ADVERTISEMENT

While we may disagree on policy

The DOJ and Commerce attorneys told the US District Judge hearing the Census Questionnaire case about asking citizenship status yesterday that the Government was abandoning the question given the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter. Today the trial judge saw that the President tweeted that it was fake news and that the DOJ and Commerce Dept. would be pursuing placing the question on the forms. Upon reading the tweet, the Judge on his own motion scheduled a hearing on the matter for this afternoon. The transcript of the hearing can be seen at https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/politics/read-census-citizenship-question-hearing/index.html
 
I just read the transcript of the hearing. The attorneys for the government are trying to come up with some way to put some kind of question on the census form that would indicate citizenship without violating the ruling of the SC. This has to be finished - one way or the other - by 2 on Friday, July 6. Very, very simplified explanation but basically that it is what happened in court today - is that your conclusion also? All of this has somehow been triggered by a tweet from Trump. Could the court have just ignored the tweet and the Census be printed? Not clear why a tweet triggered this hearing???
 
I just read the transcript of the hearing. The attorneys for the government are trying to come up with some way to put some kind of question on the census form that would indicate citizenship without violating the ruling of the SC. This has to be finished - one way or the other - by 2 on Friday, July 6. Very, very simplified explanation but basically that it is what happened in court today - is that your conclusion also? All of this has somehow been triggered by a tweet from Trump. Could the court have just ignored the tweet and the Census be printed? Not clear why a tweet triggered this hearing???
This is the case that went to the Supreme Court so it has been on hold for that time. There is only a temporary injunction in place and there is further litigation necessary to pursue various other parts of the suit. After the ruling, the Judge was directed to proceed and resolve the the discovery issues within 45 days and get the matter completely resolved. The government had indicated that given the S. Ct. ruling, they would be entering into an agreed order resolving the matter via the non-use of the question. The two sides have spent a week doing that and now with the government perhaps changing its position and thus requiring the completion of the preparation and the full litigation of the issue, the Judge appears a bit miffed that they have wasted the week. Thus the urgency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan
Oh....I get it now. Trump only became a racist AFTER he became POTUS. That's really interesting.......

These young black people must be really mad at him.

DC_04.jpg
Yeah man, nothing racist in posting a pic of a handful of African Americans implying the photo represents the whole.
 
I just read the transcript of the hearing. The attorneys for the government are trying to come up with some way to put some kind of question on the census form that would indicate citizenship without violating the ruling of the SC. This has to be finished - one way or the other - by 2 on Friday, July 6. Very, very simplified explanation but basically that it is what happened in court today - is that your conclusion also? All of this has somehow been triggered by a tweet from Trump. Could the court have just ignored the tweet and the Census be printed? Not clear why a tweet triggered this hearing???
I think what will be interesting is that the S Ct intimated that perhaps the question about citizenship could well be appropriate, HOWEVER the reason that the Administration said it was proposing to ask the question was not true and simply a pretext so it was prohibiting it. So it appears to me that following the receipt of that S Ct opinion that the DOJ had no inclination to say "Well... you are right, we made up our rationale and misrepresented it to the trial court and to the Supreme Court, but now we want to provide a new reason that may fly." Unfortunately for them the President seems to be forcing them to make that or a similar acknowledgment in order to continue to litigate the matter. For lawyers who presumably would to keep their license, that kind of position likely makes them uncomfortable, to put it mildly. That is the background, imho, for a considerable portion of the comments made by the Judge in that transcript.
 
Everything you linked was to replace stuff that was already there. So there’s no new wall being built. You dimwit.
Wrong.

That you are. There’s no new wall being built, just replacement of some existing walls. There will never be a wall. Trump hasn’t said a fukking word about the wall in months even though it was some great national emergency. Sorry to burst your moronic bubble.
 
Everything you linked was to replace stuff that was already there. So there’s no new wall being built. You dimwit.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What does this say? And this was in 2018. More has been done since. But don't let facts get in the way of your TDS-fueled screeching.

In the months that followed, the CBP said it has replaced about 14 miles of scrap metal barrier with a "bollard-style wall" in San Diego, built two miles of "primary wall" in California and 20 miles of "new border wall" in Santa Teresa, New Mexico.
 
Everything you linked was to replace stuff that was already there. So there’s no new wall being built. You dimwit.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What does this say? And this was in 2018. More has been done since. But don't let facts get in the way of your TDS-fueled screeching.

In the months that followed, the CBP said it has replaced about 14 miles of scrap metal barrier with a "bollard-style wall" in San Diego, built two miles of "primary wall" in California and 20 miles of "new border wall" in Santa Teresa, New Mexico.

Yeah I can read just fine. The articles say the walls are replacing existing structure. There is no new wall being built. I’m sorry you can’t accept that. I’m sorry Trump lied to you (I’m really not. You’re just gullible and believed him). You could admit you are wrong and save a little face now (whatever, you cashed that in long ago) or just continue to dig and look stupid (I know my money is going on the board dunce).
 
Are you for open borders?

i'll take that side of the argument, since no one else does.

lets have more free borders, rather than more restrictive borders.
lets increase the freedoms of individuals,
rather than increase the power of government.
 
i'll take that side of the argument, since no one else does.

lets have more free borders, rather than more restrictive borders.
lets increase the freedoms of individuals,
rather than increase the power of government.
I wish that was an alternative that would work but.......
 
Glad that you established that, particulary since one of the primary areas of contention has/is becoming the social group membership basis.
While, I accept that the large majority of migrants don't qualify, my dilemma is that a significant number do, but the current administration sentiment appears to me to be that it simply doesn't care and is more inclined to create/allow an enormous backlog to occur so as to justify its complaint that it is incapable of adjudicating the individual issues as required due to the backlog of its own creation.

