility.

That is why it happened the way that it did--because there is a mandate to do so.

Also, the government was doing its due diligence to prove that "Mrs. L" was the mother to "S.S.," which was something that was not readily able to be proven because apparently the mother didn't think it pertinent to have legal documentation showing as much.

Once Mrs. L raised concerns, she was "paroled" (something that can be requested when certain criteria are met, but doesn't have to be approved) and reunited with her child.

A detention facility is not a "prison," as so many people have taken to calling it--nor are they internment camps, or concentration camps.

The hyperbole has got to stop.

ETA: I feel that it's pertinent to note that I'm not a fan of separating families, but I am a fan of ensuring first and foremost that we don't just allow groups of people claiming to be families into the country who cannot prove that they are related and that the adult(s) is/are the legal guardian of the minor.

Furthermore, I'm also not going to claim that the system works perfectly and that some people don't fall through the cracks, as may have happened here with Mrs. L and how long it took to get a DNA test going, but I will not for a second accept the implication that this is the status quo of how things are always handled.

If proof exists showing otherwise, though, I will have to change my stance on it, of course.

I called it.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D) and other Democrats slammed Trump for the executive order on immigration. Durbin was doing an interview and blasted Trump saying his EO is not legal because it violates Flores.

Manu Raju
‏Verified account @mkraju
2h2 hours ago

Rs and Ds skeptical Trump executive order will hold up.

Cornyn said to me: “I worry though we are also going to need to do legislation.”

Durbin: “He’s going to find his proposal of detaining kids indefinitely with their parents rejected by the courts,” calling it “doomed.”

a reply to: Xcathdra

And he's correct, at this point.

Did he mention that the EO calls for Sessions to petition to the convening authority of the Flores case to amend/remit the time limit so that families can be kept together?

I'm thinking probably not, but I've been surprised with crazier things these past few days.

These are my thoughts as to why I don't think that the EO will do much of substance, if you're interested.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I called it.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D) and other Democrats slammed Trump for the executive order on immigration. Durbin was doing an interview and blasted Trump saying his EO is not legal because it violates Flores.

They want zero prosecutions of illegal immigrants. They won't be happy until they get that. They won't accept any bill that doesn't do that. They don't care about those kids. It was never about keeping them with their families. It's about letting in as many illegal immigrants as possible.

I would think that if you're unemployed and homeless, child protection services would take your children away even if you're a U.S. citizen. Even if you've not committed any crime.

But here people who risk their children's lives by crossing a desert, people want them to keep their children despite them being unemployed homeless and without the ability to speak english or valid U.S. education.

In any case there must be caps on legal immigration and on asylum seeking. Asylum seeking should be allowed in embassies outside the U.S. But asylum seeking does not mean open borders for those calling themselves asylum seekers.

a reply to: face23785

Dead people can't carry the democrat vote by themselves!

Jeez!

originally posted by: Xenogears
But asylum seeking does not mean open borders for those calling themselves asylum seekers.

The sad part about this part is everyone calling for virtually unlimited asylum claims because they just want to see more illegal immigrants game the system. It clogs up the asylum system and prevents or delays people who truly need protection and asylum from getting it quickly. It puts people's lives in danger, but as long as we can import as many potential Democrat voters as possible, # it right?

originally posted by: Xenogears
In any case there must be caps on legal immigration and on asylum seeking. Asylum seeking should be allowed in embassies outside the U.S. But asylum seeking does not mean open borders for those calling themselves asylum seekers.

It is... A foreign national can go to any US Embassy or consulate and request Asylum.

Something else Democrats dont want people to know.

Also - people seeking Asylum or refugee status are not guaranteed entrance. Their claims are investigated before its granted.

a reply to: face23785


They want "open borders". Their governors and mayors are offering incentives and sanctuary in their cities, They are fighting Trump at all costs from securing the border. I wish they would just be honest and say that they don't think that the US should have any borders and whoever wants to come here has a right to do so. Just be honest.

I would have more respect for these guys if they would be honest about it.

originally posted by: ker2010
a reply to: face23785


They want "open borders". Their governors and mayors are offering incentives and sanctuary in their cities, They are fighting Trump at all costs from securing the border. I wish they would just be honest and say that they don't think that the US should have any borders and whoever wants to come here has a right to do so. Just be honest.

I would have more respect for these guys if they would be honest about it.

If we secure our borders how are Democrats going to win elections. The illegal immigrant vote is a huge block of voters for them.

a reply to: Xcathdra


If we woke up tomorrow and the Dems found out most illegals would vote republican they would put landmines at the border.