There not illegal when they cross at a point of entry. Maybe you need to go watch a few YouTube videos to educate yourself on the process
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;1236725]Classic the only place immigrants live are #^&#^&#^&#^&. Holes

Not a student of history are you. All those cities and many more have always been immigrant cities from Irish Italian Portuguese Puerto Rican Cuban Nigerian Vietnamese Afghan..

. Next you’ll suggest sending them to Block island . Then complain when they get relocated because there are no facilities to house them

What new lies will you tell in 2023.

First it was dominion voting machines and dead people, that couldn’t be proven. Then it was 2000 mules which was totally debunked.A touch of Maricopa county election hacking which was totally unproven. Then they blamed QR codes. Now it’s all about Twitter. I wonder what the election deniers and the invasion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=wdmso;1236730]RR’s opinions shouldn’t surprise anyone, he is our resident super narcissist and Trump mini me.

I was just making a little funny. Your comment "If their on a bus they have legal status" made me laugh.

BTW, not all of them crossed at a point of entry. Regarding those that were bussed to other cities, a google search (not youtube--gee golly I educated myself with something other than youtube, which, actually I do often) stated "Tens of thousands of migrants who cross the border illegally from Mexico are released in the United States each month with notices to appear in immigration court to pursue asylum . . ." This was directly in regards to the question if those that have been bussed elsewhere were here legally.

So the "legal status" you referred to, for many, if not most, is temporary, and many, if not most, will be sent back to whence they came if the law is followed properly.

Unless they just remained on the bus forever, as you said, "If they're on a bus they have legal status."

i didn’t mean to claim you think they should ( i’m confident you don’t believe that, but wayne thinks that, because he thinks the crisis is all a right wing myth) but the fact is, they are. They bear the brunt of this. it’s not even close to fair.

havent the feds bussed and flown these people around in the middle of the night as well? but that’s ok?

Agreed, they should be told they’re coming. That’s not much to ask!

Every state should have to take a proportionate share. Nothing unfair about that. But the islanders on the Vineyard had no interest in that. They claim they have no infrastructure for them. Who does?

Hard to believe we can’t agree that it’s a good idea to have a sealed up border. But the two sides can’t agree even in that.

Anyway hope you guys had a good holiday and enjoy an awesome 2023.

that’s legal immigrants, right? data that doesn’t include illegals, is meaningless.

But if Abbott sent EVERY busload to the vineyard you and Ronnie's arguement seem to be that they should ALL be allowed to stay there.


Both sides need to agree on comprehensive immigration reform from border security to visas to allowing PHD students we train to stay here - and more.

Ya Jim you’re back to you (what about the ones we don’t know )

They go we’re other immigrants live it not rocket science And actually the data doesn’t s specify legal or illegal.

Your a numbers guy. Why would you think un documented people would change those % by any meaningful percentage points

Estimates of the number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. range from 10.5 million to 12 million, or approximately 3.2%–3.6% of the population.

so Jim you and republicans need to make up your minds and stop moving the goalposts

Is it a broken immigration system, or is it securing the same border Trump left Biden. That now it’s magically open ? Or is it dems importing Votes , or is it fentanyl

Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench

Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth

In his written dissent, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said he did not discount the states’ concerns about a potential border crisis but said “the emergency” on which the Title 42 orders were adopted “has long since lapsed.”

“For my part, I do not discount the States’ concerns,” wrote Gorsuch, who was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’d never seriously say that martha’s vineyard should take them all. They couldn’t come close to all fitting there. But the optics were pretty funny that the wealthiest liberals to be found who advocate for these policies, called in the military to get them the hell off their little exclusive island enclave. “not in my backyard” kind of a thing.

Paul, i have said many times the GOP is too pigheaded and extremist when it comes to guns. I’d say the same thing about democrats when it comes to border security.

If people like you were in congress, you’d figure it out before lunch on the first day. Because it’s not hard to figure out border security if you are guided by logic rather than by partisan rhetoric. I’d bet there are very few western developed nations that are as far away as we are, from dealing with it. Because we elect whores instead of problem
solvers, and that applies to both sides.

i think gorsuch has a point, but i don’t know if we know that covid isn’t still a crisis among people
who are crossing illegally.

in any event, unlike you, i don’t expect those on my side to tow the line 100% of the time. i like people who think, not sheep who bleat what they are told.

I love Gorsuch.

Title 42 has been used by the federal government to expel asylum seekers without a hearing since the Trump administration instituted it in March 2020. It was never about Covid and all Republicans attorneys generals are in collusion to keep a policy in place they know is being illegally

Title 42 expulsions are removals by the U.S. government of persons who have recently been in a country where a communicable disease was present. The extent of authority for contagion-related expulsions is set out by law in 42 U.S.C. § 265.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it were illegal, any number of lefty organizations would have sued on their behalf and won.

Trump did it, therefore in your mind it MUST be illegal and immoral.

Here's a radical idea...you want to enter a country, follow their rules and do it legally, not necessarily the way that's most convenient for you at the time! Crazy I know!

I don't think Wayne understands what legislating from the bench is. Gorsuch was doing the opposite of that. His choice was to strike down a policy, not create one.

And he also pointed out even though the border crisis, in his opinion, was no longer a Covid one, that it is still a crisis. Don't see how any of that makes him a Rino as Wayne implied. Republicans ("Conservatives") would agree with Gorsuch that, in his words, "We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.” As well, they would agree, as they have been vociferously saying, that the border situation is a crisis.

Democrats (Progressives), on the other hand, for the past hundred years, have acted as if the Court should create policies. And they have a problem with admitting that there is any unusual crisis at the border--nor do they seem anxious to stem the tide of border crossers.

