Printable View
There is no way the Supreme Court doesn’t grant writ. It is an important question that should be answered definitively, even if the answer is quite obvious. While I hope they give it an accelerated hearing, I doubt this court will.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-band '01
I wonder if they'll just let the Circuit Court ruling stand? It's possible.
It's been traditionally accepted that you can't try a president while in office for criminal acts, but civil you can (see Clinton).
And you are suppose to wait until he's out of office and then try him if the facts support a case.
Just like Mitch says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-lOAvnxfs
Unfortunately, Mitch doesn't have a spine anymore. After the comments Trump made about his wife, you'd have thought Mitch would have clocked him, but nope he bent the knee and kissed the ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9674c080&ei=11
Got to say the republicans could look really really stupid here. They already look kind of stupid, but if the Dem Senators are able to push the aid thru, the amount of stupid on the part of the republicans would take it to another level.
How embarrassing it must be to keep hitching your wagon to losing horses. Taking that big fat L on that loser border bill, and then this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFul0FTWQAAQLLU.jpg
The loser in this is the American people. I thought there was a crisis at the border? Not much of a crisis if your lemming friends continue to let it go at minimum another 18 months.
You should be used to losing. Trump and his cronies have been doing it for 4 years now.
Maybe it's time for another motion to vacate.
Couple of questions. Wouldn’t the proposed bill codify into law (is that redundant?) that 5,000 illegal aliens crossing the border would be legal and allowed into the country subject to certain conditions? Isn’t the current law zero? Also, I think unaccompanied minors from Mexico and Canada don’t count towards the 5,000.
Didn’t Biden recently say he had just spoken with the late president of France who died almost 20 years ago? Where’s the media outcry? Whenever President Trump misspoke, there were psychologists and psychiatrists on the MSM talking about his mental capacity. Hypocritical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In regards to the bill, first, the 5k number is encounters not crossings; if they do "cross," I do not believe that means they are suddenly legal. Not sure where you are getting that information. They'd go thru the asylum process (which is what happens today) which would have been completely revamped and money funneled into it with more funding for detention camps, etc. Under US Immigration law, if you do get asylum, then yes you are considered legal. However, what this bill would have done is make it harder for asylum to be accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by bjf123
Hopefully this is not behind a paywall. If it is, I can try to quote it. It does answer some questions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/u...migration.html
As far as Sleepy Joe. Yeah he's a dementia patient. Neither Biden nor Trump are fit to run, and we really need age limits.
Under existing US law we have an absolute obligation to process asylum seekers. There is not currently a policy that allows the executive to shut down the border and not process those asylum seekers. This bill, as I understand it, would set a bench mark that if the daily encounter number averages over 5,000 the executive can then shutdown the border and stop processing the asylum seekers until the average drops below that number.Quote:
Originally Posted by bjf123
More importantly, it would provide funds to the Courts to speed up the time it takes for an asylum case to be heard, so those that don't qualify are quickly turned away instead of being permitted to remain until their claim is processed.