Name My Band
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 7:42pm
Trump
- Bill_J - May 7, 2024 - 6:36pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 5:16pm
Joe Biden
- R_P - May 7, 2024 - 4:35pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - May 7, 2024 - 4:18pm
Farts!
- Isabeau - May 7, 2024 - 4:05pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 7, 2024 - 3:34pm
NYTimes Connections
- Steely_D - May 7, 2024 - 12:23pm
Israel
- R_P - May 7, 2024 - 10:54am
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 9:40am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 9:21am
NY Times Strands
- Bill_J - May 7, 2024 - 9:08am
Things You Thought Today
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 7, 2024 - 8:43am
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - May 7, 2024 - 8:11am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - May 7, 2024 - 6:25am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - May 7, 2024 - 5:34am
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't...
- Coaxial - May 7, 2024 - 4:34am
Russia
- R_P - May 7, 2024 - 1:59am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Alchemist - May 6, 2024 - 9:18pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 6, 2024 - 8:51pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- Isabeau - May 6, 2024 - 5:03pm
Politically Uncorrect News
- oldviolin - May 6, 2024 - 2:15pm
What can you hear right now?
- maryte - May 6, 2024 - 2:01pm
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 6, 2024 - 1:04pm
Rock Mix not up to same audio quality as Main and Mellow?
- rp567 - May 6, 2024 - 12:06pm
Music Requests
- black321 - May 6, 2024 - 11:57am
NASA & other news from space
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 11:37am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 6, 2024 - 9:52am
Global Warming
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 9:29am
Tales from the RAFT
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 9:19am
Food
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 6, 2024 - 4:17am
What Did You See Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 5, 2024 - 5:28pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 4:38pm
The Abortion Wars
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 3:27pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 5, 2024 - 3:12pm
The Obituary Page
- Red_Dragon - May 5, 2024 - 2:53pm
Ukraine
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 12:33pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- GeneP59 - May 5, 2024 - 12:07pm
volcano!
- geoff_morphini - May 5, 2024 - 9:55am
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc)
- miamizsun - May 5, 2024 - 6:16am
Favorite Quotes
- Isabeau - May 4, 2024 - 5:21pm
Anti-War
- R_P - May 4, 2024 - 3:24pm
Iran
- Red_Dragon - May 4, 2024 - 12:03pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - May 4, 2024 - 11:18am
SCOTUS
- Steely_D - May 4, 2024 - 8:04am
The Dragons' Roost
- GeneP59 - May 3, 2024 - 3:53pm
RightWingNutZ
- islander - May 3, 2024 - 11:55am
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - May 3, 2024 - 9:46am
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- R_P - May 3, 2024 - 7:54am
Derplahoma!
- sunybuny - May 3, 2024 - 4:56am
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum
- miamizsun - May 3, 2024 - 4:36am
What Makes You Laugh?
- miamizsun - May 3, 2024 - 4:31am
Main Mix Playlist
- R567 - May 3, 2024 - 12:06am
Who Killed The Electric Car??? -- The Movie
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 2, 2024 - 9:51pm
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 5:56pm
What Makes You Sad?
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 3:35pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
Breaking News
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 2:57pm
Questions.
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 9:13am
And the good news is....
- Bill_J - May 1, 2024 - 6:30pm
Things you would be grating food for
- Manbird - May 1, 2024 - 3:58pm
Economix
- black321 - May 1, 2024 - 12:19pm
I Heart Huckabee - NOT!
- Manbird - Apr 30, 2024 - 7:49pm
Democratic Party
- R_P - Apr 30, 2024 - 4:01pm
Oh, The Stupidity
- haresfur - Apr 30, 2024 - 3:30pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 30, 2024 - 1:46pm
Canada
- black321 - Apr 30, 2024 - 1:37pm
New Music
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 29, 2024 - 11:36am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 29, 2024 - 8:34am
Photos you haven't taken of yourself
- Antigone - Apr 29, 2024 - 5:03am
Britain
- R_P - Apr 28, 2024 - 10:47am
Birthday wishes
- GeneP59 - Apr 28, 2024 - 9:56am
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 27, 2024 - 9:53pm
Classical Music
- miamizsun - Apr 27, 2024 - 1:23pm
LeftWingNutZ
- Lazy8 - Apr 27, 2024 - 12:46pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Supreme Court Rulings
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 15, 16, 17 Next |
ColdMiser
Location: On the Trail Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 18, 2020 - 10:40am |
|
rgio wrote:
buddy wrote:
Don't discount that his 2nd Amendment reference is a dog-whistle to his armed militia of supporters. I would not be surprised if a bunch of those proud boys show up in Tulsa to "protect the rally" or some such nonsense.
