Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 30  31  32 

 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


Immigration is the international movement of people into a destination country of which they are not natives or where they do not possess citizenship in order to settle or reside there, especially as permanent residents or naturalized citizens, or to take up employment as a migrant worker or temporarily as a foreign worker.

Illegal immigration is the illegal entry of a person or a group of persons across a country's border, in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country, with the intention to remain in the country. Illegal immigration, as well as immigration in general, is overwhelmingly upward, from a poorer to a richer country. Living in another country illegally includes a variety of restrictions, as well as the risk of being detained and deported or of facing other sanctions.

Asylum is an ancient juridical concept, under which a person persecuted by their own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary. This right was already recognized by the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Hebrews, from whom it was adopted into Western tradition.

-- All definitions from Wikipedia

Last edited by Miz Robbie, 4/29/2018, 2:29 pm


---
Robbie
4/29/2018, 2:29 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


At end of migrant caravan, families fear what lies next

by Maya Averbuch and Joshua Partlow April 29 at 2:17 PM


TIJUANA, Mexico — After more than a month on the road, traversing 2,500 miles across Mexico, the migrants’ caravan came to an end on Sunday at an oceanside park where the U.S.-Mexico border fence juts into sea.

Some 200 Central American migrants who remain in the caravan were expected to turn themselves in to U.S. authorities later on Sunday with the hope they will be given asylum.

But first, there were weddings.

Four couples tied the knot at a ceremony at Friendship Park here, a place where families on opposite sides of the border are generally allowed to speak for a few hours on weekends, despite remaining on opposite sides of the fence. The nuptials underscored one of the migrants’ greatest fears now that they've reached the border: having their families torn apart once they turn themselves over to U.S. immigration authorities.

“We’re fighting so that people who already have kids together are recognized as a family,” said Emma Lozano, a pastor for Familia Latina Unida, an immigrants’ rights group based in Chicago, who performed the wedding ceremonies. The marriage certificate is “a legal document that shows they are a family, so that they don’t divide the family,”

In past years, migrant caravans have served as a way to call attention to the plight of migrants on a dangerous journey, but they often traveled in obscurity. This year, because of tweets from President Trump, the caravan has been tracked closely since it left southern Mexico more than a month ago. Trump demanded that Mexico do more to stop migrants from reaching the United States and used the caravan as justification for tighter border security.

As the group reached the border, U.S. officials have suggested that the migrants should stay in Mexico and warned them — and the activists helping them — from making false immigration claims, saying that they will be prosecuted if they do.

“To anyone that is associated with this caravan, Think Before You Act,” Rodney S. Scott, chief patrol agent in San Diego for the U.S. Border Patrol, said in a statement. “If anyone has encouraged you to illegally enter the United States, or make any false statements to U.S. government officials, they are giving you bad advice and they are placing you and your family at risk.”

The caravan started out with more than 1,000 people, but the numbers have dwindled as the group made its way north by foot, bus and train. Activists and immigration lawyers have helped organize the journey and given workshops on U.S. immigration law.

U.S. law generally allows foreigners to apply for asylum, although the vast majority of Central Americans who apply are not approved. Migrants who pass the initial “credible fear” screening often get assigned a date in immigration court and then are released after a few days in custody. U.S. officials say many migrants skip their court dates and try to live illegally in the United States.

More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/at-end-of-migrant-caravan-families-fear-what-lies-next/2018/04/29/4f2f9094-4b31-11e8-8082-105a446d19b8_story.html?utm_term=.20903ee32fa0

---
Robbie
4/29/2018, 2:35 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


I'm watching the coverage on MSNBC. It is showing a large crowd of people at a border wall, many of whom are climbing the wall and sitting on top of it.

If these people wanted to help Trump's fear-mongering of them, they couldn't be providing better optics. It looks like we're a country under attack and walls won't keep out the attackers.

I wish they'd had better public relations advice.

---
Robbie
4/29/2018, 2:37 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


Man.... I'm sorry to hear that. So many of these poor people are REAL victims of violence and persecution, legitimate asylum-seekers. Those who are showing off for the cameras are NOT being helpful....

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
4/29/2018, 5:25 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Birdz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 2483
Karma: 0 (+8/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


The woman who cuts my hair is Colombian. She and her family got into the US some 20+ years ago under political asylum. I haven't asked her about the circumstances. She is now applying for US citizenship.

I'm concerned that some of these wannabe asylum seekers would otherwise be granted asylum if they were anything other than latinos (or Muslims, for that matter).
4/29/2018, 10:22 pm Link to this post PM Birdz
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


I have the same reaction, Birdz. This administration doesn't want any more brown people in the country.

