Locked and Loaded on the Border...

a reply to: TheRedneck

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Save your cute quips... explaining something to you has no further interest to me if you will forget it overnight.

Here Redneck - this is very simple and easy to understand. It might help you

When someone gets shot for throwing a rock at a soldier, remember who is responsible for expanding the military's role... not President Trump. It's Judge Tigar, and he's sitting on a bench in your state.

I'm disappointed in you, Phage. You're better than that.

That's just a dishonest and cheesy argument. I wish you were better than this

If someone gets shot for throwing rocks - that's on Trump. The buck stops with him. It was his decision to militarize this entire process :

Trump to Caravan: Rocks Will Be Considered A Firearm, "I Hope" Military Won't Shoot

White House approves military to use lethal force at southern border

Why do you insist on pretending otherwise?

originally posted by: Speedtek
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross

Yeah , the Left's Crooked Cross..............

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Don't tread on me flag while in support of executive orders trouncing law. Yeah...

a reply to: Speedtek

Proclamation. Not EO.

Nothing but the facts.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: TheRedneck

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Save your cute quips... explaining something to you has no further interest to me if you will forget it overnight.

Here Redneck - this is very simple and easy to understand. It might help you

When someone gets shot for throwing a rock at a soldier, remember who is responsible for expanding the military's role... not President Trump. It's Judge Tigar, and he's sitting on a bench in your state.

I'm disappointed in you, Phage. You're better than that.

That's just a dishonest and cheesy argument. I wish you were better than this

If someone gets shot for throwing rocks - that's on Trump. The buck stops with him. It was his decision to militarize this entire process :

Trump to Caravan: Rocks Will Be Considered A Firearm, "I Hope" Military Won't Shoot

White House approves military to use lethal force at southern border

Why do you insist on pretending otherwise?

This is Correct .


" Report: Gen. Kelly, Sec. Nielsen Fought 'Lethal Force' Order "

www.newsmax.com...


The President has made this Grave Decision .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yes Zanti - according to unnamed sources, and for what it's worth. Interesting - isn't it? Kelly took a lot of flak for this initially, but it's got Stephen Miller's stink all over it

Aides squared off against administration immigration hawks over an order they said was beyond the president's constitutional powers.

Kelly and Nielsen initially argued against signing the declaration, which granted the military broad authority at the border, telling the president that the move was beyond his constitutional powers. They were vocally opposed by, among others, senior policy adviser Stephen Miller; Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council; and Brandon Judd, president of the border patrol union. Also present was Vice President Mike Pence, who did not take a stand on the issue, according to one of the people briefed on the debate.

a reply to: Speedtek

Don't tread on me flag while in support of executive orders.....that Enforce Constitutional LAW . What , are you a Anarchist or Something ? .Hmm.......

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

1) It was not an executive order.
2) It is in direct conflict with a law passed by Congress. Which, under the Constitution, is the only body which can create laws.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Circumstances along the U.S. Mexico Border in the Near Future will Dictate what Actual Responses the President and the Military will take .....Stay Tuned ......

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

1) It was not an executive order.
2) It is in direct conflict with a law passed by Congress. Which, under the Constitution, is the only body which can create laws.

Let the Lawyers Argue that Until it is to Late .......

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

It is the law, after all. Lawyers may argue but judges decide.

What's with the capitalization?

a reply to: Phage

Yes , Honest Judges that is , and there is the Rub..............)

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

And the only honest judges are those who fall in step with Trump? No matter what the law says? Took how many tries to get the refugee ban right?


What's with the capitalization?

a reply to: BlackJackal

Uh, no. It will go back to what it was prior to November 8th. This means regardless of where someone asks for asylum along the border they will still be considered.

Yes, that period of time where illegal immigration was largely unchecked and resulted in much higher crime rates across the US. You may consider that "orderly"; I do not.

You need to check where you get your information because you are dead wrong.

So do you. As for being wrong... (and this is from your own link):

The acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas Homan pressed the "no show" argument on CNN’s Situation Room, before anchor Wolf Blitzer pushed back.

"They'll say the right thing to get released from detention, then they won't show up in court," Homan said June 19. "But they're already in the United States. They're lost in society. They never get removed. So as long as we send the world this message — ‘Come and say the right thing, get released, never to show up in court’ — you're never going to fix this."

According to Justice Department data from the last five available years, around 60 to 75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings. That’s determined by subtracting the percentage of judgments entered against migrants in their absence (known as an in absentia ruling) from total judgments entered.

