Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "" video.

  1. You don't know the reasons because few can rationally argue the point: nearly all were asylum seekers claiming they were VICTIMS of the gangs, AND were known to authorities because they had actual cases pending and an actual court date. Those facts matter. With different facts, you might have a stronger argument.
    5
  2. @victhebutcher13  To shred the Constitution? I hope he makes you rich, at least. But don't hold your breath on that one.
    3
  3. Because . . . First Amendment? Could that be it?
    2
  4. Nearly all were asylum seekers claiming they were VICTIMS of the gangs, AND were known to authorities because they had actual cases pending and an actual court date. Those facts matter. And different facts, different outcome. A president can't deprive a court of jurisdiction. DOJ has to appear on behalf of DHS, ICE, etc.
    2
  5. In the meantime, what do we do about the freedom to disagree based on law and facts?
    2
  6. @Philthy.mcguyver310  The specific gangs they were accused of being members of are the ones they say are actually pursuing them. They were already known to US authorities and had court dates. A president cannot divest a court of jurisdiction. He has to send a US Attorney to challenge the rulings.
    1
  7. @JoeJoe-go4vd  🤣🤣🤣 My source is in court documents. Those are public information.
    1
  8. @harwil-pw9bz  Oh gosh you are welcome.
    1
  9. @timothynelson6918  "People who are here illegally" -- psst, a judge makes that call. If the administration thinks he's out of bounds, they are supposed to seek an emergency writ of mandamus.
    1
  10. @kommisar.  A court decides that. And it certainly is hard. That's why so many people hide, rather than going through the proper application process and getting a court date set up. Well, this will show them, huh? /s
    1
  11. @JoeJoe-go4vd  Yes it is. You can look up the court papers and find out that in fact, that is what they say. For real.
    1
  12.  @screwtheduopoly  I never watch MSNBC. I've never once had cable, either. And I've never known news shows to report legal news accurately unless they invited outstanding lawyers to do it. You never noticed that about "the news?" 😂
    1
  13. @JoeJoe-go4vd  It's all in the complaint, and you can find the complaint. Well, most people can.
    1
  14. Because they can't rationally argue the point: nearly all were asylum seekers claiming they were VICTIMS of the gangs, AND were known to authorities because they had actual cases pending and an actual court date. Those facts matter.
    1
  15. Oh that made sense. In what case? Korematsu, possibly? Or worse?
    1
  16. Nearly all were asylum seekers claiming they were VICTIMS of the gangs, AND were known to authorities because they had actual cases pending and an actual court date. Those facts matter. And different facts, different outcome. A president can't deprive a court of jurisdiction. DOJ has to appear on behalf of DHS, ICE, etc.
    1
  17. @johndearborn5360  You didn't understand my comment, did you? Our rights are being shredded before our eyes.
    1
  18. @johndearborn5360  They won't allow it to appear, duh. Smh
    1
  19. @JoeJoe-go4vd  This is precisely what I have to say to you. The Trump administration is disregarding the law. No president can deprive the court of jurisdiction. He has to send in a US Attorney to argue his point.
    1
  20. Because they can't rationally argue the point: nearly all were asylum seekers claiming they were VICTIMS of the gangs, AND were known to authorities because they had actual cases pending and an actual court date. Those facts matter.
    1