Multiple busloads of migrants were dropped off at Vice President Kamala Harris’s resi

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If their on a bus they have legal status.

Wow . . . the illegal immigrants should immediately hop a bus when they cross the border . . . and stay on it . . . they could take up residence there and always have legal status . . .

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Wow . . . the illegal immigrants should immediately hop a bus when they cross the border . . . and stay on it . . . they could take up residence there and always have legal status . . .

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

[Pete F.]

Since their unexpected arrival last month — and following a brief stay at Joint Base Cape Cod — 47 of the Martha’s Vineyard migrants have found housing in Massachusetts.

“They are now living in Lowell, Brockton, Stoughton, Provincetown, and other towns on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard,” Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR), confirmed in an email to Boston.com. The non-profit legal organization is representing several of the migrants.

Last week, the Texas sheriff leading an investigation into the migrants’ transport from San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard certified that the migrants were all victims of a crime.

The certifications from Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar’s office open the door for the migrants to apply for U-visas, special visas only available to victims of certain crimes. Salazar previously asserted that the migrants were lured onto the flights under false pretenses.

LCR also filed a class action lawsuit last month against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — who took credit for the flights — and other “accomplices.”

Documents released on Friday show that top staffers in the DeSantis administration, including Chief of Staff James Uthmeier, were directly involved in the transport, Politico reported.
In the two weeks leading up to the flights, Uthmeier sent texts and had phone calls with Larry Keefe, Florida’s public safety czar, according to Politico. The messages make it clear that Keefe was on the ground in Texas to help coordinate the flights — with Uthmeier’s full support, the news outlet reported.

“Wheels up,” Keefe reportedly texted Uthmeier the day of the first flight to Martha’s Vineyard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Wait until the GOP takes over the congress, they will finally get this all sorted out, I'm sure Trump left them the playbook to get this immigration problem solved once and for all.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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."

[wdmso]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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!

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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!

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

[Doover]

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Doover

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.

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.

[Pete F.]

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

[Doover]

Triggering youse.

[Doover]

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Doover

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.

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

[Doover]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Doover

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

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

Don't feed the troll.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Doover

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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