Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In a blow to Trump’s immigration agenda, federal judge blocks asylum ban for migrants
Washington Post ^ | November 20, 2018 | Isaac Stanley-Becker .. Maria Sacchetti

Posted on 11/20/2018 3:16:07 AM PST by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

Edited on 11/20/2018 9:21:01 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-169 next last
To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

I’m just going to say very directly: it’s time for Trump to take radical action, ignore Judge rulings, mandate the troops seal the border and dare Congress to impeach him.


121 posted on 11/20/2018 8:48:58 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame
Did the judge cite the exact language in the law where Congress expressly forbids what Trump has done?

I haven't read his ruling but he probably at least referenced it.

"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United Stateswaters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum..."

122 posted on 11/20/2018 9:15:21 AM PST by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

Citing the United Nations in his ruling, the judge just disqualified himself from being heard on the case.

Foreign entities have no standing in our immigration policies at all.

This is an unConsitutional ruling.


123 posted on 11/20/2018 9:46:16 AM PST by DoughtyOne (01/26/18 DJIA 30 stocks $26,616.71 48.794% > open 11/07/16 $215.71 frm 50% increase in 1.2183 yrs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

Just ignore the Judge. You can’t use UN bullcrap as authority to take jurisdiction where you have none. Ignore it. Go on TV and tell everyone the judge needs medicine.


124 posted on 11/20/2018 9:50:35 AM PST by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

Two can play this game. Trump needs to issue an executive order finding the judge in violation of the constitution and the separations clause. Then executively voiding the judges decision. Possibly even declaring the judge guilty of treason.

We are talking about an invasion here. Trump has the power to keep them out.


125 posted on 11/20/2018 9:56:44 AM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Take it to the USSC, Donald.

He already did. Trump vs Hawaii, which he won in June of this year.

126 posted on 11/20/2018 10:02:24 AM PST by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
Can't President Trump just ignore this idiotic ruling that doesn't even have any basis in law?

He should, considering the fact that this issue was already litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, which decided in the President's favor in June of this year. Trump vs Hawaii.

127 posted on 11/20/2018 10:08:12 AM PST by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #128 Removed by Moderator

To: CaptainPhilFan

Why would you post this?

.


129 posted on 11/20/2018 10:14:57 AM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
It will be a continuing game until it hits SCOTUS.

It already hit the Supreme Court. Trump vs Hawaii, which was decided in the President's favor in June of this year.

130 posted on 11/20/2018 10:16:22 AM PST by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ripnbang
This is only a temporary injunction. Let it go to SCOTUS.

It already did. Trump vs Hawaii, which was decided in the President's favor in June of this year.

How many times does the administration have to litigate the same thing?

131 posted on 11/20/2018 10:22:59 AM PST by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Hundreds of Tons of Concertina needs to wrap that border.

No one should get through. Not any more, party’s over.

We need to ‘Go and Fund the Wall’ at the expense of the charities (Catholic, Luthern, and all the rest) that profit from trafficking invaders in our country.


132 posted on 11/20/2018 10:27:45 AM PST by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

Federal judge? F-ing ignore him. Obama did it constantly. He ignored rulings on this very topic that ruled his asylum DACA was illegal.

Just say two courts are in conflict and do what you want.


133 posted on 11/20/2018 10:34:51 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege

“How does Marbury v. Madison encompass this?”

Even Marbury vs Madison was a power grab for powers not listed in the Constitution.


134 posted on 11/20/2018 10:36:08 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CaptainPhilFan

A really stupid thing to do.


135 posted on 11/20/2018 10:47:14 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: littleharbour
The separation of powers needs to be enforced by unilateral declaration of the President. Going to the USSC is accepting that judges have the right to overrule the CIC on issues of national security. They do not, and should not be asked for permission.

^^^ This! ^^^

136 posted on 11/20/2018 10:48:59 AM PST by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
This ruling is unconstitutional on so many levels.

First, if illegal entrants can enter anywhere along the border, this makes ANYBODY along the border accountable for receiving asylum seekers. These people are NOT authorized by Congress to receive these people.

Second, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's SB1070 was an unconstitutional usurpation of federal powers belonging to Congress. Now, this judge is ruling that state authorities MUST accept illegal entrant asylum seekers? This goes against the SCOTUS ruling against Arizona.

Third, if state authorities are barred by SCOTUS to enforce immigration laws (including granting asylum, receiving asylum seekers, or even turning back asylum seekers), then the states will be forced to catch and release these illegal entrants, which is what the Left wants.

What we have is a district court judge overruling the Supreme Court on its ruling against Arizona's SB1070. The judge's restraining order should be overturned by SCOTUS immediately.

-PJ

137 posted on 11/20/2018 10:59:17 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I believe Trump v Hawaii had to a ban on a specific race/religion. The current case is specific to asylum seekers. As the law provides now, all anyone has to do it touch US soil and they cannot be immediately deported, but have to have a hearing to see if they qualify for asylum. Trump wants to make it where they have to come through a port of entry. I don’t like the law, and I think he’ll (we’ll) prevail in front of SCOTUS, but ultimately this has to be fixed by Congress, which if SCOTUS upholds what the President is asking for, perhaps Congress will get off their a*s and fix it.


138 posted on 11/20/2018 11:13:26 AM PST by ripnbang ("An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man, a subject.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Tell this Communist “judge” to take a hike into the wild fires.


139 posted on 11/20/2018 11:15:27 AM PST by alstewartfan ("An original thought would be such a rush. Why do they feed you a diet of man-made mush?" Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

“According to Allan Derschowitz...”

Dershowshitz is FOS. He’s a g-damn leftist. A gas-lighter. A liar.

The courts have no jurisdiction with immigration and border security. These a$$hole judges need to be ignored or better yet rounded up and sent to gitmo in the dead of the night.


140 posted on 11/20/2018 11:29:19 AM PST by Electric Graffiti (Cocked, locked and ready to ROCK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-169 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson