A Conservative Judge Torched Donald Trump’s Latest Illegal Assault on Immigrants

[Guno צְבִי]

If there were any lingering doubt that Donald Trump’s latest plan to curb asylum is flatly unlawful, Judge Jay Bybee quashed it on Friday.

In a meticulous 65-page opinion, Bybee—a conservative George W. Bush appointee—explained that the president cannot rewrite a federal statute to deny asylum to immigrants who enter the country without authorization. His decision for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a twofold rebuke to Trump, halting the president’s legal assault on asylum-seekers and undermining his claim that any judge who blocked the order is a Democratic hack. The reality is that anyone who understands the English language should recognize that Trump’s new rule is illegal. Like so many of Trump’s attention-grabbing proposals, this doomed policy should never have been treated as legitimate in the first place.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/bush-judge-rejects-trump-asylum-plan.html

 

[Old Trapper]

If there were any lingering doubt that Donald Trump’s latest plan to curb asylum is flatly unlawful, Judge Jay Bybee quashed it on Friday.

In a meticulous 65-page opinion, Bybee—a conservative George W. Bush appointee—explained that the president cannot rewrite a federal statute to deny asylum to immigrants who enter the country without authorization. His decision for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a twofold rebuke to Trump, halting the president’s legal assault on asylum-seekers and undermining his claim that any judge who blocked the order is a Democratic hack. The reality is that anyone who understands the English language should recognize that Trump’s new rule is illegal. Like so many of Trump’s attention-grabbing proposals, this doomed policy should never have been treated as legitimate in the first place.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/bush-judge-rejects-trump-asylum-plan.html

What? None of the right wing "conservatives" want to talk about this Fucking cowards.

 

[artichoke]

If there were any lingering doubt that Donald Trump’s latest plan to curb asylum is flatly unlawful, Judge Jay Bybee quashed it on Friday.

In a meticulous 65-page opinion, Bybee—a conservative George W. Bush appointee—explained that the president cannot rewrite a federal statute to deny asylum to immigrants who enter the country without authorization. His decision for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a twofold rebuke to Trump, halting the president’s legal assault on asylum-seekers and undermining his claim that any judge who blocked the order is a Democratic hack. The reality is that anyone who understands the English language should recognize that Trump’s new rule is illegal. Like so many of Trump’s attention-grabbing proposals, this doomed policy should never have been treated as legitimate in the first place.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/bush-judge-rejects-trump-asylum-plan.html

Saw the title and asked myself how anyone could be so uninformed and/or misinformed. Then I clicked on it and saw that your source is Slate (LMAO). Why not upgrade to something slightly less absurdly biased, like the Daily Kos, Occupy Democrats, or the Communist Manifesto? Then I also saw that the basis of Slate's ridiculous propaganda piece was the ridiculous Constitution-shredding extremists of the 9th Circuit (the lunatic leftists who get overturned so much by the Supreme Court).

What a solid foundation on which to base a thread.

Newsflash: Constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens (obviously), and Obama arbitrarily and illegally re-wrote the law at every turn, while being cheered on by you hypocrites who now pretend to give a rat's ass about the Constitution you are endlessly at war with. This is what an actual lawless tyrant looks like:

Try again there, Sparky. lol

 

[kudzu]

Saw the title and asked myself how anyone could be so uninformed and/or misinformed. Then I clicked on it and saw that your source is Slate (LMAO). Why not upgrade to something slightly less absurdly biased, like the Daily Kos, Occupy Democrats, or the Communist Manifesto? Then I also saw that the basis of Slate's ridiculous propaganda piece was the ridiculous Constitution-shredding extremists of the 9th Circuit (the lunatic leftists who get overturned so much by the Supreme Court).

What a solid foundation on which to base a thread.

Newsflash: Constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens (obviously), and Obama arbitrarily and illegally re-wrote the law at every turn, while being cheered on by you hypocrites who now pretend to give a rat's ass about the Constitution you are endlessly at war with. This is what an actual lawless tyrant looks like:

Try again there, Sparky. lol

You still don't know the meaning of jurisdiction..........

For essentially all purposes, a non-citizen physically present in and subject to the laws of the United States has the same constitutional rights of a citizen of the United States. There is one major exception: we do not know whether the recently-recognized individualized right to bear arms (as set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller) applies only to citizens or applies more broadly to all persons.

 

[kudzu]

The observant reader will note that the Bill of Rights states that the rights protected therein all adhere not to citizens or to residents, but to persons. For example, the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If Congress had meant to restrict the applications of these restrictions on federal power to apply only with respect to citizens, they could have said citizens. They did not.

This is even clearer from the Fourteenth Amendment:

 

[artichoke]

You still don't know the meaning of jurisdiction..........

For essentially all purposes, a non-citizen physically present in and subject to the laws of the United States has the same constitutional rights of a citizen of the United States. There is one major exception: we do not know whether the recently-recognized individualized right to bear arms (as set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller) applies only to citizens or applies more broadly to all persons.

And you still don't understand the 14th Amendment or Elk v. Wilkins, clearly. Being a citizen is what makes someone subject to a given jurisdiction. That's why the Supreme Court ruled against Native Americans claiming to have rights under our Constitution by virtue of being born in the U.S. They were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction, because they were not citizens. You don't get to just make things up about the Constitution simply because you want them to be true and then pass them off as facts.

The observant reader will note that the Bill of Rights states that the rights protected therein all adhere not to citizens or to residents, but to persons.