The data presented is based only on in absentia rulings, and therefore assumes that all cases where the plaintiff failed to show up were ruled in absentia. That is not the case, as courts can continue cases until the plaintiff be found, dismiss the case (which is not an in absentia ruling), or other actions. I would expect the Director of ICE to have the most relevant data, not some two-bit reporter from a rag that seems unable to get its facts straight on any other issue.

Also, as I have pointed out in previous threads this entire migrant caravan being a threat to this country is a farce. The Military has already been told that they are being pulled off the border on December 15th. All the troops are expected to be home by Christmas.

It's no farce that any large group of people amassing on a border while expressing intent to violate the laws of a country, consistent with previous actions, is by definition a threat to said country. And you might want to, as we say, hide and watch what happens. Again, from your own link:

All the troops should be home by Christmas, as originally expected, Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan said in an interview Monday.

"Our end date right now is 15 December, and I've got no indications from anybody that we'll go beyond that," said Buchanan, who leads the land forces of U.S. Northern Command.

That was on Monday, the day before Judge Tigar made his ruling that complicated the logistics of keeping the asylum application an orderly process. That ruling has changed the dynamics of the situation, increasing the size of the area that must now be defended from a few ports of entry and the area immediately surrounding them to 200 miles of largely unguarded border. Since that statement, John Kelly has negotiated a solution to have the US Military armed and to take a more active role in their assistance of CBP (which is what the OP is about). President Trump has also floated the idea of closing the southern border entirely.

Come to think of it, Judges Tigar is also responsible, in that respect, for any soldiers that will be forced now to spend another Christmas away from their families. Nice to see you support that. Bah humbug?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

" What's with the capitalization? "


You seem like a smart guy Mr. Bootae , you figure it out . God knows you have noticed that for some time now .




.....

a reply to: TheRedneck

Judge Tigar

" Judge Jon Tiger rules that the United States must believe their stories and essentially give them everything they want, without regard to cost. Taxpayers, legitimate citizens and legal immigrants can be forgiven for seeing this sub-nonsense as an assault U.S. sovereignty. On the other hand, that should come as no surprise. "



www.frontpagemag.com...


I do not Think I like a Judge who Wastes my Tax Dollars on Foreign Nationals .

a reply to: TheRedneck

You may consider that "orderly"; I do not.

Short memory span?

The asylum process was fairly orderly until now.

But with his policy effectively removed, he has only one option: use the military fully.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What policy was removed?

a reply to: Phage

Your refutations are specious.

Is that so? Basing an argument on the written law is now specious? Good to know.

You confuse the granting of asylum with applying for asylum.

That was your position. I am pointing out the difference.

You fail to acknowlege that, without the doctrine of incorporation, none of the bill of rights would apply to the states.

You have already shown previously where that is not the case, by court ruling. And I agreed.

You refuse to acknowledge that, by the converse doctrine, the 14th amendment applies to the federal government.

You assume this converse doctrine is settled law. It is not. It is a legal theory floated by certain people who do not agree with the US Constitution.

Deny all you want, it is a fact. Any person within the United States is entitled to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

Speaking of a specious argument... you seem to be intent on pushing some poorly-specific philosophical argument over law. Sorry; it don't work like that.

That's it, pass the buck. It's Trumps modus, after all. But I don't live in California.

My mistake; I was somehow under the impression that Judge Tigar was in Hawaii. I stand corrected.

I don't care about your approval.

Good.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Basing an argument on the written law is now specious?

The law says that anyone within the United States can apply for asylum.

You have already shown previously where that is not the case, by court ruling.

False.

You assume this converse doctrine is settled law. It is not.

Has it been successfully challenged?

I was somehow under the impression that Judge Tigar was in Hawaii.

Confirmation bias can do that. You should avoid it.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Here Redneck - this is very simple and easy to understand. It might help you

Thank you! It certainly did open my eyes!

Especially the pop-up as soon as I opened it: "Donate weekly to help us fight Trump's..." Yeah, sounds very unbiased.

Not. You might want to try getting information from someone who is not a litigant in the case.

That's just a dishonest and cheesy argument. I wish you were better than this

If someone gets shot for throwing rocks - that's on Trump. The buck stops with him. It was his decision to militarize this entire process :

Let's just ignore that a rogue Federal judge just complicated the matter that was under some measure of control, right?

Wrong.

TheRedneck