Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "Fox Business"
channel.
-
19
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mark H
Keep in mind his biggest complaint is that the BLM was suppose to erect a fence to keep cattle off this pieces of land that was determined to be cow free. But, instead according to Walden went after ranchers
to build it. What reason would the BLM have for not building the fence themselves? Then Walden says he restated it in the appropriations bill, did the funding for that fence go away or was the BLM really just going out of their
way to screw with ranchers. Ahh found thisSEC. 101. DESIGNATION OF STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE
MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA.
(a)DESIGNATION.—The Secretary shall designate
the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area consistingofapproximately 425,550 acres of Federal land located in HarneyCounty, Oregon, in the vicinity of Steens Mountain, as generallydepicted on the map entitled ‘‘Steens Mountain Boundary Map’’and dated September 18, 2000.(b)CONTENTS OF MAP.—In addition to the general
boundaries of the Cooperative Management and Protection Area, the mapreferred to in subsection (a) also depicts the general boundariesof the following:(1)The no livestock grazing area described in section 113(e).CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN PERMITS.—The Secretaryshall cancel that portion of the permitted grazing on Federallands in the Fish Creek/Big Indian, East Ridge, and SouthSteens allotments located within the area designated as the‘‘no livestock grazing area’’ on the map referred to in section101(a).Upon cancellation, future grazing use in that designatedarea is prohibited. The Secretary shall be responsible forinstalling and maintaining any fencing required for resourceprotection within the designated no livestock grazing area.allotment to Lowther (Clemens) Ranch.
(4)FENCING AND WATER SYSTEMS.—The Secretary shallalso construct fencing and develop water systems as necessaryto allow reasonable and efficient livestock use of the forageresourcesreferred to in paragraph (3). The law he was speaking of created a 12 member Advisory council with a secretary of
the council who is named in the legislation was to build the fence, and he
blames the BLM. you should read the law they wrote I think Walden is playing
the people of Harney County. Steens Mountain Advisory Council FINAL June 11-12, 2015 Summary MinutesLitigation update – The settlement agreement
with Mr. Stroemple is completed. It had a June 1st effective date. The BLM is
working on an EA analyzing building fencing. Among the alternatives to consider
are building the fence entirely in wilderness or building it on the boundary
line (and other alternatives). Also, they are analyzing materials and methods
of getting materials to the site. The BLM paid Mr. Stroemple some money, as
well. It’s up to him to keep his cows on private land. BLM will also check
periodically. We will not herd them but will let him know if they are on the No
Livestock Grazing Area (NLGA) public lands and need to be returned to his
private lands. As we’ve said all along, Mr. Stroemple has the right to graze
his private land. A SMAC member asked how long analysis will take and when would BLM be building the fence. Rhonda replied
that it’s a priority but the analysis is currently in review in the solicitor’s office. There might be a decision on the EA in a year. It could be appealed; then it would be 2–3 years to go through IBLA. Even if the fence is on private
land, effects to wilderness values have to be analyzed (sights, sounds, etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What part of the word “retention” do you not understand? I don’t have the time to explain this so here is the cut and paste for your reading pleasure.
Constitutional Basis
for Federal Land Ownership:The Property Clause
The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.
This provision provides broad authority for Congress to govern the lands acquired by the federal government as it sees fit, and to exercise exclusive authority to decide on whether or not to dispose of those lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has described this power as “without limitation,” stating that:
while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause. Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause....
And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.4
One authoritativecommentary noted that:No appropriation of public lands may be made for any purpose except by authority of Congress.... Congress may limit the disposition of the public domain to a manner consistent with its views of public policy.... It [the Property Clause] empowers Congress to act as both proprietor and legislature over the
public domain; Congress has complete power to make those “needful rules” which in its discretion it determines are necessary. When Congress acts with respect to those lands covered by the [Property] clause, its legislation overrides conflicting state laws. Absent action by Congress, however, states may in some instances exercise some jurisdiction over activities on federal lands.5
3 (...continued)
without intervening federal ownership.
4 Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 542-543 (1976).
5 CRS, “Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 Analysis,” United States Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation, footnotes omitted, at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/conan/Article04/topic_
Thus, it is accepted law that the federal government may own and hold property as Congress directs.6 Issues such as whether some or all of the
remaining federal lands should be retained or divested, how to dispose of lands, or whether to acquire additional federal lands, appear to be policy questions for Congress.