Show up? They're already camped out with flags, and tents, and chairs.... just no masks
This may be Trump's Altamont moment
|
|
rgio
Location: West Jersey Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 18, 2020 - 10:31am |
|
buddy wrote:
Don't discount that his 2nd Amendment reference is a dog-whistle to his armed militia of supporters. I would not be surprised if a bunch of those proud boys show up in Tulsa to "protect the rally" or some such nonsense.
Show up? They're already camped out with flags, and tents, and chairs.... just no masks
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 18, 2020 - 9:27am |
|
steeler wrote:Trump tweet, below, from a little bit ago. Who is trying to politicize the Supreme Court? I think we know the answer to that.
âThese horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!â
Hmm, a Dick Cheney-inspired gun metaphor. There's a Conservative-majority court and he still desperately clings to the fear-mongering tactic that the 2nd Amendment will be revoked.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jun 18, 2020 - 8:34am |
|
Trump tweet, below, from a little bit ago. Who is trying to politicize the Supreme Court? I think we know the answer to that.
âThese horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!â
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 15, 2020 - 7:58am |
|
A banner day!
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 15, 2020 - 7:57am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 15, 2020 - 7:56am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 15, 2020 - 7:54am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
May 8, 2020 - 2:49pm |
|
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2018 - 6:47am |
|
I await the day we finally realize what a horrible system the method for selecting Supreme court justices has become since the hyper partisan duopoly took over. This has to change.
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 10:29pm |
|
kurtster wrote:They are coming in so fast that we are having to turn to military bases to house them because the regular facilities have run out of space. Cart before horse.
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 9:21pm |
|
kurtster wrote:They are coming in so fast that we are having to turn to military bases to house them because the regular facilities have run out of space. Pentagon Says 2 Military Bases to House ImmigrantsIs that good enough for you ? And I tried to pick a non Fox source that was still, imo, credible. .
. Your inclusion of the Time Magazine cover is irrelevant. From your source: "The Pentagon last week said it would make space available on military bases for as many as 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children detained after illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. It wasn't clear Sunday if the housing would be limited strictly to children or if it would also involve families."
Fact Sheet: Family Separation at the U.S.-Mexico Border
What are the limits on detaining children in immigration detention? According to a 2016 federal court decision, the Flores agreement applies both to children accompanying their parents, as well as to unaccompanied children. Accordingly, children cannot to be detained with parents in facilities made for adults and unequipped to properly care for children. And, even in family detention facilities specifically designed to detain parents and children together, federal courts have interpreted the Flores agreement to require that children be detained no more than 20 days.
However, the ‘zero-tolerance’ policy has rapidly evolved into separation of parent and child at the border. This is because parents are arrested at the border and criminally charged with illegal entry. Due to these criminal charges, protocol does not allow the child to be kept with the parent because the child is not criminally prosecuted.
Where are children held after separation from parents?In ORR shelters. After the initial CBP screening and further HHS background checks, the kids stay in custody and care of ORR until they can be released to a family member, guardian or foster family. The Flores agreement requires HHS to place each child “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child” as promptly as possible. The UAC shelters are generally operated by non-profit organizations and hold less than 50 UACs. However, due to the ongoing influx of migrant children, the HHS is currently running out of space to hold the unaccompanied kids. Reports find those children have been held at CBP border stations for more than the allowed 72 hours in facilities that lack bedding, separate sleeping rooms, adequate medical treatment, and nutritional resources for children. As a result, an increasing number of UACs in HHS custody have been placed in provisional shelters at military bases, former warehouses , or tents located primarily in Texas. These conditions have been reported to confine children in cages and supply large foil sheets as blankets.
It seems that the housing crunch is due to separation of children from parents and the lack of sufficient beds normally available for such separated children. According to the articles below, we are not being overrun at the border.
Immigration arrests at southwest border creep up but still at historic low
The number of people caught trying to cross the southwest border with Mexico increased for a third straight month in April, but overall apprehension numbers remain at historic lows, according to datareleased late Thursday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
...