Democrats were against Democrat written (Republican passed) 1964 Civil Rights Bill until Democrat LBJ discovered "N-worders will be voting Democrat for the next 200 years" behind receiving Government welfare.
Illegal aliens are nothing more than Democrat pawns so Democrats can continue to cheat elections.

In 2013 Dems passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill in the Senate.
House Republicans refused to allow the bill to even be debated.
Obama asked the Republicans to propose their own bill.
Republicans refused.
Then Republicans demanded Obama do something about illegal immigration!
So Obama used his executive authority to enact some immigration reforms.
Republicans were outraged and called him a tyrant for doing exactly what they asked him to do.
Because Republicans only know how to corrupt and destroy. Name one constructive thing the GOP has done in the last 10 years.
I’m listening…
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Triggering youse.

Democrats told President Reagan pass 'comprehensive immigration reform' and we'll send them all back next time.
Of course, lying, America hating, baby killing Democrats lied, as Democrats always do.
Name me one thing positive Tories/Democrats have EVER done for this County.

You really dont pay attention do you ... who voted to keep it? and are now legislating from the bench.. and republicans suddenly support it.

yes the daggers are already out for Gorsuch from the faithful who are disgusted he broke ranks ...

but please keep thinking that's not happening

Jim do you ever read

Sullivan’s ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in January 2021 by the American Civil Liberties Union and two Texas-based immigrant rights groups that argued Title 42 violated U.S. asylum laws and that the Trump administration used the pandemic as a pretext to invoke Title 42 and use it as an immigration tool.

Last month, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s use of the order to prevent people from accessing the asylum process is “arbitrary and capricious” and a violation of the law because it was not implemented properly.

Guess missed that

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., denied a request from 19 Republican-led states, including Texas, that had asked the three-judge panel to delay lifting the order — known as Title 42 — on Dec. 21. The judges said the states’ request came too late in the process. The states could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

like I said to the republicans its about immigration not a disease

Another Cult member living in a fantasy.

Then showing us in writing its true Illegal aliens are nothing more than Democrat pawns so Democrats can continue to cheat elections.

let me Guess. I bet you support sedition the Jan6th rioters and the attempted overthrow of an american election by a sitting POTUS...

Because you are such a America Lover

I try to pay attention to what you say, but you make it difficult to do. Some of the stuff you say is crazier than stuff Trump says, and it's just as disjointed as his rhetoric. I couldn't tell, from the way you presented it, if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench or if it was the other Justices. In either case, you didn't make it clear how they, whoever, was doing the legislating. Voting to keep a policy that was put in place by Congress, or the President, is not legislating from the bench--it is affirming that existing legislation, or policy, made by those others as constitutional. It's what SCOTUS is supposed to do, affirm or strike down. Neither of those decisions is "legislating." Legislating from the bench is when Judges impose their personal opinion (rather than the Constitution) on the law in question in ways that the Judges subjectively consider "good" or socially "just" for society, regardless of, or entirely outside of, the scope and intent of the policy in question--thusly creating "legislation" that was not passed by Congress into law.

It can't tell if you either don't know what you're talking about, or you actually believe that Judges affirming or striking down a law is legislating from the bench. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that the judges are supposed to legislate from the bench since upholding or striking down a law is their constitutional duty--which, I guess, would be sort of the same as you not knowing what you're talking about.

if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench

I never made such a suggestion

Just pointing out Gorsuch doesn’t feel the court should be legislating from the bench

And I wrote

“Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “


Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth

Not sure how you misread my meaning?

In his written dissent, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said he did not discount the states’ concerns about a potential border crisis but said “the emergency” on which the Title 42 orders were adopted “has long since lapsed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said, it's difficult to pay attention to you because your writing is so disjointed. You said “Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “ Ok, so, since SCJ stands for Supreme Court Justice (singular-one Judge), and you then followed that with "Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth"--a single Judge who was the only one you named--and named right after your comment about legislating from the bench.

That was confusing. If not Gorsuch, to which other Judge were you referring? And regardless of which Judge, or Judges, to whom you referred, how were any of them legislating from the bench? I wondered how you considered any of them to be legislating rather than adjudicating. And it seemed to me that if you considered their adjudication to be legislation, then that would indicate that you would believe they were supposed to legislate from the bench since their purpose is to adjudicate, which they did, and you called that legislating.

Your writing was confusing, disjointed, very Trumpesque.

I not a writer. You’ll get no argument from me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jeepers youse Democrats have withdrawn the President Donald J Trump subpoena.

Yeah, because the investigation is over and they made referrals to the DOJ...

Don't feed the troll.

Sorry, I forgot who I was responding to:hidin:

What no answer! yes or no ? Nope

just more defection

But you got response’s when it involves

cake bakers must not be forced to bake queers cake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well RR could use a crazy partner and Jim could use someone deflecting the attention from his crazy shrouded in whataboutism.

If you don't like being exposed as a hypocrite, I'd suggest you try to avoid engaging in hypocrisy.

Bob, if you criticize a republican for doing something...why isn't it a valid response if I point to an example of a democrat you support, who did something similar?

Why isn't it valid to expect that you hold both sides to a similar standard?

Labeling it "whatabout-ism", isn't refuting it.

I'm sure you have a very thoughtful, reasoned reply.

The lefties here wants to expel a republican who lied about his education and work experience. And I agree he should be kicked out. I agree 100%.

But none of you has any problem whatsoever, with a democrat in the US senate who lied for years about serving in the Vietnam War.

So it seems to me, you don't actually have a principle that "politicians should have to be honest". Rather, your principle is that republicans must always be criticized, and that democrats must never be criticized.

Try making that wrong.