Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

retrofade

Supreme Court rules Trump administration cannot end DACA

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

There is such a thing. I would say that using that term for the people in question is maybe the single ugliest thing in all of this. 

It was the disingenuous retro that accuses people he disagrees with of being disingenuous in a disingenuous accusation of one being disingenuous.  However, this accusation is mild compared to his frequent name calling of various conservatives on this board.

He brought up the 5 year old, not me. My position on this matter has been pretty consistent for nearly a decade on this board, feel free to search if you wish.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

It was the disingenuous retro that accuses people he disagrees with of being disingenuous in a disingenuous accusation of one being disingenuous.  However, this accusation is mild compared to his frequent name calling of various conservatives on this board.

He brought up the 5 year old, not me. My position on this matter has been pretty consistent for nearly a decade on this board, feel free to search if you wish.

Pre-Daca did you advocate all these people we now call dreamers self-deport since they were knowingly breaking the law? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Pre-Daca did you advocate all these people we now call dreamers self-deport since they were knowingly breaking the law? 

My wife and I came real close to sponsoring someone almost 10 years ago.  Although the woman about was about 30 at the time, she was brought here by her mom when she was 9.  I was ignorant of the law, it's cruelty to such innocents, or even the existence of this particular problem.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Pre-Daca did you advocate all these people we now call dreamers self-deport since they were knowingly breaking the law? 

Nah he probably supported them until the dreaded Obama did something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

My wife and I came real close to sponsoring someone almost 10 years ago.  Although the woman about was about 30 at the time, she was brought here by her mom when she was 9.  I was ignorant of the law, it's cruelty to such innocents, or even the existence of this particular problem.

But once were are adults, they were no longer “innocent”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Apparently you remain uneducated and are unwilling to educate yourself which is surprising for all the time you spend on this board.   Many of the people I reference were legal residents.   Yes they broke the law in their youth and paid the societal imposed price at the time.   Now 5-10-15 years later the Trump administration is coming back and deporting them for past sins.   

I bolded and underlined the point for you this time so perhaps it will sink in.   If you are going to make a counter argument at least make it pertinent to the situational facts instead of changing the situation into something that fits your uninformed narrative.

Its not complicated....all i am saying is that anyone who illegally crosses the border without doing the paperwork risks their or their family's residency.  

Now we have a previous prez unconstitutional exec order that cant be undone.

The scotus just gave their power to the exec branch.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people seem to be missing the point of the ruling.

 

The decision was that Trump didnt give a good enough reason to shut down DACA.  Then they handed him a roadmap on how to do it.  The opinion written by Roberts specifically stated they werent ruling on the merits of DACA or on shutting it down, but that the administration simply didnt follow proper procedure to do so.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Its not complicated....all i am saying is that anyone who illegally crosses the border without doing the paperwork risks their or their family's residency.  

Now we have a previous prez unconstitutional exec order that cant be undone.

The scotus just gave their power to the exec branch.

 

 

Fine so answer the question about those who did come legally as they are also getting deported. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Nah he probably supported them until the dreaded Obama did something about it.

I just thought there was a path to citizenship for these people. It wasn't until we met with an immigration attorney that I learned what the law was regarding adults who were brought into this country illegally as a child. For the woman we knew, her only path to citizenship at the time was sponsorship by somebody with a certain level of financial ability. One of the reasons we backed out, was there was no indication of what our ultimate liability could be. There was no disomaster for sponsorship, just a vague notion that you had to support The individual and their minor children at the federal poverty level or something like that. Apparently she has some kind of status now, and is able to work.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

I just thought there was a path to citizenship for these people. It wasn't until we met with an immigration attorney that I learned what the law was regarding adults who were brought into this country illegally as a child. For the woman we knew, her only path to citizenship at the time was sponsorship by somebody with a certain level of financial ability. One of the reasons we backed out, was there was no indication of what our ultimate liability could be. There was no disomaster for sponsorship, just a vague notion that you had to support The individual and their minor children at the federal poverty level or something like that. Apparently she has some kind of status now, and is able to work.

