Posted on 05/21/2024 6:00:16 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
On Monday’s broadcast of Fox 5’s “Good Day New York,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) claimed that President Joe Biden can’t reverse his reversal of former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies because “The law on asylum is really clear. If you have a colorable claim that you’re coming from a horrible country that has horrible things happening, you have a right to come here.”
Gillibrand said, “President Trump — former President Trump has come out to say, I don’t want any fixes to immigration, which is just cynical and terrible for a state like New York, because we need these laws changed.”
Co-host Rosanna Scotto then said, “But the President can change it with — he can make his own change. He got rid of them within the first 100 days [he was in office].”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I do think she set a record for the number of lies.
What is a colorable claim? I’ve never heard that terminology before. Is that a legal term?
“colorable claim that you’re coming from a horrible country that has horrible things happening, ”
What is a “colorable claim”?
It means that the left believes everything said by people "of color".
They are coming from horrible places around the world into Mexico and Canada. I believe the rules for asylum state that you must request asylum in the first country available, so unless these are Mexicans or Canadians asking for asylum they shouldn’t be here.
“The law on asylum is really clear. If you have a colorable claim that you’re coming from a horrible country that has horrible things happening, you have a right to come here.”
Bull shit
She says the law on Asylum is so clear.
One aspect of how clear it is, is that you must present yourself at a port of entry ,,in order to ask for asylum. You cannot just sneak into this country and then claim Asylum.
So she thinks this law is so clear but she clearly misunderstands one key aspect of the law , which she allegedly understands so clearly.
Interesting that a number of us have questions about this colorable claim.
Maybe she just made that up , and thinks that it makes her sound smart, to use such a term.
“you’re coming from a horrible country that has horrible things happening, you have a right to come here.”
According to the dems America is a horrible country where horrible things happen to minorities. Send them back for their own good.
A “horrible country”?
Sounds a bit like how Trump described a few African destinations, does it not?
I wonder what the sum total population is of the countries she deems horrible—and how well they’d all fit here.
Kristen, remember Democrat’s policy number 1, “We don’t need no stinking badges!” So remember this, if a liberal President can just change laws with rules, then so can Trump!
Childish Dems love coloring books and crayons in their safe spaces.
This idiot wants to drop back deep into history to justify this one:
Daniel 6:8 —
“Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked.”
One aspect of how clear it is, is that you must present yourself at a port of entry ,,in order to ask for asylum. You cannot just sneak into this country and then claim Asylum.
So she thinks this law is so clear but she clearly misunderstands one key aspect of the law , which she allegedly understands so clearly.
_________________________________________________________
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate on this one. Even if one must follow some sort of procedure to get onto US soil, can someone legally be deported back to their “problem country” simply for not following that procedure? Now I know how I would answer (if I were the sole authority on the matter). I would say “yes” you can be deported. Furthermore, I would never claim that anyone from a “problem” country” has an inalienable right to come and remain here. But do current asylum laws create an unassailable right once someone reaches US soil?
IIRC, in legal usage, a colorable claim is one that has at least a prima facie appearance of merit, enough to proceed through initial stages of litigation. It suggests that the claim is not groundless or frivolous and is plausible based on the facts and law presented.
Excellent question. As a practical matter, these people are not being deported , so it seems like by default they’re being allowed to stay in this country.
Like Germany we have a dearth of homegrown mother rapers so we need to import them.
Like Germany we have a dearth of homegrown mother rapers so we need to import them.
Like Germany we have a dearth of homegrown mother rapers so we need to import them.
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.