---
Robbie
4/29/2018, 11:08 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


I agree. If they were arriving from Norway, I don't think Trump would have any problem with them joining us.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
4/30/2018, 1:21 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


(The Hill) - At a campaign rally in Tennessee...Tuesday, Trump said that “in the end, Mexico is going to pay for the wall. They make all of this money, and they do absolutely nothing to stop people from going through Mexico, from Honduras and all these other countries, the caravan, all of this stuff,” the president said. “They do nothing to help us, nothing. They’re going to pay for the wall, and they’re going to enjoy it.

Mexican President Pena Nieto's response came via twitter: President @realDonaldTrump: NO. Mexico will NEVER pay for a wall. Not now, not ever. Sincerely, Mexico (all of us).

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
5/29/2018, 10:52 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


(CNN) - US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested 114 undocumented immigrants working at an Ohio gardening business in one of its largest workplace raids in recent years.... Tuesday's arrests targeted employees of Corso's Flower and Garden Center in Sandusky and Castalia, Ohio....

A family member of one of the arrested Corso's workers who did not want to be identified spoke to CNN affiliate NBC 24. "My soon to be brother-in-law was deported this morning," she told the news station. "He was brought here as a young boy. He's worked at Corso's for many years. They paid him good money. By no means did they pay him what they think immigrants should be paid. They paid him good money. "He did a good job and worked hard to provide for his family. He's got a six-month-old daughter," she added.


More Republican family values....

Um WHICH American jobs were these workers taking?

And WHAT violent crimes were these workers busy committing?

And WHAT welfare cheats were there among these workers?

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/7/2018, 12:16 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


(CNN) - Woman's forced labor for Salvadoran guerrillas means she must leave US, court rules

She was kidnapped by Salvadoran guerillas three decades ago, watched her husband be killed and forced to cook and clean for the militants. Now she can't stay in the US — because that was supporting terrorists, a court says.

The main appellate body of the immigration courts issued a divided opinion Wednesday with broad implications, finding that a woman from El Salvador is ineligible for status in the US because her 1990 abduction and forced labor amount to "material support" of a terrorist organization.

According to the court documents, the woman was kidnapped by the guerrillas in El Salvador and made to do the cooking and cleaning "under threat of death." She was also "forced to witness her husband, a sergeant in the Salvadoran Army, dig his own grave before being killed."

Nevertheless, the 2-1 opinion holds that the woman's coerced duties for the group constituted "material support" for a terrorist organization, and thus made her ineligible to be granted asylum or have her deportation order canceled in the US -- though a lower court judge had ruled she would otherwise be eligible for such relief.


So...the party of family values is sending her back to the country where she was once terrorized. No, no grounds for asylum at all....

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/7/2018, 8:42 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


We are such raving bastards. emoticon

---
Robbie
6/7/2018, 9:46 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


I don't know the particulars of the case beyond the words in this article. I have grown to distrust the media in fairly reporting such stories, so who knows?

The judges said that the law does not provide for this kind of exception. So my question is this:

If the law does not provide for such an exception, do we blame the judges for not overruling the law? Sotomayor was famous for claiming she legislated from the bench, and I am very much opposed to that.

What if the facts were flipped, and the law required that she be granted asylum, but the judges, evil Republican bastards all, decided that was not okay, and turned her down anyway?

Cases like this are why we must have real immigration reform, and it will take compromise on both sides to have it. And no one seems to be willing to consider it. So, until then, her story will be just another partisan arrow fired from one side at the other.



---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/8/2018, 8:52 am Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


Barry: I don't know the particulars of the case beyond the words in this article. I have grown to distrust the media in fairly reporting such stories, so who knows?

That just is an easy excuse to dismiss what is actually happening. It is a court case, Barry. You can look up the ruling.

The judges said that the law does not provide for this kind of exception.

Yeah, let's look at exactly what TWO of the three idiot judges had to say:
quote:

Writing for the majority, Board of Immigration Appeals Judge Roger Pauley ruled that "material support" can be virtually anything that is provided to a terrorist organization that supports their overall mission that they would otherwise would need to seek somewhere else. "In fact, no court has held that the kind of support an alien provides, if related to promoting the goals of a terrorist organization, is exempt from the material support bar, and we discern no basis to import such a limitation," Pauley wrote. Pauley also concluded there was no exception for support given "under duress" under US law and the actions do not need to be "voluntary."


Clearly, the INTENTION and SPIRIT of the law is to bar people who enthusiastically support terrorists and terrorist organizations. That is NOT what this woman was doing. She WATCHED them kill her husband. And she knew they would kill her, too, if she didn't wash their clothes and cook their food, as they demanded. And these judges sit there in their robes, saying, "Sucks to be you."

So my question is this:

If the law does not provide for such an exception, do we blame the judges for not overruling the law? Sotomayor was famous for claiming she legislated from the bench, and I am very much opposed to that.