The Equal Footing Doctrine. The equal footing doctrine is based on Article IV, § 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution. That clause addresses how new states will be admitted.7 The doctrine means that “equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all States of the Union, old and new.”8 It does not mean that physical or economic situations among states must be the same.9 The term comes from state enabling acts that included the phrase that the state was admitted “into the Union on an equal Footing with the original States.”10 The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified what those rights are.
In the context of land, the equal footing doctrine has been held to mean that states have the authority over the beds of navigable waterways. Some have argued that the equal footing doctrine prohibits permanent federal land ownership. This is contrary to the plain wording of the Constitution. The doctrine and some language within the U.S. Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan11 have been combined to provide an argument that the federal government held the lands ceded by the original states
only temporarily pending their disposal. However, this theory has been rejected by other Supreme Court cases. Furthermore, in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, the Supreme Court ruled on the narrow issue of federal ownership of submerged lands beneath navigable waterways, finding those lands belonged to the state under the equal footing doctrine because the original states had kept ownership of the shores of navigable waters and the soils under them.12
5 (...continued)S3_C2_1_2.html].
6 See United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 526 (1840); Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518 (1897); Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976); and Nevada v. United States, 512 F. Supp. 166 (D. Nev. 1981), aff’d on other grounds, 699 F.
2d 486 (9th Cir. 1983).
7 The clause reads: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
8 Escanaba v. City of Chicago, 107 U.S. 678, 689 (1883).
9 United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716 (1950), reh’g denied, 340 U.S. 907 (1950).
10 See, e.g., Nevada Enabling Act, 13 Stat. 30 (1863-1864).
11 44 U.S. (3 How.) 21 (1845).
12 See CRS, “Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 Analysis,” United States Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation, footnotes omitted, at [http://www.crs.gov/products/conan/Article04/topic_S3_C1_1_2.html]. The contrary position was premised on dicta (extraneous discussion on which the court did not rely for its decision) from the
case indicating that the federal government held the lands ceded by the original states only temporarily pending their disposal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waylonmccrae3546 Biden administration urges US court to uphold asylum restrictions
By Daniel Wiessner
November 7, 2023 4:59 PM PSTUpdated a year ago
Nov 7 (Reuters) - A lawyer for the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday told an appeals court that a judge was wrong to block a rule imposing new restrictions on asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, heard the government's appeal of a decision that said the rule adopted earlier this year violates federal immigration law, which explicitly states that crossing the border illegally should not be a bar to asylum.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The challenge to the rule was brought by immigrant advocacy groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Biden, a Democrat, took office in 2021 pledging to reverse many of the hardline policies of Republican former President Donald Trump, but has adopted many strict border measures as record numbers of migrants have been caught crossing illegally.
The regulation presumes most migrants are not eligible to apply for asylum if they passed through other nations without seeking protection there first, or if they crossed the border illegally instead of arriving at a designated port of entry.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The 9th Circuit in August paused the judge's ruling that blocked the rule, allowing it to remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal.
Brian Boynton of the U.S. Department of Justice argued on Tuesday that the rule is valid because rather than categorically barring asylum for migrants, it includes various exceptions to rebut the presumption that they are ineligible.
Through September, 12% of migrants who had applied for an exception under the rule had received it, Boynton said.
But that statistic merely shows that the vast majority of migrants are being barred from even being considered for asylum because of the way they entered the U.S., in violation of immigration law, ACLU lawyer Spencer Amdur told the court.
"Such a small exception can’t be what makes the difference to the rule’s legality," Amdur said.
The judges did not indicate how they were leaning during the hour-long hearing. But two of them noted that federal immigration law appears to give the government broad discretion to consider any relevant factors in deciding who ultimately receives asylum protections.
If the manner of entry can be considered in making a final decision on asylum, it makes sense that it could be factor in determining whether a migrant can apply in the first place, Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaqmac1458 Have you seen Homans hearing clips on YouTube when he makes false claims about asylum seekers crossing the border and being illegal if they don't use a port of entry? There are several. This is what the court said about that policy he was defending.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted 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 States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings. "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Do you believe that all countries should have open borders? If the answer is yes, then I give you credit for being consistent. No, and neither do most liberals. Open borders is a right wing talking head term that they use when the left disagrees with right wing immigration policy. I do not know of one person on the Left that is talking about open borders and I've never seen legislation to push for that agenda.
