Nox wrote: » Your statement about "assuming this is true" shows a complete disregard of the facts. I say again (emphasis added for effect … not shouting … as I have been accused of before) THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN DUMPED WITHOUT PARENTS. BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the former white house occupant did exactly what you are accusing the POTUS of doing. Do the words 'double standard' mean anything to you
Nox wrote: » Now to the crying … my point was, and remains that nearly anyone can cry on demand. You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum. Many show up with children who are not theirs … aka child abuse/trafficking. And your exceedingly stupid question about me ever meeting a four year old … 3 kids of my own, 6 grandkids. Your apology for stupidity is accepted
Nox wrote: » Many folks here refer back to some Irish morning show for information on President Donald J Trump. Is it possible that those folks are victims of only one side of the story? I wonder how these Irish folks feel about the influx of moslems from Europe, Africa, and the Middle East? I'm sure Irish treatment of those individuals is just peachy keen.
Nox wrote: » Your statement about "assuming this is true" shows a complete disregard of the facts. I say again (emphasis added for effect … not shouting … as I have been accused of before) THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN DUMPED WITHOUT PARENTS. BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the former white house occupant did exactly what you are accusing the POTUS of doing. Do the words 'double standard' mean anything to you? Now to the crying … my point was, and remains that nearly anyone can cry on demand. You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum. Many show up with children who are not theirs … aka child abuse/trafficking. And your exceedingly stupid question about me ever meeting a four year old … 3 kids of my own, 6 grandkids. Your apology for stupidity is accepted. Many folks here refer back to some Irish morning show for information on President Donald J Trump. Is it possible that those folks are victims of only one side of the story? I wonder how these Irish folks feel about the influx of moslems from Europe, Africa, and the Middle East? I'm sure Irish treatment of those individuals is just peachy keen.
Nox wrote: » "If you are going to slate an entire religion, perhaps learn how to spell it?" A short history lesson for you … for 1300+ years … that was how it was spelled.
Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means"one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.
Nox wrote: » I'm not sure just which policy you are referring to but if it is securing the boarder, then I say yes he is correct. As far as treatment of illegal aliens then his executive order shows that. Changing his mind/position … you betcha. We already had a historical figure whose quote was … "Damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead".
Nox wrote: » Interesting post … I did not know that. As far as an agenda … I have none. I make no apologies either. Having said that, from the Koran … "Convert or die" … moslem appears to be the correct word. Thanks for educating me.
Celticfire wrote: » Trump has backed the left leaning, Trump hating, 9th District "Flores v. Reno" court into a corner, forcing them to either agree to weaken the protections of the Flores order, or reject it and prove Trump WAS exactly right - that he did not have legal authority to change things on his own./QUOTE] You're going have to provide some sources for such a claim that a major component of the US justice system is politically biased against not only Trump, but by extension the GOP. If you can't do that then the rest of your post is meaningless
everlast75 wrote: » Quite a serious allegation. What is the basis for this claim?
Nox wrote: » You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum.
Leroy42 wrote: » Nox wrote: » I'm not sure just which policy you are referring to but if it is securing the boarder, then I say yes he is correct. As far as treatment of illegal aliens then his executive order shows that. Changing his mind/position … you betcha. We already had a historical figure whose quote was … "Damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead". Oh come on, don't try to act all innocent. You know perfectly well what policy I am referring to The one about separating families and locking the kids in cages. So was he wrong to implement the policy or wrong to recend it? It really is not that tough of a question. Either he was strong on securing the barder in implementing the policy, and thus you agree with it, but then he has caved in an shown that political expediency is more important to him than securing the border or he was wrong and that he was achieveing nothing to help securing the border by implementing this policy and now substantially weakened himself and his admin by having such a major error. An major error in one of his apparently strong issues.
Nox wrote: » First off … I say again I did not know which policy you referred to. Since there is a feeling by some on this board to follow the standards of usage of the English language … a though should be able to stand alone. Nuf said, I hope you get the message. As far as the "policy" of separating children from parents and locking them up … you show a profound lack of knowledge of the law and procedures inherited by President Donald J Trump. I have no idea what transpired in the WH and the multiple meetings which occurred pertaining to the subject … but I do know that President Donald J Trump takes all of the information before making a decision. Hmmm, if memory serves, a certain black politician made the statement … "I don't have all the facts, but … " and made a negative statement about the police in Cambridge MA. I like a POTUS that doesn't 'charge the torpedos'
oscarBravo wrote: » Nox wrote: » You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum. I see the old practice of making up definitions of words to suit your argument continues apace.By definition, someone claiming asylum isn't an illegal immigrant.