It simply isn't true that the law doesn't provide for an exception. The law, as the dissenting judge pointed out, spells out a list of very specific examples of "material support" -- offering safe houses, transportation, funds, and other support that specifically furthers the group's mission. As the dissenting judge pointed out, cooking, cleaning, and washing clothes -- especially under duress -- don't fit that list at all. So what TWO of the three judges in her case are doing is CHOOSING to apply the very narrowest definition of the law. Think about the abused women who, for years, were convicted of manslaughter and worse when they killed the husbands who had abused them for years. Was it "legislating from the bench" when judges began to take the totality of the circumstances into account in deciding whether these women should spend the rest of their lives in prison? I don't think so. It is clearly a matter of deciding what the SPIRIT of the law is. And I cannot IMAGINE that reasonable legislators would have created a system whereby tortured refugees would be held responsible for doing what they needed to do to survive -- and then sent right back to the people who tortured them. Current Republicans? Yeah, I see it from THEM all the time. But not from REASONABLE people....

What if the facts were flipped, and the law required that she be granted asylum, but the judges, evil Republican bastards all, decided that was not okay, and turned her down anyway?

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services website says "Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion." That IS the law. And THESE judges turned her down anyway, Barry.

Cases like this are why we must have real immigration reform, and it will take compromise on both sides to have it. And no one seems to be willing to consider it. So, until then, her story will be just another partisan arrow fired from one side at the other.

I agree we need comprehensive immigration reform, Barry. But extremists WITHIN the Republican party simply refuse to allow it to move forward. You didn't see news of the Republican powwow yesterday, where the Republican conference itself couldn't manage to figure out how to move forward? If reasonable Republicans would be willing to work with Democrats, we COULD move forward. But they won't. Party over country.

Party over people.

Party over reason.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/8/2018, 2:18 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


Calm down, Lis. Your used of CAPS to demonstrate EMPHATIC INDIGNITY is ridiculous AND ineffective.

quote:

That just is an easy excuse to dismiss what is actually happening. It is a court case, Barry. You can look up the ruling.



I did look up the ruling. Maybe you don't know the difference between a ruling, and a news article about a ruling. For example, did you know the ruling said this:

quote:

In a decision dated January 14, 2014, we concluded that the respondent is ineligible for cancellation, finding that she is inadmissible under section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VIII) of the Act because she received military-type weapons training from the guerrillas, who we determined were a terrorist organization in 1990. Further, we found no basis for the Immigration Judge’s assertion that there is a self-defense or duress exception in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Act.



Didn't see that little tidbit in the article.

quote:

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services website says "Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion." That IS the law. And THESE judges turned her down anyway, Barry.



You display great ignorance with quotes like this. First of all, no. That is not the LAWWWWW. That is a WEBSITEEEEE. Understand the difference?

The actual LAWWWWWW has exceptions for those that support terrorist organizations, one of which specifically named is receiving weapons training. The question here was did this individual meet or fail to meet the bar for this exception because of the nature of most of her duties, or the fact that they were done under duress.

This appeal process has been going on for 7 years now. In several steps along the way, judges found that she did meet the bar of supporting terrorist organizations. And in this very case the judges found 2-1 that she did. This was not a brash, hastily arrived at conclusion. That you don't agree with it is not important to anyone but you.

Look, thank God that not all judges are Harvard graduates, or go to Harvard Law School, or are members of the New York State Bar.

Last edited by bigbarry2u, 6/8/2018, 5:16 pm


---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/8/2018, 5:05 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


Barry: Calm down, Lis. Your used of CAPS to demonstrate EMPHATIC INDIGNITY is ridiculous AND ineffective.

Good heavens, Barry. Grow up. You've been here long enough to know that I use caps to illustrate the words I am emphasizing in a sentence. Always have, always will. I'm plenty calm, your hyperbole notwithstanding. Deal with it.

I did look up the ruling. Maybe you don't know the difference between a ruling, and a news article about a ruling.

Oooh, extra points for being rude. Did it make you feel like a REAL man? In case anyone else is interested, here is the link to the actual ruling.

For example, did you know the ruling said this:
quote:

In a decision dated January 14, 2014, we concluded that the respondent is ineligible for cancellation, finding that she is inadmissible under section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VIII) of the Act because she received military-type weapons training from the guerrillas, who we determined were a terrorist organization in 1990. Further, we found no basis for the Immigration Judge’s assertion that there is a self-defense or duress exception in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Act.


Perhaps you missed the paragraph directly ABOVE that one: "her undisputed testimony that she was kidnapped by guerillas in El Salvador in 1990 and was coerced into undergoing weapons training and performing forced labor in the form of cooking, cleaning, and washing their clothes."

Didn't see that little tidbit in the article.

As long as you're being snarky, perhaps you might consider that articles generally don't include the entire ruling within them. Just sayin'.

