DNC breaks federal law at their convention

probably not, but don't let that stop you from posting it.......

Yes he did.

tom-mostlyfalse.gif




"I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life."
Mitt Romney on Tuesday, October 18th, 2011 in a Republican presidential primary debate


When Romney said he "did not" have illegal immigrants working for him, we rated his statement Mostly False, given the credible evidence that undocumented lawn care laborers from Guatemala worked at his home for years, and his careful statements about his knowledge of their status.

When Romney said he "did not" have illegal immigrants working for him, we rated his statement Mostly False, given the credible evidence that undocumented lawn care laborers from Guatemala worked at his home for years, and his careful statements about his knowledge of their status.
 
Yes he did.

tom-mostlyfalse.gif




"I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life."
Mitt Romney on Tuesday, October 18th, 2011 in a Republican presidential primary debate


When Romney said he "did not" have illegal immigrants working for him, we rated his statement Mostly False, given the credible evidence that undocumented lawn care laborers from Guatemala worked at his home for years, and his careful statements about his knowledge of their status.

When Romney said he "did not" have illegal immigrants working for him, we rated his statement Mostly False, given the credible evidence that undocumented lawn care laborers from Guatemala worked at his home for years, and his careful statements about his knowledge of their status.
oh gosh, the liberals believe he lied because they assume the people who worked for his landscape service were undocumented.......
 
Of course it's relevant. The story is about undocumented workers, and the fact that the Right only cares about the issue when they can ignore their own support of same.

Negative, I am against all support of law breakers, especially those who do not follow the procedures of becoming an American citizen, now were they wrong to do it and what should be done?
 
Yes he did.

tom-mostlyfalse.gif




"I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life."
Mitt Romney on Tuesday, October 18th, 2011 in a Republican presidential primary debate


When Romney said he "did not" have illegal immigrants working for him, we rated his statement Mostly False, given the credible evidence that undocumented lawn care laborers from Guatemala worked at his home for years, and his careful statements about his knowledge of their status.

When Romney said he "did not" have illegal immigrants working for him, we rated his statement Mostly False, given the credible evidence that undocumented lawn care laborers from Guatemala worked at his home for years, and his careful statements about his knowledge of their status.


Was this sub contracted work?
 
Care to respond with facts, Moot, or just more of your liberal parrot points?

My prediction- more of the same from you, or you simply run away and pretend that you were never challenged.

Big surprise, my prediction came true.
 
When you present truth, and do it with kindness, and honor, they have no choice, because all they have left is deflection, and name calling.
 
http://toprightnews.com/dnc-just-broke-federal-law-at-convention-parades-illegal-aliens-onstage/

It seems the law doesn't apply to the democrats, they are pining to be the new monarchy!

"In the case of Francisca Sanchez, the rhetoric states that she lives in the United States illegally and that the DNC defied federal law in order to bring her on stage. However, it's not immediately clear whether she is in the process of appealing the order (which would, legally, grant her a stay until a decision has been made one way or another) or if she has other extenuating circumstances. But it doesn't matter here, because the DNC did not provably harbor or transport her, and they certainly did not shield her — in fact, by putting her on a stage at a televised event with an international audience and using her real name, the Democratic National Convention did the exact opposite of "shield" her. It's also worth noting that the codes relating to "improper entry by alien" classify it as a civil violation with civil penalties, not a criminal one.


The case of Astrid Silva, the second speaker, is far simpler: she came to the United States when she was four years old, making her what is popularly called a DREAMer: those who grew up in the U.S. but were born elsewhere. She then sought relief under the DACA program. DREAMers are named after the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, which is intended to offer relief to those who came to the United States as children.) The DREAM Act has repeatedly failed to pass, but the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has offered opportunities, albeit temporarily, for those who were born in one country but grew up in the United States and are completely culturally American. (DAPA is part of an expansion of DACA.)

In other words, Silva may have come to the United States without papers, but she remains in the country perfectly legally.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/27/dnc-breaks-federal-laws/
 
ah, of course....another "what difference does it make"........

as I recall the Dream Act didn't pass.....therefore she is not here legally.....

"She then sought relief under the DACA program. ...the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has offered opportunities, albeit temporarily, for those who were born in one country but grew up in the United States and are completely culturally American. (DAPA is part of an expansion of DACA.)"
 