Nox wrote: » They are if they don't go through the gate.
oscarBravo wrote: » No, they're not, unless - as I suspect - you're using the word "illegal" as an epithet without bothering to understand what you're talking about. .
joe40 wrote: » I was listening to Marian McKeown on Morning Ireland this morning and she was saying that there is a strong likelihood that many of the younger children that can't self identify may never be re-united with their parents. Many have been moved all over the states under the care of social services, so parents may never be able to trace them. That is horrific, and if trump maintains his support base after this I feel very sorry for the decent Americans. For all their talk of Christian values, it will be a country and leadership facing moral collapse, .
Nox wrote: » Your statement about "assuming this is true" shows a complete disregard of the facts. I say again (emphasis added for effect … not shouting … as I have been accused of before) THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN DUMPED WITHOUT PARENTS. BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the former white house occupant did exactly what you are accusing the POTUS of doing. Do the words 'double standard' mean anything to you?
Nox wrote: » Now to the crying … my point was, and remains that nearly anyone can cry on demand. You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum. Many show up with children who are not theirs … aka child abuse/trafficking. And your exceedingly stupid question about me ever meeting a four year old … 3 kids of my own, 6 grandkids. Your apology for stupidity is accepted.
Leroy42 wrote: » Celticfire wrote: » Trump has backed the left leaning, Trump hating, 9th District "Flores v. Reno" court into a corner, forcing them to either agree to weaken the protections of the Flores order, or reject it and prove Trump WAS exactly right - that he did not have legal authority to change things on his own./QUOTE] You're going have to provide some sources for such a claim that a major component of the US justice system is politically biased against not only Trump, but by extension the GOP. If you can't do that then the rest of your post is meaningless You don't believe that a notoriously left leaning court with 16 democrat appointed Judges and 6 Republican appointed Judges will have no bias against Trump or Conservatives? No matter if you believe it or not the ball is back in their court now so they will have to rule one way or another.
Celticfire wrote: » Leroy42 wrote: » You don't believe that a notoriously left leaning court with 16 democrat appointed Judges and 6 Republican appointed Judges will have no bias against Trump or Conservatives? No matter if you believe it or not the ball is back in their court now so they will have to rule one way or another. Right, so no actual proof, just a belief you have. Do you consider all judges to be biased? IS it just politically or does it break down on gender/racist lines? I mean, that quite a position to have as it basically means that you think that the entire justice system in the US is flawed and not worthy of the name. Can black criminals use this defence to get out of jail if the judge was white? OR perhaps if a defended can state the way they voted at the start of a trail if the judge is found to have opposite affiliation then the case is a mistrial. Or is, I suspect, just on cases that don't go the way you want them to?
Leroy42 wrote: » You don't believe that a notoriously left leaning court with 16 democrat appointed Judges and 6 Republican appointed Judges will have no bias against Trump or Conservatives? No matter if you believe it or not the ball is back in their court now so they will have to rule one way or another.
Manic Moran wrote: » If you cross unlawfully, it doesn't matter if you are looking to seek asylum or not. You will be arrested and deported. (Or now, I guess, arrested, and prosecuted)
Leroy42 wrote: » Celticfire wrote: » Right, so no actual proof, just a belief you have. Do you consider all judges to be biased? IS it just politically or does it break down on gender/racist lines? I mean, that quite a position to have as it basically means that you think that the entire justice system in the US is flawed and not worthy of the name. Can black criminals use this defence to get out of jail if the judge was white? OR perhaps if a defended can state the way they voted at the start of a trail if the judge is found to have opposite affiliation then the case is a mistrial. Are you honestly trying to say that you believe that political affiliations and left or right leaning ideas don't come into play in Judge based courts like the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court? If that's the case why is there such a big deal made as to the political leanings of these judges when being nominated and appointed? Do you think that the Ninth Circuit court is left leaning or straight down the middle? Or is, I suspect, just on cases that don't go the way you want them to? Like when the Ninth Circuit was overturned by the Supreme Court on the travel ban?