Gee, Barry. Let's think about what kind of "weapons training" the terrorists would have provided one of their captives. Think they left her with any loaded weapons? Not a chance. As absolutely ridiculously as these judges narrowly interpreted this law, I have to question whether they would consider an order from the terrorists to hit any incoming military officers with a frying pan as "weapons training."

quote:

That IS the law. And THESE judges turned her down anyway, Barry.


You display great ignorance with quotes like this.

Always the gentleman, aren't you, Barry? In fact, these two judges completely TWISTED the intention of the law at hand. They spent the vast majority of the ruling trying to explain that the word "material" in "material support" didn't REALLY mean that the support made any material difference in the terrorists' activities; therefore, ANYTHING someone EVER did to support the terrorists counted as them being a terrorist supporter. (As in, this woman was supporting the terrorists who had killed her husband and were holding her captive.) How sick of an imagination do these judges have to have, to reach THAT conclusion?

The LAWWWWWW

Calm down, Barry. You're bound to break or bulge something.

has exceptions for those that support terrorist organizations, one of which specifically named is receiving weapons training. The question here was did this individual meet or fail to meet the bar for this exception because of the nature of most of her duties, or the fact that they were done under duress.

As the judge in the minority explained:
quote:

Individuals arriving in this country from “some of the most dangerous and chaotic places on earth . . . may not have been able to avoid all contact with terrorist groups and their members, but we should not interpret the statute to exclude on this basis those who did not provide ‘material’ support to them,” since “[m]any deserving asylum-seekers could be barred otherwise.” Unlike the majority, which apparently would apply the bar without any meaningful limit, I would not decline to carry out our responsibility to strike the foregoing critical balance.


The two heartless judges in this case made NO attempt to strike a balance -- as the judges had held just a year earlier.

This appeal process has been going on for 7 years now. In several steps along the way, judges found that she did meet the bar of supporting terrorist organizations.

Clearly from the many citations within the ruling, the laws and interpretations have been changing. In fact, the immigration judge in 2011 DID grant her application to cancel her removal. It was Homeland Security that appealed. And even your friends in the majority spent PARAGRAPHS pointing out that the primary concern is barring aliens who are "a danger to the security of the United States." Do you REALLY believe this woman, who was enslaved by the terrorists who had killed her husband, was a danger to the security of the United States? For that matter, had she done ANYTHING since 1991 in the United States to demonstrate that she was a danger to ANYONE???

And in this very case the judges found 2-1 that she did. This was not a brash, hastily arrived at conclusion. That you don't agree with it is not important to anyone but you.

Ooooh, look how dismissive you are! Does THAT make you feel like a real man, Barry? Tough guys are just so damn sexy.... Not....

Look, thank God that not all judges are Harvard graduates, or go to Harvard Law School, or are members of the New York State Bar.

As desperate as you are to defend these judges, you must be awfully proud of their decision to condemn an absolute victim to be returned to a life among those who murdered her husband, tortured her, and might very well return to finish up the job with her. How all-American of you. Would you like me to wave the flag in your general direction, or did you bring your own?

I certainly hope you are never robbed at gunpoint, Barry. Because under YOUR reading of the law, if you watch them murder your wife, and then you VOLUNTARILY hand over your wallet to avoid being killed, you're not only providing the robbers a "donation;" you're materially supporting their criminal activities. That you lost your money is your own damn fault.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/8/2018, 6:45 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


That was beautiful, Lis. I don't think I have ever seen you flail like that before.

---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/8/2018, 7:01 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


I see you have no serious response.

I figured as much.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/8/2018, 8:07 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


There was nothing to respond to other than your sexist comments, visualization of Cynthia being murdered, and "my reading of the law" which was never in question. The question is the judges' reading of the law, which is more than a quip on a website, or an article which failed to mentioned that the individual had also been trained in weapons.

Your speculation or wishful thinking on the matter is irrelevant and does not warrant a response.

Usually your retorts are awful and hateful, including accusing me of wanting children to die, but most of the time if you look hard enough you will see at least one intelligent point.

Not this time. Not even close.

---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/8/2018, 9:24 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


Yeah, no serious response.

Desperate attempt to figure out an excuse for it, though.

Carry on.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/8/2018, 9:45 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: Immigration and Asylum (other than DACA)


The two judges in this case were very obviously determined to deny this woman asylum, without regard to the exceptions that should have been and could have been made under the law (as the dissenter pointed out). I don't understand the counterargument that Lis is flailing and ought to calm down and stop using all caps. I also don't understand the "fault on both sides" argument, since Trump has thrown a bomb into any compromise about immigration that has so far been reached by Republicans and Democrats. Could I have a link for Sotomayor's claim that she legislates from the bench?
6/11/2018, 9:15 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 30  31  32 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top