US judge halts deportation, threatens Sessions with contempt

a reply to: Wookiep

Its completely ridiculous

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: toms54

Its complete bull#. Illegals sueing our gover ment.

Get the hell out of here.

So laws be damned , spoken like a true authoritarian, you don't get to pick and choose which laws are followed based on your feelings....

Just like lefties don't get to pick and choose who to impeach based on feelings.

Oh don't worry the lunatics on both sides are as bad as each other, you won't get me arguing your statement, I agree.

a reply to: Wookiep

The fact that they aren't U.S. citizens. Unless you are arguing that they aren't from central America, and are indeed legal U.S. citizens.

Do you think all central Americans in the US are illegal? Do you think all asylum seekers are "illegal"? If so, you would be wrong. We don't know how this women entered. Even if asylum seekers don't enter the country through a border check point, they still have a legal right to claim asylum and stay for their adjudication.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you seriously trying to tell me that NON American citizens are LEGAL American citizens???

You're off your damn rocker! You're equating "illegal" with "bad" or something and your emotions are destroying you, lol.

NON legal citizens are ILLEGAL in America. Always have been. Deal with it!

a reply to: Wookiep

Logic cannot defeat it

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Wookiep

Logic cannot defeat it

Right. With that said, I'm not going to bump this stupid thread anymore, lol.

a reply to: Kharron

It would appear that the woman and her daughter filed a lawsuit against the administration, through ACLU, but it would appear they were sent away before they could make an appearance in court. The Judge has threatened not only the Hobgoblin with contempt, but also HS Secretary Nielsen and other HS officials if they did not return the plaintiffs to court where they sought justice.

Well then. It is a good thing that Sessions has the President on his side, or the Attorney General of the U.S. might not laugh at that judge as much. They were illegal immigrants before they entered his courtroom and when they left. The judge has no say so in the matter. He can't find him in contempt for following our law. lol

a reply to: Wookiep

Are you seriously trying to tell me that NON American citizens are LEGAL American citizens???

Are you seriously trying to tell me that all NON Americans are ILLEGAL? You're off your damn rocker! You're equating NON American citizen with "bad" or something and your emotions are destroying you, lol.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Stop misrepresenting his position and building a straw man.

Its sooooo obvious to anyone reading this what you are doing.

Looking for side work btw

a reply to: toysforadults


I'm the one being misrepresented here. There is an assumption that this woman is in the country illegally. But nowhere in the article does it say that. Not all asylum seekers enter the county between border check points. No reason to assume that she did.

But, even if she did, international refugee law, which the US has incorporated, grants asylum seekers who enter the country between border check points legal stay for their adjudication.

a reply to: Kharron

The Fifth Amendment then says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This means that if someone seeks justice in our court of law and files a lawsuit in our courts, they are Constitutionally protected.

Only if they are citizens.
The Constitution provides no exception for illegals

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Kharron

The Fifth Amendment then says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This means that if someone seeks justice in our court of law and files a lawsuit in our courts, they are Constitutionally protected.

Only if they are citizens.
The Constitution provides no exception for illegals

Not true!

Immigration restrictionists sometimes claim that noncitizens have no rights under the Constitution, and that the US government is therefore free to deal with them in whatever way it wants. At least as a general rule, this claim is simply false.

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.

Should a noncitizen be charged with a crime, he has exactly the same Fifth and Sixth Amendment procedural rights as a citizen, including the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and protection against self-incrimination. If convicted, the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from subjecting aliens to “cruel and unusual punishment” in exactly the same ways as it does with citizens.

www.learnliberty.org...

Can someone seek asylum for domestic abuse? Seems we have about a few billion around the planet we need to round up if that is the case, plus why does a person need to come all the way across Mexico to America to seek asylum for domestic abuse?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not true!

Explain.
All I see is a horse manure style rejection.
The only exception was the wet feet/dry feet clause for Cubans. Which ended with the Obama admin.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Illegal - An illegal immigrant/alien is a person who has entered a country without government permission. Ergo , Also a Criminal . That Entails ANYONE who tries to Entr the Country WITHOUT PERMISSION Froggy.................

Oh , btw , a NY judge has no authority over Federal Law.
So , "just words , just speeches"

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Illegal - An illegal immigrant/alien is a person who has entered a country without government permission. Ergo , Also a Criminal . That Entails ANYONE who tries to Entr the Country WITHOUT PERMISSION Froggy.................

What proof do you have that the women in this case, an asylum seeker, entered the country without government permission, i.e. at the border crossing? Do you think that all asylum seekers are "illegals"?

a reply to: Gothmog

Explain.

See the 14th Amendment, for a start.

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.

Not only does the Constitution grant noncitizens most of the same rights as citizens, but longstanding Supreme Court precedent also forbids many state laws discriminating against aliens. In cases such as Bernal v. Fainter (1984), the court has ruled that laws discriminating on the basis of alienage are subject to “strict scrutiny” — that is, they will be struck down unless the government can prove that they are “narrowly tailored” to the promotion of a “compelling state interest.”

www.learnliberty.org...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.

But not folks illegally in the US
There is a difference. Re : Visas and the like.
You just don't get it do you ?
You really need to leave interpreting the US Constitution to the US Supreme Court .
And stop turning to your neighbor for advice

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SocratesJohnson


What makes you think this woman and her child are illegal. All the article says is that they're asylum seekers from El Salvador.

They were denied an asylum hearing based on Session's new rule eliminating domestic violence and gang violence victims from seeking asylum. The ACLU, with this woman as their client, is suing the DOJ because of that (arbitrary) rule change, which goes against our international refugee treaties and federal law that incorporated refugee/asylum procedure.

It's hard to believe our international refugee treaties and federal law that incorporated refugee/asylum procedure mandates that we grant asylum for domestic violence. That should be a local affair not a federal one and certainly not an international issue.