[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

Fool said:
Of course it's an unreliable figure, I was referring to you stating that they were all eligible when they all aren't, and that they haven't been reunited, which many have. It's possible you weren't aware of that fact, as it's fairly recent, but your statement is inaccurate nonetheless.
Click to expand...

That's actually not accurate - that figure is the number of kids the Trump admin has testified could be eligible but have *not* been reunited, as of about a week ago. I wasn't quoting the total number of kids separated, as you seem to think, and I did take into account eligibility and reunifications already made.
 
triple said:
That's actually not accurate - that figure is the number of kids the Trump admin has testified could be eligible but have *not* been reunited, as of about a week ago. I wasn't quoting the total number of kids separated, as you seem to think, and I did take into account eligibility and reunifications already made.
Click to expand...

You're quoting numbers from a week ago and neglecting to keep current on them. 2,551 was the estimated number of children separated, 1,606 as of Thursday are the number of potentially eligible for reunification, and 364 have already been reunited. Of the 900 some children that were not deemed eligible, 91 had criminal records, 136 waived reunification rights, and the rest require further evaluation.
 
Fool said:
You're quoting numbers from a week ago and neglecting to keep current on them. 2,551 was the estimated number of children separated, 1,606 as of Thursday are the number of potentially eligible for reunification, and 364 have already been reunited. Of the 900 some children that were not deemed eligible, 91 had criminal records, 136 waived reunification rights, and the rest require further evaluation.
Click to expand...

Correct, my numbers were a week old, and I volunteered that. It's irrelevant to the point I was making, here.

I was responding to a post arguing..

You do understand that the kids aren't actually being separated from their parents right?
Click to expand...

and..

So the families are reunited
Click to expand...

Literally any non-zero positive number you post is higher than what he thought was the case. My point stands either way.
 
triple said:
Give this a read

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
Click to expand...

Opinion piece.

At the end of the day, they get a hearing like anyone else (as per US Code I directed you to before), but it changes nothing that they are not Citizens and there is no doubt that you want more than that (given you are an incrementalist -one who tries to chip away at the very foundations of our Republic). I'll remind you every time that there are US Codes detailing that very point.

Read it and weep: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Dont like it? Talk to congress and have them change the laws.

Until then, you lose each and every time. Deal with it. :)
 
Vanster said:
Back to Trump for a moment (a very unpopular topic with his supporters, lol)

Since Cohen is going to be cooperating, Trump still being sued by 5 individuals and 3 states, and his "very successful visit" to the UK, followed by a triumphant summit in Helsinki (rofl), Irish political betting site Paddy Power has changed their odds.



Yes I know, you think the odds of him making and winning the 2020 election are 100%. I understand that, because the TW community is really good at science and math.
Click to expand...
have you considered paying back the 3500 you owe after driving drunk and beating a woman yet?

or are u content being chief redneck
 
triple said:
SuperTrap if you want to talk about child welfare I'd be more than happy to. We can start with the policy placing children in cages on the border
Click to expand...
:rofl: This retard.

When the primarily human traffickers run kids across the boarder and get caught, what are we supposed to do with the children? My god, use your brain.

If Mexico wasn't a shithole ran by low-IQ retards, it would be happily taking them back and reuniting them.
 
-SS- said:
Opinion piece.

At the end of the day, they get a hearing like anyone else (as per US Code I directed you to before), but it changes nothing that they are not Citizens and there is no doubt that you want more than that (given you are an incrementalist -one who tries to chip away at the very foundations of our Republic). I'll remind you every time that there are US Codes detailing that very point.

Read it and weep: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Dont like it? Talk to congress and have them change the laws.

Until then, you lose each and every time. Deal with it. :)
Click to expand...

It appears you're confused.

You're posting US Code (i.e. a law passed by congress) regarding illegal immigration. What you're basically saying is, hey, illegal immigration is illegal. Well, yeah. I never said it wasn't. Murder is against the law too, it's somewhere in the US Code as well, but accused murderers still have all their constitutional rights.

Now some facts before I get started.

The US Constitution applies to all persons on US soil. We know this because the constitution specifies this, with "the people", and in the case of amendment V, "no person"

You might say, well, they mean citizens - nope. The constitution specifies citizen when it wants to.

For example, here's the right to vote (15th amendment):

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied......"

And here's the fifth amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime....."

That's just a fact. Here's the text of the US constitution. Read it.