2. If you don’t believe all countries should have open borders why should America be different? Once again open borders is a Right wing talking point for the low informed that believe what the right wing media says.
3. If you declare that you are not for open borders what methods of enforcement do you believe in? One that follows our congressional law one that handles asylum seekers with children humanly. Trumps policy that violates asylum laws used children as a fear tactic to separate from legal asylum seekers, to pander to his low informed base.
4. What country's immigration policy do you agree with? A country whose immigration laws did not include restrictions due to race.
5. Why do you feel this country's policy is better? I'm not sure of anyone claiming ay other country is better or that we are bad. The problem are Trump supporters and the low informed, who have no idea of our policy now compared with the last two administrations. That do not know the history at the southern border or any statistical information.
6. If a country defending its borders is considered racist, then does that mean that countries like Saudi Arabia or China are racist? A country is not racist for defending its border. You listen to too much right wing rhetoric, get out of your media bubble.
7. If you believe that a country loses its right to sovereignty when it commits crimes in the past, then does that mean Japan should have open borders? So far no liberal has ever answered these questions, not even once. No one has answered these questions as they make no sense and are based on a false reality.
Do you have any intelligent questions? Do you understand why Homan is lying here in this video? Do you understand the false narrative they are pushing to defend an illegal Trump policy? Do you know any immigration law or are you like the rest and assume Homan, Right wing media, and Trump are telling the truth?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Building a false narrative it took only a few minutes to find red flags in her claims. According to Simone Barron co-founder of Full Service Workers Alliance, she worked at Tanakasan for the last five years and they are closing according to her single factor analysis it's due to minimum wage increases. Tanakasan was owned by Tom Douglas Seattle Kitchen who is not renewing their leases and will close three stores. "Meanwhile, this announcement comes after an up-and-down year for Douglas. The chef recently expanded his brand to New York for the first time, opening two restaurants in the city’s much heralded Nordstrom flagship store. Then, earlier this month, Douglas settled a $2.4 million class action lawsuit with former and current employees, regarding alleged improper disclosure for service charge fees. But a rep for Douglas says “the closure is not related to the lawsuit,” adding, “unfortunately, the Via6 businesses were not financially viable concepts for us and we felt it best for the health of the company as a whole to refocus our efforts on our other properties.”"
Why is it that Fox business reporting inescapable of reporting in full context what took me only minutes to add to their narrative building? Maybe someone can find some context to refute what I've found, until then I wouldn't believe her or this right wing media propaganda show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chaseviking5096 East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted 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 States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chaseviking5096 Because Trumps separation policy violated US code 1158 of the 1980 INA immigration laws and article 31 of the 1968 ratified Geneva Convention. A federal Judge stopped that policy against asylum seekers and Trump later removed it on all families crossing between check points. That law says that asylum seekers can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty for crossing the border. We also have laws requiring us to take unaccompanied minors. Those are the only two groups allowed legal access to our borders. The rest who do not qualify are put in deportation proceeding, BUT Mexico recently passed a law not allowing the US to deport non Mexican citizens back into Mexico. So anyone illegally crossing and are detained. We have to hold onto until we can find a way to return them to their country of origin.
Trumps wait in Mexico policy for asylum seekers that used a port of entry is also in violation of the INA laws 235(b)(1)(b) and international treaty. They are supposed to remain in country once the process starts, and that's a why they are crossing the border illegally. Because they have a better chance of winning their asylum case on US soil. That policy was also challenged and lost in court and in the appeals court. The appeals court put a stay on the order, because of the virus and Title 42. Title 42 was the only legal thing that helped Trump reduce immigration last year and it's the only thing Biden can use to circumvent those asylum laws. Trump was violating asylum laws prior to covid.
We've had a 17 year decline in southern border crossing. In 2007 we we're around 800,000 apprehensions per year and cut that in have in 10 years to the lowest it's been in 50 years, prior to Trumps policies. Those Trump policies saw use return to 977,000 apprehensions in 2019, it had not been that high in 20 years. Then we had covid and stopped immigration. Then in September of 2020 we were at 58,000 for the month, by October that number was 72,000. That was the beginning of this surge. Apprehensions continued to increase to 78,000, by January. Those period of months are typically over the past decade low immigration months, February is not. And there is usually an uptick this time of year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1