Why in theeeee hell would you overturn "stay in mexico"

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

So Trump signed a order that said immigrants needed to stay in Mexico while their cases were heard here in the US. What in Kentucky fried chicken **** is the point of overturning that?

‘Quédate en México’: la Corte Suprema respalda a Biden para finalizar el programa

La política migratoria se puso en marcha durante el gobierno de Trump y derivó en que decenas de miles de personas deben esperar en campamentos inseguros las audiencias sobre sus casos.

www.google.com

It's like he is purposely trying to do dumb shit.

 

[RileyHawk]

Why in the hell are you still posting?

 

[Finance85]

So Trump signed a order that said immigrants needed to stay in Mexico while their cases were heard here in the US. What in Kentucky fried chicken **** is the point of overturning that?

‘Quédate en México’: la Corte Suprema respalda a Biden para finalizar el programa

La política migratoria se puso en marcha durante el gobierno de Trump y derivó en que decenas de miles de personas deben esperar en campamentos inseguros las audiencias sobre sus casos.

www.google.com

It's like he is purposely trying to do dumb shit.

The Administration argued that under the law, it was unable to detain illegals until resolution of their cases. The operative word in the law is "may", which provides discretion to the Executive.

When it comes to the good of the country, there's no good reason to change the policy, but Biden has the right to do so.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

The Administration argued that under the law, it was unable to detain illegals until resolution of their cases. The operative word in the law is "may", which provides discretion to the Executive.

When it comes to the good of the country, there's no good reason to change the policy, but Biden has the right to do so.

Unfortunately that makes all the sense in the world. J.F.C.

 

[Hawkeyenuts66]

So Trump signed a order that said immigrants needed to stay in Mexico while their cases were heard here in the US. What in Kentucky fried chicken **** is the point of overturning that?

‘Quédate en México’: la Corte Suprema respalda a Biden para finalizar el programa

La política migratoria se puso en marcha durante el gobierno de Trump y derivó en que decenas de miles de personas deben esperar en campamentos inseguros las audiencias sobre sus casos.

www.google.com

It's like he is purposely trying to do dumb shit.

The party of open borders.

 

[goldmom]

The party of open borders.

Over 239,000 this month alone.

 

[fivecardstud14]

Over 239,000 this month alone.

Oh dear god! This can't be happening!

 

[Joes Place]

So Trump signed a order that said immigrants needed to stay in Mexico while their cases were heard here in the US. What in Kentucky fried chicken **** is the point of overturning that?

‘Quédate en México’: la Corte Suprema respalda a Biden para finalizar el programa

La política migratoria se puso en marcha durante el gobierno de Trump y derivó en que decenas de miles de personas deben esperar en campamentos inseguros las audiencias sobre sus casos.

www.google.com

It's like he is purposely trying to do dumb shit.

Because it goes against US law.

 

[Finance85]

Because it goes against US law.

Jeesh, can you ever be more wrong. Trump was actually following the law. If you would read the opinion, you might, just might be able to see that. Trump was also following the intent of the law. Biden is following the letter of the law. Both have discretion because of the word "may" in the law.

 

[Slappy Pappy]

Because it goes against US law.

Because business needs workers.

The court is just doing the republicans' bidding. While the leaders use populist, anti-immigrant rhetoric to get votes, the corporateers who fund the party are desperate for the low-wage drones and new customers that mass immigration brings to our country.

Without immigration, the US would have seen no or negative population growth over the past 20-30+ years, and would have closet to 270m people, rather than 330m. Immigration is good for business, and big business is the engine that drives the republican party.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Because it goes against US law.

Does it go against the law or does the law say the president has the discretion? Honest question. Link?

 

[Joes Place]

Biden is following the letter of the law.

Yes. This is what I'd posted.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Yes. This is what I'd posted.

So it's a discretion issue?


Seems like a terrible choice by Biden.

 

[Finance85]

Does it go against the law or does the law say the president has the discretion? Honest question. Link?

You asked the right question, and obviously know the correct answer.

 

[Finance85]

Yes. This is what I'd posted.

No it isn't. You said Trump's policy is against US law. Post #8.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

You asked the right question, and obviously know the correct answer.

I truly didn't know when I originally asked but it appears it's a discretion thing.




Seems like a really dumb idea for a guy who can't seem to get out of his own way.

 

[Finance85]

I truly didn't know when I originally asked but it appears it's a discretion thing.




Seems like a really dumb idea for a guy who can't seem to get out of his own way.

He's simply doing what is expedient. Heck, Biden's probably not even the major decision maker on this. Someone else probably brought the issue to him, explained what they wanted to do, and said, "are you ok with this?".

 

[NoleATL]

The Administration argued that under the law, it was unable to detain illegals until resolution of their cases. The operative word in the law is "may", which provides discretion to the Executive.

When it comes to the good of the country, there's no good reason to change the policy, but Biden has the right to do so.

We certainly have jobs for them...

 

[Joes Place]

He's simply doing what is expedient.

Actually, I think the Court is doing what's "expedient".

Improperly upholding something that benefitted Trump (but was wrong); now allowing it to be reversed so that the rightwing media can continue to beat the "open borders" drum against Biden.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Actually, I think the Court is doing what's "expedient".

Improperly upholding something that benefitted Trump (but was wrong); now allowing it to be reversed so that the rightwing media can continue to beat the "open borders" drum against Biden.

Simple question: do you think this is a good idea?