U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended 38,234 people along the U.S.-Mexico border in April, a 227% increase from April 2017, according to the new data. The Trump administration is pointing to that data as proof that the U.S. must do more to secure the border. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Tyler Houlton warns that apprehensions have "more than tripled" from April 2017 to April 2018. Yet immigration experts say the department is cherry-picking data to exaggerate the recent increase in illegal immigration. Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a group that advocates for immigrants, said it's impossible to gauge the flow of people along the border by looking at only two specific months. Overall, the Border Patrol is on pace to catch 363,000 people trying to illegally cross the border in fiscal year 2018, which is lower than the total in seven out of the last 10 years. It's also far below the peak during the 2000s, when Border Patrol was routinely catching more than one million people a year. "When you're looking at data like this, you have to look at multiple years, not one particular month," Noorani said. "The data shows that the border remains as secure as ever." Even supporters of the Trump administration's attempts to crack down on illegal immigration say it's hard to measure the border in monthly increments. Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that has advised the Trump administration on ways to limit illegal immigration, says the recent increase shows that there are definitely problems along the border. She said Congress has failed to provide funding to expand the border wall, allowing for people to continue crossing illegally. She said immigrants are lured by talk of an "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., by American companies that continue to hire them, and by asylum laws that allow them to enter the country to plead their case. But Vaughan said that conversation should be conducted in the context of historical trends, not individual months. She said the numbers are further skewed by the sharp drop in illegal immigration in the months following Trump's inauguration in January 2017, which she described as an "outlier" in the overall numbers. "It's hard to draw any conclusions just looking at particular points in time," Vaughan said. "It's really the longer-term trends that are important."
Five myths about the U.S.-Mexico border
MYTH NO. 1 The border is out of control. Trump has worked with border-state governors to deploy National Guard troops to the region, adding literal boots on the ground to the other military metaphors used to describe the situation: Attorney General Jeff Sessions, during a visit to El Paso, declared the border “ground zero,” a “beachhead against the cartels,” echoing retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey’s 2011 “strategic military assessment,” which described conditions along the border as “tantamount to living in a war zone .” The White House calls the border porous, saying that “with our current laws and resources, we cannot stop illegal aliens from crossing,” and polls show that most Americans think the border is not secure. Such language suggests high levels of violence in U.S. border communities, but FBI statistics I have analyzed for a forthcoming report for the Mexico Institute show that from 2011 to 2015, all but one of the 23 U.S. counties along the border had violent-crime rates lower than the national average for similar counties, a finding that echoes previous analyses. In some ways, the border is porous — more than 300,000 people were apprehended last year for crossing into the country illegally. But what does it mean to have a secure border? The number of Border Patrol agents has increased more than fourfold since the early 1990s, and that 300,000 figure is the lowest recorded since 1971, meaning that the border is as secure as it has been in nearly five decades. Without a nationally agreed-upon way of measuring border security, we are stuck in a political debate as much about semantics as substance.
Today’s US-Mexico ‘border crisis’ in 6 chart
Check out the fourth chart—it's from the US Customs and Border Protection. It seems to be a piece of JavaScript or embedded HTML and it I cannot capture it as an image. I would have included it if I could. Here is the caption: Border Apprehensions In 2000, 1.6 million migrants were apprehended along the U.S. border, but by 2017 the number was only 304,000. The number of apprehensions normally fluctuates from month to month.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 8:25pm |
|
kcar wrote: "Say what you want about Trump, but our borders are literally being over run. The inflow exceeds our capacity to do anything in a lawful and orderly manner. "
Prove it.
They are coming in so fast that we are having to turn to military bases to house them because the regular facilities have run out of space. Pentagon Says 2 Military Bases to House ImmigrantsIs that good enough for you ? And I tried to pick a non Fox source that was still, imo, credible. .
.
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 7:53pm |
|
kurtster wrote: Yes it is.
And Congress has the sole authority to write immigration law as set forth in Article 1 of the Constitution. All points of the political spectrum have different views of what our policy should be, but we only have two that actually have any say so. And those two find it to their equal advantage to leave it unresolved and an open festering wound to demonize the other side, while both falsely claim a desire to "fix" it.
Laws must be judged based solely on what they actually say and do when strictly enforced as written. Discussions leading up to the creation of laws will cover many points of views and reasons for the eventual law. As it should be. But what matters is what is actually written and passed. It then becomes up to the judicial system to review enforcement by the executive branch and adjudicate any wrong interpretations or actions based upon the law.