Celticfire wrote: » Right, so no actual proof, just a belief you have. Do you consider all judges to be biased? IS it just politically or does it break down on gender/racist lines? I mean, that quite a position to have as it basically means that you think that the entire justice system in the US is flawed and not worthy of the name. Can black criminals use this defence to get out of jail if the judge was white? OR perhaps if a defended can state the way they voted at the start of a trail if the judge is found to have opposite affiliation then the case is a mistrial.
Or is, I suspect, just on cases that don't go the way you want them to?
Manic Moran wrote: » CBP's position is pretty clear. If you are seeking asylum, present yourself at the border points of entry and make your claim. If you cross unlawfully, it doesn't matter if you are looking to seek asylum or not. You will be arrested and deported. (Or now, I guess, arrested, and prosecuted)
The 1951 Convention consolidates previous international instruments relating to refugees and provides the most comprehensive codification of the rights of refugees at the international level. In contrast to earlier international refugee instruments, which applied to specific groups of refugees, the 1951 Convention endorses a single definition of the term “refugee” in Article 1. The emphasis of this definition is on the protection of persons from political or other forms of persecution. A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Convention is both a status and rights-based instrument and is underpinned by a number of fundamental principles, most notably non-discrimination, non-penalization and non-refoulement. Convention provisions, for example, are to be applied without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin. Developments in international human rights law also reinforce the principle that the Convention be applied without discrimination as to sex, age, disability, sexuality, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of nonrefoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom. Finally, the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treatment. Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work, and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in passport form. Most States parties to the Convention issue this document, which has become as widely accepted as the former “Nansen passport”, an identity document for refugees devised by the first Commissioner for Refugees, Fridtjof Nansen, in 1922.
Nox wrote: » "So do you think the children that have been recorded are crying on demand or do you think they were legitimately upset?" What I think is … neither one of us was there at the time. Neither of us know if/what they were upset about.
Celticfire wrote: » Leroy42 wrote: » Are you honestly trying to say that you believe that political affiliations and left or right leaning ideas don't come into play in Judge based courts like the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court? If that's the case why is there such a big deal to the political leanings of these judges when being nominated and appointed? Do you think that the Ninth Circuit court is left leaning or straight down the middle? There is a big difference between thinking that certain judges may lean a certain way either side of the interpretation. You claimed they were Trump hating. Your words. What evidence have you got of this? Celticfire wrote: » Like when the Ninth Circuit was overturned by the Supreme Court on the travel ban? But on your own theory then the Supreme court is nothing but a political hack job, which Trump has skewed in favour of himself and the GOP regardless of the actualities of the law. Why should the non GOP sections of the US pay any head to such a clearly biased institution? Or does it stop once you get past the 9th, and they are all perfectly unbiased after that.
Leroy42 wrote: » Are you honestly trying to say that you believe that political affiliations and left or right leaning ideas don't come into play in Judge based courts like the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court? If that's the case why is there such a big deal to the political leanings of these judges when being nominated and appointed? Do you think that the Ninth Circuit court is left leaning or straight down the middle?
Celticfire wrote: » Like when the Ninth Circuit was overturned by the Supreme Court on the travel ban?
Leroy42 wrote: » Celticfire wrote: » There is a big difference between thinking that certain judges may lean a certain way either side of the interpretation. You claimed they were Trump hating. Your words. What evidence have you got of this? But on your own theory then the Supreme court is nothing but a political hack job, which Trump has skewed in favour of himself and the GOP regardless of the actualities of the law. Why should the non GOP sections of the US pay any head to such a clearly biased institution? Or does it stop once you get past the 9th, and they are all perfectly unbiased after that. Ok I'll retract the Trump hating bit (I'm sure the 16 Democrat Judges love him). Now you can answer the simple questions I posed to you. Is the Ninth Circuit left leaning or straight down the middle? Why does it matter so much then as to the political leanings of prospective Judges when it comes to appointments in these Courts?
Celticfire wrote: » There is a big difference between thinking that certain judges may lean a certain way either side of the interpretation. You claimed they were Trump hating. Your words. What evidence have you got of this? But on your own theory then the Supreme court is nothing but a political hack job, which Trump has skewed in favour of himself and the GOP regardless of the actualities of the law. Why should the non GOP sections of the US pay any head to such a clearly biased institution? Or does it stop once you get past the 9th, and they are all perfectly unbiased after that.
Blowfish wrote: » And this is the crux of it as that's a change of policy. Here's the quote from the UN convention on Refugees, which the US has ratified (bolding mine):