"In the case of Francisca Sanchez, the rhetoric states that she lives in the United States illegally and that the DNC defied federal law in order to bring her on stage. However, it's not immediately clear whether she is in the process of appealing the order (which would, legally, grant her a stay until a decision has been made one way or another) or if she has other extenuating circumstances. But it doesn't matter here, because the DNC did not provably harbor or transport her, and they certainly did not shield her — in fact, by putting her on a stage at a televised event with an international audience and using her real name, the Democratic National Convention did the exact opposite of "shield" her. It's also worth noting that the codes relating to "improper entry by alien" classify it as a civil violation with civil penalties, not a criminal one.


The case of Astrid Silva, the second speaker, is far simpler: she came to the United States when she was four years old, making her what is popularly called a DREAMer: those who grew up in the U.S. but were born elsewhere. She then sought relief under the DACA program. DREAMers are named after the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, which is intended to offer relief to those who came to the United States as children.) The DREAM Act has repeatedly failed to pass, but the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has offered opportunities, albeit temporarily, for those who were born in one country but grew up in the United States and are completely culturally American. (DAPA is part of an expansion of DACA.)

In other words, Silva may have come to the United States without papers, but she remains in the country perfectly legally.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/27/dnc-breaks-federal-laws/

Using snopes does not help your cause. Facts are, they are here illegally are in violation of immigration laws and should be deported, in fact Sanchez had received deportation papers.
 
"She then sought relief under the DACA program. ...the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has offered opportunities, albeit temporarily, for those who were born in one country but grew up in the United States and are completely culturally American. (DAPA is part of an expansion of DACA.)"

a Democrat president, without the authority of law, has offered a temporary "sanctuary country" for people here breaking the law.......that is hardly "being here legally"......that's just more "Democrats breaking federal law".......its just that after eight years we're getting used to it........
 
Using snopes does not help your cause. Facts are, they are here illegally are in violation of immigration laws and should be deported, in fact Sanchez had received deportation papers.

Snopes just collects the info and links to the facts behind the statements. I don't suppose you've ever clicked on the embedded links or you wouldn't have made this comment.
 
Snopes just collects the info and links to the facts behind the statements. I don't suppose you've ever clicked on the embedded links or you wouldn't have made this comment.

Non sense they intertwine it with their own slant, now you will disagree, and that is fine, they further your cause so, shrug
 
http://toprightnews.com/dnc-just-broke-federal-law-at-convention-parades-illegal-aliens-onstage/

It seems the law doesn't apply to the democrats, they are pining to be the new monarchy!

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/identifying-fake-news-articles.shtml




Identifying Fake-News Articles and Websites

Over recent years, more and more fake-news websites have appeared online. These sites publish articles that - for the most part - are simply made up by their authors.

The stories may use the names of real people and reference real events but are fictional nevertheless.

Many of the stories tend to spread rapidly via social media in the form of brief messages comprising a headline, introductory text, and a link back to the full report.






These fake-news sites tend to palm themselves off as satirical or for 'entertainment purposes only'. The problem is that their fictional stories are deliberately presented as news articles. The sites are formatted so that they resemble genuine online news portals.









Thus, many people are fooled into believing that the stories are genuine and factual. And, they are therefore more likely to share the stories via social media thereby spreading the nonsense even further.
Here are a few ways that can help you identify a fake-news article:


Check Real News Sites

If a news story is real and significant, many news outlets will likely cover it. Thus, searching for the topic on a news aggregator such as Google News should reveal if a story is genuine.

The absence of any references to the story on genuine news websites should certainly raise a red flag.


Check Other Stories on The Site

Have a browse through other stories featured on the site. Do many of them sound weird or unbelievable? And, again, can any of the stories be confirmed via legitimate news outlets?


Check for Disclaimer

Some fake-news 'satire' sites include a disclaimer that states that stories published on the site are fictional or satirical. The disclaimer is often on the site's 'About' page. Or it may be included in the site's footer.

Unfortunately, not all such sites include a disclaimer. Nevertheless, if you suspect that a news article that you are reading may be untrue, it is worth checking for a disclaimer.


Check Reports of Site on Other Websites

Often doing a search such as '< name of site > satire', '< name of site > hoax', or '< name of site > fake' can bring up reports on other websites that reveal the true nature of the site.


List of Fake-News Websites


Below is a list of some of the more prominent fake-news satire websites.

##National Report: (http://nationalreport.net/)

##Huzlers: (http://www.huzlers.com/)

##Empire News : (http://empirenews.net/)

##Empire Sports: (http://www.empiresports.co/)

##The Daily Currant: (http://dailycurrant.com/)

##Wyoming Institute of Technology: (http://witscience.org/)
 
Back
Top