Since SCOTUS will rule on this, none of these court decisions amount to a hill of beans.
Itâs difficult for the SC to ignore multiple courts that rule the same way on a case, especially a highly visible one with partisan trimmings. If the SC rules against all these courts, and bases their ruling on a transparently biased reading of the law, then it makes the case into one that just supports the party power play. Roberts doesnât like doing that openly, it makes him uncomfortable to have the SC seen as a partisan tool. Against that is how this case will help Republicans hold power over the next decadeâŚitâs no longer clear that Roberts is willing to stick his neck out for the Trump version of the Republican party holding power. Weâll have to see in June if he really will go along and overrule the judiciary on this one.
Unless Squi says thereâs beer involved.
âŚthey failed âto show that the addition of the citizenship question was motivated by invidious racial discrimination.â
Trump Administration = Invidious Racists
â´ Trump Administration Policy = Invidious Racial Discrimination
Q.E.D.
Works for me . . .
Ummmm⌠there was this little Muslim ban thingy not long ago, where basically every Judge in the fucking country ruled against donnie⌠Until the 5 Black-Robed Republicans came to his rescueâŚ
They donât give a shit anymore about norms or appearances, Roberts just played nice (on rare, rare occasions) while there was a Democrat in charge.
With every lower court ruling against the question, the Roberts courtâs task becomes more difficult.
A little OT but here is an example from cnn.com of trumpâs empathy:
âThe system is full. We canât take you anymore. Whether itâs asylum. Whether itâs anything you want. Itâs illegal immigrationâ Trump said. âCanât take you anymore. Canât take you. Our country is full⌠Canât take you anymore, Iâm sorry. So turn around. Thatâs the way it is.â
âŚsnipâŚ
âI see some of our biggest opponents over the last two days have said it really is an emergency, they canât believe whatâs happening. Part of it is because of the fact that the country is doing so well. Part of it is a scam. People want to come in. They shouldnât be coming in. They shouldnât be coming in.â he said
âŚ
This man is demented. Seems any kind of immigration axiomatically is illegal in his mind.
If trump wants to stem immiration then the place to do it isnât at our border. It is in Guatemala, Honduras and El SalvadorâŚif those are the places the people are coming from. Improve them and people will stay. Cut foreign aid and theyâll leave.
I guess thatâs the Great White Father approach. Yes, we must help the simple brown people better their miserable lives, as they cannot do so on their own. Thatâs apparently your thinking here.
Doesnât it make you uncomfortable to write such drivel? These countries are run by big boys and girls. They need to step it up.
Couple of democratically elected Central American presidents ended up dead by âstepping up.â Our history in the region isnât something to be proud of.
Trump goes to Calexico in Californiaon the Mexican border and proclaims that America is âfullâ. We canât wedge a single more person into the country. We are full to bursting he says. (Looks out window)⌠ya know, I donât see anyone outside. No hoards of swarthy men bent on rape and pillage around here.
I donât like your attitude at all nick. Have you spent time in Central America like me? I had a home in Mexico 20 miles from the Guatemalan border. If not then cram it with your âgreat white fatherâ crap. I donât need it. Trump threatened to cut aid to three countries in Central America. That is not a solution. Do you know where the aid money goes? Mainly non profits and not governments because the governments there are utterly corrupt and any aid money given to a government there certainly would not be used to fix things. But fix the economies of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador and people will want to stay there. With a ruined economy, gangs and drugs what would you do to survive? So it ainât âgreat white fatherâ racist crap" nick. You know it isnât. The solution is there, not here.
And yes the leaders do need to step up, assuming they can leave endemic corruption, failing economies, lack of jobs, gangs and drugs behind. Assisting Central America is to the benefit of everybody.
Do you see crowds of Americans fleeing south? We might if the economy were to crash and a depression to begin. But we arenât because most everybody has a job and income and there is food. So keep your attitude to yourself
What we need to do is find a way to 1) give them resources to fight the gangs - guns for citizens would help. The most harmful movie in this regard is âthe magnificent 7â which celebrated the fiction that USA outlaws were needed to kill mexican bandits. and 2) help them control their population.
We also need to control the EXPECTATIONS of the illegals. They expect and are told that if they get here with a kid, they get a ticket in. That was Obamaâs big plan. He created this dreadful mess. We need to convince them that they cannot get asylum by having a kid.