This is unique in that it involves our sovereignty, borders and national defense which is the discretionary realm and also the primary duty of the executive branch as spelled out in Article 2 subject to reviews by the other two branches, but only after the fact if laws are not in effect to dictate the appropriate actions.
Say what you want about Trump, but our borders are literally being over run. The inflow exceeds our capacity to do anything in a lawful and orderly manner. That is not Trump's fault. It is the fault of everyone who has preceded him and left him with the (intentional) mess he is trying to deal with. Doing nothing is not an option. Trump is simply playing the cards dealt to him from a stacked deck and better than the dealers ever expected. There is no cheating on his part. Its all being done in the open and above the table. And in doing so is exposing all the liars and poseurs for what they are. That is good all by itself.
"Say what you want about Trump, but our borders are literally being over run. The inflow exceeds our capacity to do anything in a lawful and orderly manner. "
Prove it.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 7:50pm |
|
kurtster wrote: I do not see how anyone can argue that he is the hero in this episode. and that is because ... there is only one side to the issue ?
So what exactly are you calling those who might disagree with you then ? I'm sure that misguided is not on your list. ______ just one of the irredeemables ? _____ just one of the __________ who just ________ .
Long, long ago I stated that I was a one issue voter like many others are with things like abortion for example. Mine is illegal immigration. And I have stated it often with the end result of being insulted vehemently for even insisting that there is such a thing as illegal immigration.
So if he is the only one who says it is an actual problem, then I'm listening to him. If he's actually doing something about, then I'm supporting him.
If you are one of those who still insists on using the term undocumented worker instead of illegal immigrant, then is no real way to have a conversation that is honest.
i just pointed out how he has politicized this issue, which has fueled political as well as cultural differences in this country. And he continues to fan those fires, using this issue in particular. You have not disputed any of that. Someone who does that as President should not be seen as a hero. He could have pursued these policies without resorting to these tactics. Again, you have not disputed any of that. Instead, you make it sound as if you and other Trump supporters have been slimed by comments like mine. Once again, you claim to be the victim in this debate while falsely characterizing what I said. And, yes, I have used the phrase illegal immigrant, which you surely know from my posts here. Yet you choose to demagogue. Ends justify the means, I guess.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 7:36pm |
|
steeler wrote: I beg to differ. He politicized the issue from Day One. He did not have to do that. He certainly did not have to lead chants of "build the wall." And he most certainly did not need to vilify those who come across that border, branding them as criminals/rapists. "Some — I assume— are good people." This is political blood sport for him. Most of the bluster has been shameful. That is my opinion, but I do not see how anyone can argue that he is the hero in this episode.
I do not see how anyone can argue that he is the hero in this episode. and that is because ... there is only one side to the issue ? So what exactly are you calling those who might disagree with you then ? I'm sure that misguided is not on your list. ______ just one of the irredeemables ? _____ just one of the __________ who just ________ . Long, long ago I stated that I was a one issue voter like many others are with things like abortion for example. Mine is illegal immigration. And I have stated it often with the end result of being insulted vehemently for even insisting that there is such a thing as illegal immigration. So if he is the only one who says it is an actual problem, then I'm listening to him. If he's actually doing something about, then I'm supporting him. If you are one of those who still insists on using the term undocumented worker instead of illegal immigrant, then is no real way to have a conversation that is honest, imo.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 7:18pm |
|
steeler wrote: I beg to differ. He politicized the issue from Day One. He did not have to do that. He certainly did not have to lead chants of "build the wall." And he most certainly did not need to vilify those who come across that border, branding them as criminals/rapists. "Some — I assume— are good people." This is political blood sport for him. Most of the bluster has been shameful. That is my opinion, but I do not see how anyone can argue that he is the hero in this episode.
And seriously, he doesn't really give a shit about the border. It's better for him to have a supply of cheap labor, who live in fear of ICE, so that's good enough for him. The real reason he stokes all this is that it plays well with insecure bigots who think the immigrants can only be competition (ironic because they are all rapist and criminals...). It's zero sum thinking at its worst.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 6:20pm |
|
kurtster wrote: Yes it is.