Good for you.  Why don’t you look into what has happened with some legal immigrants who have been deported and their families.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jackrabbit said:

Its not complicated....all i am saying is that anyone who illegally crosses the border without doing the paperwork risks their or their family's residency.  

Now we have a previous prez unconstitutional exec order that cant be undone.

The scotus just gave their power to the exec branch.

Yes it can, and in the Roberts’ crazy ruling he lays out a road map how to do it.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RSF said:

Some people seem to be missing the point of the ruling.

 

The decision was that Trump didnt give a good enough reason to shut down DACA.  Then they handed him a roadmap on how to do it.  The opinion written by Roberts specifically stated they werent ruling on the merits of DACA or on shutting it down, but that the administration simply didnt follow proper procedure to do so.

Crap, you had it covered. Curse the skimming back read.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Yes it can, and in the Roberts’ crazy ruling he lays out a road map how to do it.

@Jackrabbit has a significant reading comprehension problem.  He answered my post about legal immigrants with a point of crossIng the border illegally and ignored your point that Roberts laid out a roadmap to end it. Those of us who care will be chipping in to send him to a reading comprehension class in the hope his response become relevant to what is posted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

@Jackrabbit has a significant reading comprehension problem.  He answered my post about legal immigrants with a point of crossIng the border illegally and ignored your point that Roberts laid out a roadmap to end it. Those of us who care will be chipping in to send him to a reading comprehension class in the hope his response become relevant to what is posted.  

In his defense, it’s what the thread title implies.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sactowndog said:

@Jackrabbit has a significant reading comprehension problem.  He answered my post about legal immigrants with a point of crossIng the border illegally and ignored your point that Roberts laid out a roadmap to end it. Those of us who care will be chipping in to send him to a reading comprehension class in the hope his response become relevant to what is posted.  

Did you tattle to Mommy too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

14th amendment change or abolition would be required, no?  There hasn't been an amendment about the people for half-a-century, and all the other portions of the 14th make it almost as bulletproof as the 2nd.

Not. a frickin. clue.

 

ezgif-5-959914ff2250.gif.f0cc4fc558f5a154dc6ff5904c80bf34.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Good for you.  Why don’t you look into what has happened with some legal immigrants who have been deported and their families.  

Wife sucks, we can't import half the world. I'm all for legal immigration, we need to get a temporary program like there was back in the 1960s.

 

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2020 at 8:34 AM, rudolro said:

Ruling on his taxes are next week. Watch the meltdown over that ruling. It should be 9-0

Pundits have almost unanimously said Grumpy goan lose. But 9-zip? Not a chance. Clarence Thomas has voted against Republican positions like twice in his life and Kavanaugh owes Trump one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really frustrating seeing ppl  invoke the reconstruction amendments re: "Rights". When you do so, you forfeit your Rights under the first eight amendments to the Constitution, and turn "rights" over to whatever the ten square miles known as D.C. decides they will be, iow not much.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments do not establish Rights, they take them away.

Those amendments did not abolish slavery, they changed the terms and conditions from forcing it to opting in.

If you have to be a "citizen", do not be a United States citizen, be a state citizen.

 

ezgif-5-959914ff2250.gif.f0cc4fc558f5a154dc6ff5904c80bf34.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Wife sucks, we can't import half the world. I'm all for legal immigration, we need to get a temporary program like there was back in the 1960s.

 

You lost me at import half the world.  If we just use actual data to discuss legal and illegal immigration,  it might help people understand the other sides perspective.  Trump was the absolute worst president to try and tackle this issue.  The SC ruling is just another in a long line of examples.  Had another Republican won, combined with a Republican controlled Senate and House at the time, there might have been a snowballs chance at legislation addressing the issue.  Instead, the SC basically had to put the administration in its place.  We deserve better from our leaders on both sides of the aisle, specifically the guy at the top.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...