PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on September 11, 2019, 05:19:52 PM
-
A temporary victory on asylum
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked White House plans to enforce existing asylum laws related to denying asylum to aliens who did not stop at the first country they could seek asylum in. 9th district courts actually made 3 different rulings on this, consistently ignoring other courts in order to get it's way.
Today, the Supreme Court overrode the injunctions nationwide, saying that yes, the White House can enforce laws related to denying asylum and that the injunction is overridden everywhere. Effectively, if an alien did not stop in Mexico to seek asylum, they will now be denied here.
The ruling is not permanent and will last until the SCOTUS takes the case up, presumably in the next term.
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3872.0;attach=1155;image)
-
Outstanding!!
The rule of law beat out the rule of feelings. Maybe there’s hope after all.
Let me guess - a 5-4 ruling?
-
Outstanding!!
The rule of law beat out the rule of feelings. Maybe there’s hope after all.
Let me guess - a 5-4 ruling?
Not a ruling per se - a temporary order, and only Sotomayer and Ginsburg dissented. Text here: https://www.scribd.com/document/425465017/19A230-Order (https://www.scribd.com/document/425465017/19A230-Order)
-
um, it would appear to be a rule of President Trump's administration that was allowed to continue rather than a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
On the surface, the rule doesn't appear to be egregious and does indeed appear to make some sense. But, I haven't read the entire Administration ruling wrt asylum. Asylum, by definition, is protection from something. Why would someone truly seeking asylum bypass one or more places that could provide that protection?
I'm reminded of the concept of emergencies while flying. What are legitimate reasons for bypassing an appropriate airport to land at a different airport farther away?
-
um, it would appear to be a rule of President Trump's administration that was allowed to continue rather than a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
On the surface, the rule doesn't appear to be egregious and does indeed appear to make some sense. But, I haven't read the entire Administration ruling wrt asylum. Asylum, by definition, is protection from something. Why would someone truly seeking asylum bypass one or more places that could provide that protection?
I'm reminded of the concept of emergencies while flying. What are legitimate reasons for bypassing an appropriate airport to land at a different airport farther away?
Yes,it sure sounds like the U.S. is the primary goal, not escaping something. If they are allowed to turn down asylum from the first country, it sure is suspicious that they don’t really need asylum but are using the claim as an excuse to get to the U.S. specifically.
-
The SCOTUS decision was to override the national and even the regional injunction by a single judge 9th district. In effect, it is limiting judicial power and to some extent demilitarizing the judiciary.
The complaint is that the president isn’t following the law when he wants to require an asylum seeker to stop in the first safe country - they argue Mexico isn’t safe.. The president says Mexico is not a country known for political persecution, so anyone coming through Mexico is ineligible for asylum unless they have first been denied in Mexico. The judge’s ruling was to ignore that law and tell everyone just to come to America.
-
The SCOTUS decision was to override the national and even the regional injunction by a single judge 9th district. In effect, it is limiting judicial power and to some extent demilitarizing the judiciary.
The complaint is that the president isn’t following the law when he wants to require an asylum seeker to stop in the first safe country - they argue Mexico isn’t safe.. The president says Mexico is not a country known for political persecution, so anyone coming through Mexico is ineligible for asylum unless they have first been denied in Mexico. The judge’s ruling was to ignore that law and tell everyone just to come to America.
So why do the libs say Mexico isn't safe? Are they saying there are "bad dudes" in Mexico? Rapists? Child molesters? Gang members? Violent thugs?
Remember how the libs reacted when Trump said that?
-
So why do the libs say Mexico isn't safe? Are they saying there are "bad dudes" in Mexico? Rapists? Child molesters? Gang members? Violent thugs?
Remember how the libs reacted when Trump said that?
Be careful, you are sounding very logical.
-
So why do the libs say Mexico isn't safe? Are they saying there are "bad dudes" in Mexico? Rapists? Child molesters? Gang members? Violent thugs?
Remember how the libs reacted when Trump said that?
The Democrats, and their progressive useful idiot minions, don't care about the nature of the people coming here illegally. They are OK with them being criminals, terrorists, MS-13, identity thieves, or just scammers that use our system at our expense. They only want the potential votes that will guarantee one party Democrat rule. The illegal, violent ends justify the means to these anti American progressives.
-
The Democrats, and their progressive useful idiot minions, don't care about the nature of the people coming here illegally. They are OK with them being criminals, terrorists, MS-13, identity thieves, or just scammers that use our system at our expense. They only want the potential votes that will guarantee one party Democrat rule. The illegal, violent ends justify the means to these anti American progressives.
That is so transparent, but so true.
When Trump calls out the truth about some illegal aliens being criminals, the left in turn has a well honed narrative that Trump thinks ALL immigrants (note the word ALL and IMMIGRANTS vs illegal aliens) are criminals, terrorists, rapists, etc. It’s actually pathetic, and an 8th grade debate class could eviscerate their argument, if not for the fact that they will attack the truth teller and call him or her vile things like Racist in order to quash the debate.
By the way, that’s why the left love MSNBC and CNN spewing their company line. Other than conservatives yelling at their TV, they can spew their shit with impunity because no one can challenge them in real time.
-
So why do the libs say Mexico isn't safe?
Solely because they want more barbarians in Rome. Errr.,,Hispanics in the US.