And Congress has the sole authority to write immigration law as set forth in Article 1 of the Constitution. All points of the political spectrum have different views of what our policy should be, but we only have two that actually have any say so. And those two find it to their equal advantage to leave it unresolved and an open festering wound to demonize the other side, while both falsely claim a desire to "fix" it.
Laws must be judged based solely on what they actually say and do when strictly enforced as written. Discussions leading up to the creation of laws will cover many points of views and reasons for the eventual law. As it should be. But what matters is what is actually written and passed. It then becomes up to the judicial system to review enforcement by the executive branch and adjudicate any wrong interpretations or actions based upon the law.
This is unique in that it involves our sovereignty, borders and national defense which is the discretionary realm and also the primary duty of the executive branch as spelled out in Article 2 subject to reviews by the other two branches, but only after the fact if laws are not in effect to dictate the appropriate actions.
Say what you want about Trump, but our borders are literally being over run. The inflow exceeds our capacity to do anything in a lawful and orderly manner. That is not Trump's fault. It is the fault of everyone who has preceded him and left him with the (intentional) mess he is trying to deal with. Doing nothing is not an option. Trump is simply playing the cards dealt to him from a stacked deck and better than the dealers ever expected. There is no cheating on his part. Its all being done in the open and above the table. And in doing so is exposing all the liars and poseurs for what they are. That is good all by itself.
I beg to differ. He politicized the issue from Day One. He did not have to do that. He certainly did not have to lead chants of "build the wall." And he most certainly did not need to vilify those who come across that border, branding them as criminals/rapists. "Some — I assume— are good people." This is political blood sport for him. Most of the bluster has been shameful. That is my opinion, but I do not see how anyone can argue that he is the hero in this episode.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 4:29pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: kurtster wrote:Thank you for posting This .
I have said all along that there is no right to enter this country unless you are a citizen or as a non citizen, have been granted prior permission that has not been formally revoked. This is what sovereignty is all about. Open borders is the defacto end of sovereignty. Cannot have it both ways. One thing doesn't follow the other. Yes, nation-states get to control who crosses their borders. That doesn't imply that any particular control is morally (or legally) sound. This one was motivated by religious bigotry and intended to stoke same. That's despicable. The power to exercise that impulse was embedded in the law when it was written, but we haven't had a low enough life form in the oval office to use it until now. The problem is the law. No president should have that power, even one who declines to exercise it. Yes it is. And Congress has the sole authority to write immigration law as set forth in Article 1 of the Constitution. All points of the political spectrum have different views of what our policy should be, but we only have two that actually have any say so. And those two find it to their equal advantage to leave it unresolved and an open festering wound to demonize the other side, while both falsely claim a desire to "fix" it. Laws must be judged based solely on what they actually say and do when strictly enforced as written. Discussions leading up to the creation of laws will cover many points of views and reasons for the eventual law. As it should be. But what matters is what is actually written and passed. It then becomes up to the judicial system to review enforcement by the executive branch and adjudicate any wrong interpretations or actions based upon the law. This is unique in that it involves our sovereignty, borders and national defense which is the discretionary realm and also the primary duty of the executive branch as spelled out in Article 2 subject to reviews by the other two branches, but only after the fact if laws are not in effect to dictate the appropriate actions. Say what you want about Trump, but our borders are literally being over run. The inflow exceeds our capacity to do anything in a lawful and orderly manner. That is not Trump's fault. It is the fault of everyone who has preceded him and left him with the (intentional) mess he is trying to deal with. Doing nothing is not an option. Trump is simply playing the cards dealt to him from a stacked deck and better than the dealers ever expected. There is no cheating on his part. Its all being done in the open and above the table. And in doing so is exposing all the liars and poseurs for what they are. That is good all by itself.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 27, 2018 - 2:53pm |
|
kurtster wrote:Thank you for posting This .
I have said all along that there is no right to enter this country unless you are a citizen or as a non citizen, have been granted prior permission that has not been formally revoked. This is what sovereignty is all about. Open borders is the defacto end of sovereignty. Cannot have it both ways. One thing doesn't follow the other. Yes, nation-states get to control who crosses their borders. That doesn't imply that any particular control is morally (or legally) sound. This one was motivated by religious bigotry and intended to stoke same. That's despicable. The power to exercise that impulse was embedded in the law when it was written, but we haven't had a low enough life form in the oval office to use it until now. The problem is the law. No president should have that power, even one who declines to exercise it.
|
|
|