 

[nu2u]

He's simply doing what is expedient. Heck, Biden's probably not even the major decision maker on this. Someone else probably brought the issue to him, explained what they wanted to do, and said, "are you ok with this?".

Yeah, that's exactly how it went down. Jesus.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Yeah, that's exactly how it went down. Jesus.

Is this a good idea by Biden?



(Fwiw I've noticed our political views are about as far away from each other as possible but our views on iowa football are like lockstep)

 

[h-hawk]

One of the very few things where I agreed with trump and the Supreme Court even F'd that up.

 

[Finance85]

Actually, I think the Court is doing what's "expedient".

Improperly upholding something that benefitted Trump (but was wrong); now allowing it to be reversed so that the rightwing media can continue to beat the "open borders" drum against Biden.

Trump followed the law. The same discretion that Biden used was available to Trump, though Trump didn't need discretion because he followed the law without needing the word "may".

No, this wasn't expedient for the Court. It was a 5-4 vote with Roberts and Kavanaugh voting with the liberal justices.

Dude, you're on a roll today. Downhill.

 

[86Hawkeye]

I heard it was impossible for democrats to win a case at the current SCOTUS.

 

[Joes Place]

Trump followed the law.

No; he did not.

The law states that to ask for asylum, you MUST be in the US to do it. That is the legal code.
And it provides NO legal rationale to deport anyone to another country while they wait for a decision on the matter.

 

[nu2u]

Is this a good idea by Biden?



(Fwiw I've noticed our political views are about as far away from each other as possible but our views on iowa football are like lockstep)

It is the proper legal decision.

As a mater of policy, I have mixed feelings about making asylum seekers who properly present at the border wait outside the country until their claim is adjudicated. A short wait to screen for public health and national security reasons seems reasonable.

Its unfortunate but these asylum seekers have been relentlessly vilified and essentially de-humanized. In the end, I come down on the humanitarian side. IMO Its always a good idea to take the humanitarian route. This is consistent with America's long standing policy and, frankly, lines up perfectly with Christian teaching.

 

[Finance85]

No; he did not.

The law states that to ask for asylum, you MUST be in the US to do it. That is the legal code.
And it provides NO legal rationale to deport anyone to another country while they wait for a decision on the matter.

The law says that anyone here without legal authority must be detained, or deported. If there are not proper facilities, the POTUS may allow release based on individual review.

 

[Finance85]

It is the proper legal decision.

As a mater of policy, I have mixed feelings about making asylum seekers who properly present at the border wait outside the country until their claim is adjudicated. A shorter wait to screen for public health and national security reasons seems reasonable.

Its unfortunate but these asylum seekers have been relentlessly vilified and essentially de-humanized. Im the end, I come down on the humanitarian side. IMO Its always a good idea to take the humanitarian route. This is consistent with America's long standing policy and, frankly, lines up perfectly with Christian teaching.

The problem with asylum seekers is they are all lumped together with that label. There are clear criteria set out in immigration law for asylum, but that processed is being abused. It's not supposed to encompass economic conditions, and that's the real reason most of the asylum seekers are coming here. They are being instructed on what to say in order to have a chance at getting in.

I admire your humanitarianism. That said, the US taxpayers can't foot the bill for everyone. We have an incredible amount of national debt, and aren't able to properly care for our own citizens.

 

[Joes Place]

The law says that anyone here without legal authority must be detained, or deported.

Nope

Not people applying for asylum

 

[Joes Place]

The problem with asylum seekers is they are all lumped together with that label. There are clear criteria set out in immigration law for asylum, but that processed is being abused.

This is not a reason to disregard the laws on the books here.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Has the administration ended it yet?

 

[torbee]

Because business needs workers.

The court is just doing the republicans' bidding. While the leaders use populist, anti-immigrant rhetoric to get votes, the corporateers who fund the party are desperate for the low-wage drones and new customers that mass immigration brings to our country.

Without immigration, the US would have seen no or negative population growth over the past 20-30+ years, and would have closet to 270m people, rather than 330m. Immigration is good for business, and big business is the engine that drives the republican party.

This is accurate.

 

[Jan Itor]

We certainly have jobs for them...

Also have soft targets for a few of them, no doubt.

 

[nu2u]

I admire your humanitarianism. That said, the US taxpayers can't foot the bill for everyone. We have an incredible amount of national debt, and aren't able to properly care for our own citizens.

You are failiing to take ino account the positive impact immigrants contribute to our economy and culture.

 

[SB_SB]

Over 239,000 this month alone.

Good, maybe now we can get someone who will work at Dairy Queen so it’s open when I go.

 

[Moral]

I am also terrified of people that want to come here to work and make a better life for themselves. Shits spooky.

 

[Finance85]

You are failiing to take ino account the positive impact immigrants contribute to our economy and culture.

No, I'm not. No other developed country in the world lets non-citizens enter like we do. Not even the Central American countries where a lot of the people are coming from.

 

[Finance85]

This is not a reason to disregard the laws on the books here.

You're doubling down on being wrong. Typical for you. Trump didn't break any law. Biden hasn't either, because of a single word in the law.

 

[Colonoscopy]

Jeesh, can you ever be more wrong. Trump was actually following the law. If you would read the opinion, you might, just might be able to see that. Trump was also following the intent of the law. Biden is following the letter of the law. Both have discretion because of the word "may" in the law.

Maybe the court actually has... principles and a guiding philosophy.