Under Obama cross border traffic ⌠I mean the illegal kind was at a 20 year low. At the end of his term it was near net zero. As many left as came in, pretty close. Trumpâs wigging out ever other day about hoards of brown skinned evil looking daughter rapers has not helped at all. Thereâs a reason weâre seeing families and not single men these days crossing and then seeking out our Border Patrol to surrender and ask for asylum. Itâs gangs, drugs and no way to make a living in their own country. I see this in the local news. My home is 50 miles north of the border.
Trumpâs solution was âzero toleranceâ meaning kidnap kids from parents an chuck em in a cage. Cause real pain, he thought, and people wonât come here. But when you have nothing then a place that has something tends to look pretty good. It"s hard to coltrol expectations in that case. A few months ago a bunch of people got together (safety in numbers was the concept) and left Honduras for America. They walked that whole way. After crossing into Mexico they found a country that was doing way better that back home. Many opted to stay in Mexico. About a third of that original trump termed âcaravanâ actually made it to our border.
Our asylum law says nothing about children. Present yourself (with or without family) and declare you are requesting asylum, especially if you gave proof as to the reason why, and you ought to be granted it. It is the law both here among us and by international treaty.
As to âthe kid and a ticket inâ I think you may be referring to âdreamersâ? Is that it?
In Central America theyâve never had a âsecond amendmentâ gun in every household type tradition. There are seriously restrictive laws about gun ownership and possession of firearms in all of Central America and Mexico. So the idea of arming the population to deal with the gangs looks to be a nonstarter although from my perspective I understand the idea.
That was before gangs. Gangs change the equation. In Mexico, the drug gangs and their side business of kidnappings for profit has led to citizen militias forming. If the federales cannot control the drug gangs, citizens must do that themselves.
That is simply false, and you are not telling the truth. Asylum is for SPECIFIC reasons: political or certain other reasons. No, you cannot get asylum because you burned the tortillas and your husband beat you, or because of gangs, or because of hunger. None of these have EVER allowed for asylum. What has happened over the last 10 years is that false asylum claims (and they are all false) have replaced illegals. Where it used to be single guys running through the desert, it is now guys with kids. And they will say, right out loud, âI was told that if I brought a kid I would get a bus ticket and asylum. I just want a jobâ. Itâs all economic.
Trumpâs solution of forcing them to wait in Mexico is the right one. We CANNOT allow them to bring a kid and get around all immigration law. Itâs a simply insane idea. A fair person, and I assume that you are a fair person, would understand that such a system leads to chaos, unfair treatment (those who come in legally spend years on line and thousands of dollars, those who fake asylum spend nothing and get in immediately). This cannot be allowed to persist. By the end of the summer, if it does, we will see 1,000,000 coming. And that will bring more.
Interesting article. It did point out the fault with local militias in several Mexican states. In the town I lived in ⌠in Chiapas State there was strong local distrust of the federal police who were deeply corrupt. To the point that local committees formed to police the town themselves and to keep the federales out. There were road blocks on every road into town. At the time (early 1990âs) there was more trust of the army than the federales. The army was there to root out the Zapatistas led by Commandante Zero (as he was known). Even, still locals were not armed back then. I am not surprised that armed militias are now forming. I am, however, wondering where (as in the image in your link) they are getting military style rifles. That makes me nervous
Mexico is beginning to realize that, if Trump keeps them in Mexico (which is the sensible policy), then they are stuck with lying, thieving, sick, lazy, and otherwise useless âasylum seekersâ in the thousands. and they will stop them from coming.
There is a really good reason for Mexico to stop fake asylum seekers from Central America from coming. Because they are a huge threat to Mexicoâs real interest - getting as many illegals FROM MEXICO into the USA as possible. And why is that?
Because illegals and legal immigrants (NOT THE SAME) send $30,000,000,000 to Mexico PER YEAR. And others from CA send another $30,000,000,000 per year. Thatâs the real thing. Itâs the hidden illegals tax. When $60,000,000,000 per year is sent from the USA, it does not help local USA businesses. It does not go to local USA restaurants. Itâs a huge tax, that no one talks about.
One quick off-the-topic question - are you retired down there? Why do you live there?
Iâm retired, and my wife occasionally talks about Costa Rica. Me I would prefer Croatia or rural France.