Refugee Caravan Heading For U.S.

One judge can make such a ruling, but that doesn't mean he's the final word on the issue. An appellate court can overturn him.

Also, you won't like this, but the judge is probably correct.

 

Thomas floated a discussion of this issue in a concurrent opinion this year. He was laying the groundwork for them addressing this in the future in some fashion, and not necessarily case law.

 

If he is right why is Obama's DACA EO still alive?

And while we wait for appeal how many thousands sneak in?

 

Looking at that headline AGAIN makes the media look complicit. The Mexicans, who were inflamed by the media reminding them about Trump's campaign rhetoric suddenly are brainwashed by him (using the term trickle down which is clearly a biased form of reporting). It's sickening how they can get away with this.

 

I absolutely abhor this forum shopping that is being engaged in. The judge is in San Francisco and is on the bench for the Northern District of California. They are NOT a jurisdiction that is immediately impacted and that should have effectively precluded the judge from intervening. But libtards gonna libtard and find a judge in a court that clearly does not care about wasting even MORE money in allowing their State to become even more of a ********.

 

I think the caravan should be bused to the where ever that judge has jurisdiction. Drive up to the Northern California, up to the courthouses steps and let all 10,000 of them out of the bus with their hands out for treats.

I would even approve Federal $s being used to do it. Then we all get what we want, right?

 

Maybe that's what they want. If the census counts everyone, legal or otherwise, then California will gain more electoral college votes...

 

Homeland Security warns that there are 500 known criminals in the first caravan.

Migrant caravan at US border is harboring more than 500 criminals, Homeland Security claims

Rush Limbaugh says since we can't stop them, we should distribute 10 criminals to every state. I say we distribute the dirty bunch among the blue states, with the majority going to Cal., NY, and Illinois.

 

I am torn between By's point and Clean's idea.

Of course Calif would love to get more voters
but there is something appealing about dumping the horde on that jerk judge

 

I tell ya', if I'm right it is so cynical. They will figure out how to pay for it later; they just want the power.

 

I not only think it's individual judge shopping but I also suspect there is some type of pre-filing communication or signaling going on. Maybe it is through clerks or other court personnel, through spouses, through something or someone. Not only are they pre-screening and picking their judge but they are able to get their filing assigned to that hand-picked judge. Which suggests potential multiple layers of cooperation.

I worked in a federal courthouse back in the day. The only thing I can say I saw first hand back then was clerks fighting over which appeals they could grab. It was not supposed to go that way, but it did. But it wasnt really overly ideological at that time. It was mainly about the meat of the case. Maybe a subject matter of great interest or someone thought he could author a great opinion on a area of the law that would set precedent and, thus, allow that clerk to maybe make a name for him/herself. Maybe use that as a springboard to clerk at the next level up or even get a better legal job offer.

What's happening now is over the top. And I look forward to one of them getting outed for it. Hopefully soon. Someday, someone will spill the beans. And whatever it is, I hope it's enough to piss of the Chief Justice. It kind of ticks me off that he ignores it like he does.

 

bystander, that is what the 3/5 rule is for.

 

I'm not following. What does one thing have to do with the other? Totally separate cases. Separate issues. Decided on a completely different set of laws.

 

yea Mr D
You are right in that they are separate cases
But they both are EOs. Many still think Obama did not have the authority for DACA, even BO himself.
yet it is still in effect.
Wish the GOP would judge shop and end it

 

EOs aren't all judged by the same laws. Obama's EO is judged according to his authority to unilaterally create a new class of legal immigrants under the guise of "prosecutorial discretion."

I'll admit that I haven't read the ruling on Trump's EO case. However, federal statute doesn't require asylum seekers to enter through a port of entry even if it prefers that. By making that a condition of asylum, Trump's EO breaks the law. I don't like that result, but it's the law.

They do judge shop. Every lawyer worth a crap files suit in the venue most favorable to him. That doesn't mean he can go anywhere he wants, but the law usually gives him a at least somewhat of a choice.

 

They actually believe those things but their base doesn't so they will spread propaganda to get elected. Although the progressive wing of their party are basically communists now. Except those like Obama who sold out and will ironically become a billionaire in the last remaining industries that are unregulated pure capitalism...Hollywood and Silicon Valley

 

Mexico has begun its own deportations

Tijuana arrests 34 Central America migrants on minor charges

 

So here was my proposal above. Now see what they are doing
I keep you guys the WH reads Hornfans for better ideas, here is yet more proof
This is a good temporary solution in light of the current mess we find ourselves -- meaning the way the SCOTUS has interpreted how due process applies to non-citizens. Keep them from setting foot on US soil.

 

The **** hit the fan yesterday. Hundreds of migrants tried to get through the Mexican police blockade and rush the border crossing in Tijuana Sunday. They were repelled by tear gas.

More are coming. One report said some migrants wanted to wait for their numbers to build up to 20,000 before taking action. Mexico generously offered them asylum. They refused it. Trump is right. It is an invasion.

Apparently it's California or bust for this group. If they get in, and I'll bet they do when some Federal Judge steps in and rules we can't legally keep them out, I hope they set up camp right out side of Beverly Hills / Holmby Hills where George Clooney, Streisand, and all the other Hollywood Lefties live.

 

MSM with WaPO being a leader is predictably seizing on the contrived optic of a woman who may or may not be the mother dragging a barefoot child in diapers with another child in flip flops and diaper. Oh The horror ! we shot tear gas into the horde and this trio somehow got on camera.
No this wasn't set up.

 

I have to admit the caravan story isn't going how I expected. The mayor of Tijuana is a hero in my mind.

 

This guy is a US Senator

 

It is a little bit ironic that in the US, you can get in big trouble, possibly even be sent to the pokey, for letting your 10-year-old child walk home from school unaccompanied, or for leaving the kids in the car for a few minutes in the summer, for leaving them home alone or even just letting them rides bikes without a helmet

But ...... if you drag a helpless diapered toddler into an illegal and dangerous border jumping scheme, you are an instant hero.

 

They also say they are going to deport another 500 who rushed the border near Tijuana

 

It does not get much run given that this caravan began in Honduras, but Hillary used to brag about her participation in the coup in Honduras that sent that country from bad to worse

Here she was back running for Pres

 

US involvement in Honduras does highlight another important aspect of migration.

The more the US military bombs cities and works with warlords the more people want to leave their home country. Much of what EU is going through is because of all the violence in the ME which the US is entangled in. Leave people be and there will be less people wandering north.

 

(a) I dont like Hillary but I did not mean to leave the impression she actually bombed Honduras. Sorry if that was unclear

(b) I understand/empathize with your point. But what the hanging issue, as I see it, is what is US supposed to do in the face of open genocide of a country's own citizens? Exs - Pol Pot, Rawanda, the ex-Yugos. Do we just stand by and watch it happen? This is where your position becomes difficult. The UN Charter specifically makes it legal, at least in terms of international law, to intervene in the affairs of another state in that instance.

 

(a) I wasn't really taking about Honduras. I was lumping in all foreign intervention. The US bombings are mostly in ME.

(b) Well, the US didn't do anything against Pol Pot or Rwanda. In Yugoslavia the things I have read say the UN/US action was more hurtful than helpful.

I think you raise the valid point about humanitarian efforts. But I think history shows that US leaders give humanitarian justifications to us, the citizen, in order to get popular support, and then go do whatever they want in mostly a ham handed way to help crony interests. At this point I would prefer the US govt do nothing than do anything because I don't trust them.