What continues to frost my proverbials is those who think refugees/immigrants have a "constitutional right." Hell they aren't even citizens and therefore have jack shit. I mean WTFO is with these idiots?

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
What continues to frost my proverbials is those who think refugees/immigrants have a "constitutional right." Hell they aren't even citizens and therefore have jack shit. I mean WTFO is with these idiots?

Well, you're wrong. But whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

https://assets.documentcloud.o...Ferguson-v-Trump.pdf

Thanks for posting at least the opening motion. It would have been fun to respond to that. There were holes big enough to drive trucks through in it.

It would be interesting to see the government's reply. If the judge, a reported liberal, wanted to stretch to a result, I suppose he had some ways - however specious.

Upon review of the petition, the ruling language is likely to make some fairly large leaps.

One would hope that the judge's ruling is more robust than the petition.

The petition invited legislative history as a partial response. Again, it is just not known what the government or the judge wrote - yet.

I have had cases go to appeal because a judge did not follow the law. Stretching for a result over the clear language of a statute happens. I even had an appeals court chide lower court judges for ignoring clear things in a statute. Again, we'll see.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
What continues to frost my proverbials is those who think refugees/immigrants have a "constitutional right." Hell they aren't even citizens and therefore have jack shit. I mean WTFO is with these idiots?

Well, you're wrong. But whatever.

Once they are feet dry, they are afforded the same rights we have. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

But if they are still in Syria or Iraq, they do NOT have 'Constitutional rights.'

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
What continues to frost my proverbials is those who think refugees/immigrants have a "constitutional right." Hell they aren't even citizens and therefore have jack shit. I mean WTFO is with these idiots?

Well, you're wrong. But whatever.

Once they are feet dry, they are afforded the same rights we have. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

I happen to agree with it down to my core.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
What continues to frost my proverbials is those who think refugees/immigrants have a "constitutional right." Hell they aren't even citizens and therefore have jack shit. I mean WTFO is with these idiots?

Do you even know the definition of the word "Immigrant." ???

The opening part of the Washington State AG filing says

"This relief is necessary to protect the State, its residents, and its businesses from ongoing irreparable harm, and is overwhelmingly in the public interest"

The filing attacks that the order still says green card holders impacted, even though it has been said green card holders are not impacted.

The filing says Washington universities are impacted because some of these immigrants were to go to school in Washington.

Not a lawyer, but the filing sounded very weak.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
But if they are still in Syria or Iraq, they do NOT have 'Constitutional rights.'

I happen to believe everyone on the planet has all the same rights that are prescribed in the Constitution. But that's a debate for another time.

The reality is you're right. It's simply not sensible for us to be the "world's court" as it may in regards to the constitutional rights of every person on earth.

Haven't read the Judge's order but still, I don't understand it. Great deference is given to the President by the Courts in matters of national security. There's got to be something else going on here.

Economic damage for some? Since when it is paramount to national security?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Well, you're wrong. But whatever.

In your opinion which, means as much to me as mine does to you.

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)

1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . .

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, one seeking naturalization must be of good moral character and must be "attached to the principles of the Constitution."

quote:

Originally posted by toms:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Well, you're wrong. But whatever.

In your opinion which, means as much to me as mine does to you.

It's not an opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by toms:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Well, you're wrong. But whatever.

In your opinion which, means as much to me as mine does to you.

It's not an opinion.

It seems like the term "immigrant" is somehow being confused with "illegal immigrant". That is a very slippery slope. Further, many immigrants are citizens.

that aside, Alan, I agree with you on this one

long article and a surprising one


http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...top-using-h1b-trump/

A leading Indian software entrepreneur says Indian companies must accept President Donald Trump’s pro-American policies and must start hiring Americans instead of sending Indian white-collar H-1B visa workers into American job sites.


The startling Feb. 2 recommendation came from N.R. Narayana Murthy, the president and co-founder of the most-criticized H-1B outsourcing firm, Infosys Limited, which has asked for more than 100,000 work visas since 2013. The company uses the visas to send their lower-wage Indian employees to work in U.S. banks, manufacturers and service companies throughout the United States.

“We should stop using H-1B visas and [stop] sending a large number of Indians to those countries to deliver services,” he said in an interview on an Indian affiliate of Microsoft’s MSN network

We have to recruit from colleges there, we have to train those local people [to work with] Indian companies … it is great opportunity for Indian companies to become more and more multicultural.

Roughly 650,000 foreign H-1B workers are employed in a wide variety of white-collar jobs in the United States, including roughly 100,000 as academics, teachers, doctors, therapists, scientists, and designers at American universities. Overall, roughly 1 million foreign college-grads are employed as contract workers in the United States, even as 800,000 Americans graduate from college each year with skilled degrees to compete for well-paying jobs.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump criticized the H-1B program, which is used by many American companies, including Comcast, Carnival, Disney, McDonalds, Caterpillar and Uber. The Indian firms usually rent their H-1B employees out to brand-name American companies.

The increased supply of foreign graduates pushes many middle-aged American professionals out of their careers, and pushes younger American graduates into different careers with lower salaries. The sidelined American professionals and their families have been a huge source of support for Trump among university-educated voters because of Trump’s promise to reform the program.

Trump’s plan to reform the H-1B programs is expected to appear in the next few months, amid determined efforts by major U.S. companies – such as Microsoft and Google – to keep their reserve army of foreign professionals. On Friday, Trump met with top business advisors, many of whom oppose his January decision to exclude would-be immigrants with “hostile attitudes.”

One cannot argue with a tsunami.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
But if they are still in Syria or Iraq, they do NOT have 'Constitutional rights.'

I happen to believe everyone on the planet has all the same rights that are prescribed in the Constitution. But that's a debate for another time.

The reality is you're right. It's simply not sensible for us to be the "world's court" as it may in regards to the constitutional rights of every person on earth.

Under your belief, every living person has a Constitutional right to be present in the United States as it pleases them from time to time.

I think you are referring to the so-called natural rights, free speech, free association, due process, keep and bear arms, as opposed to right to vote, be present in the US, etc. which might be more than one bridge too far.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Under your belief, every living person has a Constitutional right to be present in the United States as it pleases them from time to time.

I think you are referring to the so-called natural rights, free speech, free association, due process, keep and bear arms, as opposed to right to vote, be present in the US, etc. which might be more than one bridge too far.

Yes, I am. Thank you for clarifying. I don't believe that every person has a right to come to this country as he or she pleases.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
But if they are still in Syria or Iraq, they do NOT have 'Constitutional rights.'

I happen to believe everyone on the planet has all the same rights that are prescribed in the Constitution. But that's a debate for another time.

The reality is you're right. It's simply not sensible for us to be the "world's court" as it may in regards to the constitutional rights of every person on earth.

Under your belief, every living person has a Constitutional right to be present in the United States as it pleases them from time to time.

I think you are referring to the so-called natural rights, free speech, free association, due process, keep and bear arms, as opposed to right to vote, be present in the US, etc. which might be more than one bridge too far.

His statement is overbroad and probably not what he believes but it is beyond this thread. Grand Jury indictment? The first three Articles of the Constitution and etc?

Perhaps civil liberties and the first generation of Human Rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is what he would mean after discussion. But, again, it's beyond the scope of this thread.

So glad my great state took immediate action on this.

I hope Trump will still visit from time to time.