SIAP: Federal judge calls Iowa's immigration law 'not defensible,' grants injunction
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
The federal government filed suit. Maybe they should enforce laws rather than fight states. 🤔
These are the types of predicaments you get yourself in to when you have no actual morals.
Well done dems.
The Biden administration is going to sign an executive order today backtracking everything they have done for the last 3 years, while activily fighting the states for enforcing laws, they could have been using foe the last 3 years........
Yes, being somewhere illegally is in fact illegal.
Funny how "illegal immigrant" disappeared until the dems started to poll that they had enough.
Mental pretzels.
Well done dems.
The Biden administration is going to sign an executive order today backtracking everything they have done for the last 3 years, while activily fighting the states for enforcing laws, they could have been using foe the last 3 years........
Yes, being somewhere illegally is in fact illegal.
Funny how "illegal immigrant" disappeared until the dems started to poll that they had enough.
Mental pretzels.
Ummm...preventing states from doing things like this IS enforcing the law.
Link to the law that's being enforced by doing this?...
“The "illegal reentry" law, signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds in April, made it a state offense for people to enter Iowa after being deported from or denied entry to the U.S., or failing to depart when ordered.”
How is this even remotely controversial?
Judge Democrats by their actions, not their empty lies.
How is this even remotely controversial?
Judge Democrats by their actions, not their empty lies.
I guess you missed that the SC has ruled on this. That is the law, you know. Or did you miss civics completely?
The further extreme left the Left goes, the further right Iowa goes.
Waiting for Biden to apologize to the attacker and his family for the zenophobia he has faced.
Reading comprehension tripping you up again?
"As a matter of politics, the new legislation might be defensible. As a matter of constitutional law, it is not," Locher wrote. "Under binding Supreme Court precedent, Senate File 2340 (this) is preempted in its entirety by federal law and thus is invalid under the Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
As in the litigation against the Texas law, Locher found the Iowa law runs afoul of a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (that). In that case, the court largely struck down an Arizona law creating state-level immigration offenses, finding the state laws interfered with and were preempted by federal law.
smh
So was this the good supreme court or the bad supreme court,.. I've lost track...
Do you think that matters? The only question is whether or not it's the law. Do you not understand that? You guys seemed to miss a LOT of civics class.
Step beyond that and understand that the law doesn't matter if nobody is willing to enforce it,.. Might as well throw the entire phucking program out the window...
No. I didn’t read the entire article and you weren’t explicitly referencing it. That’s what poor communication can do.
Now to the law.
I find it interesting that Democrats in federal power firstly refuse to enforce federal law they seemingly don’t agree with, then sue States that wish to enforce Federal laws on their own. Then sign treaties to allow foreign nations to refuse to accept back their citizens if they so choose not to take them back.
Un ****ing believeable.
1) Dems in Fed agencies, with direction from POTUS, refuse to enforce immigration law.
2) Dems prevent other Americans from enforcing immigration law.
3) Dems set up every imaginable roadblock for anyone to oppose their anti-American actions.
These are the Actions of Democrats. They no longer serve the interests of the United States. They are misguided and border on treasonous by their own words and deeds.
You shouldn't lie. It makes you appear to be liars. Nobody likes liars except other liars...which would explain your "head up Trump's ass" status.
This is since 2015:
From May 2023 to January 2024, the latest available data, there have been 520,000 returns and removals. The next highest number is the 518,000 returns and removals in fiscal year 2019, under the Trump administration.
The US also turned away more than 2 million at the border under Title 42 in 2021 and 2022.
That's called "enforcing immigration law" for the slow learners. Those numbers haven't kept up with encounters, however. Makes one wonder why you and yours fought so hard against increasing funding...in an election year. I would say it's curious behavior...but it isn't, at all. Standard GOP playbook...scream about a "crisis" and staunchly refuse to do anything about it so you have a campaign "issue".
Why in their right mind would anyone vote to increase border funding for an administration that simply wants to process illegals a higher rate of speed?,.. No thanks.
The problem is they CAN'T be processed "at a higher rate" because there's no money to do so. The whole point of the legislation was to increase the ability to process them.
That's the point rocket surgeon,.. I do not want them processed at a higher rate of speed. I want them processed at a rate that can be handled safely, in a proper fashion, with the budget we have,.. They can stand in line.
Last edited:
You literally have to process them to dispose of their case, dimmest of bulbs. Absent that, you have to put them somewhere. The faster you deal with the case, the faster you can send them wherever they warrant being sent - including back where they came from.
Require them to report to an official port of entry where they will be processed at the rate that we can properly accommodate,.. Prior to that they wait in line, on the Mexico side of the border.
LOL...how, exactly, is that better than processing them more quickly to dispense with their cases?
It gets done safely, correctly, and at a rate that can be properly supported by the country's ability to adequately accommodate vetted asylum seekers,.. In other words, not the cluster phuck we currently have.
And if you commit more resources, it gets done far more safely, correctly, and at a rate that clears those "vetted asylum seekers" preventing them having to live in hovels for months or years waiting for their cases to be heard.
You failed. Try again?
Zero phucks given about trying to attain a processing rate that satisfies the rest of the world,... This is about us, we are the dog, we wag the tail...
I, quite literally, have no idea what the hell that means other than, perhaps, you delight in seeing "brown people" living in squalor. Is that it?
I delight in us having actual control of our country,.. These artificial asylum seekers, coming from all over the globe, no matter their color, are totally free to accept asylum in any one of the numerous countries that they've passed through on their way to our doorstep,.. They can very easily choose to skip squalor and just get on with their life at the first available safe stop.
Last edited:
I imagine her emphasis right now is delaying the lawsuit from the student athletes from ISU and Iowa and trying to hide all paperwork and electronic messaging as the State looks like they'll be making a MASSIVE payment and gutting that supposed budget surplus.
Not to mention that for people whose lives are at risk, the longer that process takes the more danger they’re in.
Rifler is apparently okay with a process that takes years…which is as fast as they can go with the resources they have currently.
Is it 10 million or 12 million illegals in US since Biden took office on a pledge to unwind all of Trump’s immigration policies?
Who is the liar here?
*Unless that country, by treaty, doesn’t want them back. Then well shucks I guess we gotta keep them.
Who signed that stupid fockin’ treaty? We never should have agreed to subordinate our immigration laws to third world countries positions. Now we have no recourse. This is intentional. The signer and designers knew exactly what they were doing.
That is why I say watch their actions, not their lies.
That's what I want to do,.. the right thing for us.
Similar threads