Constitution for the United States - We the People

Now what you just posted as I said was basically a law passed by congress. But nowhere in that law does it restrict anyone's constitutional rights, it just says illegal immigration is illegal. Even if that law did, somehow, say that people didn't have constitutional rights - it'd be unconstitutional, since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So you really have no argument, here. Honestly, I think you have at best a 4th grade understanding of civics.
 
Last edited:
triple said:
I don't need to convince you, you're not a judge (obviously)

The people with law degrees know whats up, and that's enough

I'm just out here stating facts, your wrong opinions are irrelevant
Click to expand...

Just the facts triple says.......when he isn't playing more WHATABOUTISM

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

he makes it sounds like they have all the same rights that citizens do.......but in both theory and practice they do not

The issue of due process is at the heart of many immigration cases, including Reno v. Flores, the 1993 Supreme Court case that has returned to the spotlight with the surge in family separations. The case led to an agreement requiring the government to release children to their parents, a relative or a licensed program within 20 days.
Click to expand...

so the right to separate them has been established......but not more than 20 days

which is largely still unchanged and being adhered to

“Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.

Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.

“In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.
Click to expand...

aint that some shit

Because most deportation proceedings are civil rather than criminal cases, the right to legal counsel often doesn’t apply.
Click to expand...

Oh you don't say

on and on it goes......none of which you will read because you didn't make it this far.

You don't give a shit about the kids, you care about using them for political gains and goals. To advance your parties agenda and get more members of the free shit army here. So that your politicians, the pied piper poverty pimps, can create more programs, establish more debt and taxes, so that you can hopefully get a slice of that pie for yourself so you don't lose your pear shape figure and government cheese dip.

Fact Check: Did Obama Detain 90,000 Children At The Border?

I know this because otherwise you would have cried about this

you wouldn't whatabout a guy who ran for Congress, plus lost, who possibly touched a 17 yo girl inappropriately, some 30 years ago, which is now being handled in courts, with the kinds of comments and tactics that creepy Hollywood film directors and actors did months ago against children as young as 10 yos.......

ANY.DAY.NOW = ANY.MEANS.NECESSARY

we get it

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”
Click to expand...

mrz061918-color_1_orig%20%281%29_0.jpg


We see the desperation and manic schizophrenia in your eyes

UAVCvT6.gif


not a good look either.....but does tell those who are not like you all we need to know without even saying anything

the sane citizens are tired of the batman villains of Gotham trying to vilify Trump when they still can't land a single crime against him
 
Last edited:
triple said:
It appears you're confused.

You're posting US Code (i.e. a law passed by congress) regarding illegal immigration. What you're basically saying is, hey, illegal immigration is illegal. Well, yeah. I never said it wasn't. Murder is against the law too, it's somewhere in the US Code as well, but accused murderers still have all their constitutional rights.

Now some facts before I get started.

The US Constitution applies to all persons on US soil. We know this because the constitution specifies this, with "the people", and in the case of amendment V, "no person"

You might say, well, they mean citizens - nope. The constitution specifies citizen when it wants to.

For example, here's the right to vote (15th amendment):

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied......"

And here's the fifth amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime....."

That's just a fact. Here's the text of the US constitution. Read it.

Constitution for the United States - We the People

Now what you just posted as I said was basically a law passed by congress. But nowhere in that law does it restrict anyone's constitutional rights, it just says illegal immigration is illegal. Even if that law did, somehow, say that people didn't have constitutional rights - it'd be unconstitutional, since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So you really have no argument, here. Honestly, I think you have at best a 4th grade understanding of civics.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

What part of 'alien' confuses you? Why are there immigration laws defining what an 'alien' versus a citizen is?

Laws that are passed are Constitutional unless over turned by SCOTUS or sunsetted.

Would you like to try again? Here, read up on this and let's see what your alleged civics mastery can decipher: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg4978.pdf#page=17
 
-SS- said:
:rofl:

What part of 'alien' confuses you? Why are there immigration laws defining what an 'alien' versus a citizen is?

Laws that are passed are Constitutional unless over turned by SCOTUS or sunsetted.

Would you like to try again? Here, read up on this and let's see what your alleged civics mastery can decipher: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg4978.pdf#page=17
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the constitutionality of the law you posted, because the law you posted does not revoke any constitutional rights for anyone. You seem to think it does, and you're mistaken.

Again, you posted the law that says the following:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.
Click to expand...

Where in that law does it revoke due process? Or any constitutional rights whatsoever? It just lays out the law regarding illegal entry. It doesn't say what you seem to think it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top