This is a smokescreen. There is zero indication that "persons" was intended to imply persons other than Americans. That doesn't even make sense. And here are the authors of the 14th Amendment in their own words contradicting you.

 

[kudzu]

And you still don't understand the 14th Amendment or Elk v. Wilkins, clearly. Being a citizen is what makes someone subject to a given jurisdiction. That's why the Supreme Court ruled against Native Americans claiming to have rights under our Constitution by virtue of being born in the U.S. They were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction, because they were not citizens. You don't get to just make things up about the Constitution simply because you want them to be true and then pass them off as facts.

I have tried to explain the meaning of jurisdiction to your repeatedly.. Without understanding what the word means you simply cannot get anything right.

Here's the 14th:

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; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[kudzu]

Decided November 3, 1884

112 U.S. 94


Syllabus

An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.

A petition alleging that the plaintiff is an Indian, and was born within the United States, and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still so continues subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the Nebraska and City of Omaha, does not show that he is a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.

This is an action brought by an Indian in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska against the registrar of one of the wards of the City of Omaha for refusing to register him as a qualified voter therein. The petition was as follows:

This is an action brought by an Indian, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, against the registrar of one of the wards of the City of Omaha, for refusing to register him as a qualified voter therein. The petition was as follows:

Page 112 U. S. 95

"John Elk, plaintiff, complains of Charles Wilkins, defendant, and avers that the matter in dispute herein exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, to-wit, the sum of six thousand dollars, and that the matter in dispute herein arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, for cause of action against the defendant, avers that he, the plaintiff, is an Indian, and was born within the United States; that more than one year prior to the grievances hereinafter complained of he had severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and had fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still so continues subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and avers that, under and by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, he is a citizen of the United States, and entitled to the right and privilege of citizens of the United States."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/

 

[artichoke]

I have tried to explain the meaning of jurisdiction to your repeatedly.. Without understanding what the word means you simply cannot get anything right.

Here's the 14th:

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; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes, you have repeatedly tried to "explain" this omplete irrelevancy that you don't even properly understand. Again, here are the authors of the 14th Amendment in their own words contradicting you:

There is no denying the practice of enumerating aliens for purposes apportionment runs counter against the entire principle of a nation founded strictly for ourselves and descendants, which of course was exactly the objective of this section of the amendment: To count the whole number of “ourselves” and those who had taken the legal steps to become citizens by renouncing all prior allegiances as required by law at the time upon application.

 

[kudzu]

Arminius: You don't understand Elk V Wilkins either. Basically, you are trying to read and write without ever learning your ABCs.

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

[artichoke]

Arminius: You don't understand Elk V Wilkins either. Basically, you are trying to read and write without ever learning your ABCs.

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

This in no way backs up your argument. You literally just can't understand what you're looking at.

Just going to have to agree to let the willfully ignorant remain willfully ignorant.

 

[kudzu]

This in no way backs up your argument. You literally just can't understand what you're looking at.

Just going to have to agree to let the willfully ignorant remain willfully ignorant.

Did you read the statute?

What's happening here to you is exactly what happens to every first year law student who can't get out of their own way.

 

[CFM]

If there were any lingering doubt that Donald Trump’s latest plan to curb asylum is flatly unlawful, Judge Jay Bybee quashed it on Friday.

In a meticulous 65-page opinion, Bybee—a conservative George W. Bush appointee—explained that the president cannot rewrite a federal statute to deny asylum to immigrants who enter the country without authorization. His decision for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a twofold rebuke to Trump, halting the president’s legal assault on asylum-seekers and undermining his claim that any judge who blocked the order is a Democratic hack. The reality is that anyone who understands the English language should recognize that Trump’s new rule is illegal. Like so many of Trump’s attention-grabbing proposals, this doomed policy should never have been treated as legitimate in the first place.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/bush-judge-rejects-trump-asylum-plan.html

Hopefully one of those illegals falsely claiming asylum will Kate Steinle your family member.

 

[CFM]

Did you read the statute?

What's happening here to you is exactly what happens to every first year law student who can't get out of their own way.

Hopefully one of those illegals falsely claiming asylum will Kate Steinle your family member.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What? None of the right wing "conservatives" want to talk about this Fucking cowards.

Seeing as how the title of the thread is a lie; because I wasn't aware that the President is the one who brought this suit before the SC, why would it be necessary??

 

[kudzu]

Hopefully one of those illegals falsely claiming asylum will Kate Steinle your family member.

Are you unable to read?

 

[CFM]

Are you unable to read?

I read very well. I'd read the proof of the claims you've made about yourself if you had the guts to post anything.

 

[kudzu]

I read very well. I'd read the proof of the claims you've made about yourself if you had the guts to post anything.

Quit stalking me.. The discussion is about understanding the meaning of jurisdiction.. and PERSONS.

 

[CFM]

Quit stalking me.. The discussion is about understanding the meaning of jurisdiction.. and PERSONS.

Quit making claims without supporting them and no one will ask for proof. Don't blame YOUR gutless existence on me, cunt.

I thought you were smart. Apparently, the only thing you have your husband wanted was what's between your legs. Poor bastard didn't know what came along with that. Maybe too stupid to realize it.

 

[Lightbringer]

I don't see what the big deal is. The court didn't say asylum has to be granted, all they said was the applications have to be accepted once someone is in the country. Deny the applications, simple enough.