Any idea what the real number is?

I have a tough time believing DHS would lie to Senate Judiciary. Also no reason not to believe human rights group.

My guess is DHS selected a population that had a real high absent rate, or was part of a group being smuggled and cannot get back.

And the human rights group seems to focus on being present with lawyers so their numbers are likely higher for being present due to being told they have a good asylum case.

As sad and rough as it is, spousal abuse and economic hardship are not reasons for asylum.

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/re...s-regularly-attend-immigration-court-hearings

https://www.nationalreview.com/news...recent-asylum-seekers-skipped-their-hearings/
 
I wish that was an alternative that would work but.......
a freer border is both attainable and a bigger-picture/longer term solution than the current approach of simply continuing to increase government regulations/restrictions.

we couldn't just begin tomorrow though,
first we would have to begin eliminating our poor laws/incentives that foster the current situation.

instead, we continue to dangle more carrots on the stick, so its no surprise there is a growing issue.
 
Last edited:
Yeah man, nothing racist in posting a pic of a handful of African Americans implying the photo represents the whole.

I know, it really kills the Democratic narrative when black people don’t allow themselves to buy into the racism and victimhood story the dems constantly peddle.
Trump got between 8-10% of the black vote in 2016. He’ll be at 25% in 2020. Just watch.
 
i'll take that side of the argument, since no one else does.

lets have more free borders, rather than more restrictive borders.
lets increase the freedoms of individuals,
rather than increase the power of government.

Is that you AOC?
Don’t you have an economics class to attend somewhere?
 
Any idea what the real number is?

I have a tough time believing DHS would lie to Senate Judiciary. Also no reason not to believe human rights group.

My guess is DHS selected a population that had a real high absent rate, or was part of a group being smuggled and cannot get back.

And the human rights group seems to focus on being present with lawyers so their numbers are likely higher for being present due to being told they have a good asylum case.

As sad and rough as it is, spousal abuse and economic hardship are not reasons for asylum.

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/re...s-regularly-attend-immigration-court-hearings

https://www.nationalreview.com/news...recent-asylum-seekers-skipped-their-hearings/
It's the 5 listed -race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, although the claims are judged on a case by case basis so results vary. There is a very short article explaining the concepts entitled The ABC's of Immigration: Grounds for Asylum and Refuge by Greg Siskind downloadable at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2aetYcA6XiNSqgYPTxsQQR
 
I think what will be interesting is that the S Ct intimated that perhaps the question about citizenship could well be appropriate, HOWEVER the reason that the Administration said it was proposing to ask the question was not true and simply a pretext so it was prohibiting it. So it appears to me that following the receipt of that S Ct opinion that the DOJ had no inclination to say "Well... you are right, we made up our rationale and misrepresented it to the trial court and to the Supreme Court, but now we want to provide a new reason that may fly." Unfortunately for them the President seems to be forcing them to make that or a similar acknowledgment in order to continue to litigate the matter. For lawyers who presumably would to keep their license, that kind of position likely makes them uncomfortable, to put it mildly. That is the background, imho, for a considerable portion of the comments made by the Judge in that transcript.

Thank you for this explanation. It clarifies a point I didn’t understand about the SC decision.
 
Wtf are you even talking about? Influencing our society in a negative way? Meanwhile Trump is cozying up to dictators and that’s somehow fine. Your priorities are beyond a mess.

People just can't understand they break the law by coming here illegally.
They are costing us billions by doing so.
I agree with the statement above. If you are ok with what's going on at our Southern Border, make an immigrant legal by sponsoring a family.
Bring them into your home and care for them.
 
Wtf are you even talking about? Influencing our society in a negative way? Meanwhile Trump is cozying up to dictators and that’s somehow fine. Your priorities are beyond a mess.

People just can't understand they break the law by coming here illegally.
They are costing us billions by doing so.
I agree with the statement above. If you are ok with what's going on at our Southern Border, make an immigrant legal by sponsoring a family.
Bring them into your home and care for them.

The majority of them aren’t coming here illegally though. It’s not illegal to apply for asylum. Get that through your brick head.
 
The majority of them aren’t coming here illegally though. It’s not illegal to apply for asylum. Get that through your brick head.
Economic opportunity is not an accepted rationale for granting asylum. As of 2016, based on data from 2000 - 2016, only 7.4% of asylum claimants were actually approved. The majority of the time was because the claimants could not prove that they were coming except for economic opportunity. Recently, liberal legal aid societies have been working to get more illegals approved for asylum. The data showed in 2017 about 20% of claimants were ultimately approved, so their cynical gambit may be working.

KcagL-768x573.png

The graph above shows asylum applications in the United States, broken out by applicants originating from somewhere in Latin America and applicants from the rest of the world. The lion’s share of Latin American applications comes from the Central American countries.

As you can see, asylum claims have risen in recent years for all origins, but especially for Latin American origins. While once these countries were a minority of claims of asylum, in 2016, the most recent available data, they were a substantial majority.

This is a cause for concern, because, as of 2016, of all Latin American cases pending in 2000 or applied since then, just 7.4 percent have been approved, compared to 35 percent for other countries. The numbers are even worse for the Central American countries, at 4.7 percent, and Mexico, at 3 percent.
 
The majority of them aren’t coming here illegally though. It’s not illegal to apply for asylum. Get that through your brick head.
Economic opportunity is not an accepted rationale for granting asylum. As of 2016, based on data from 2000 - 2016, only 7.4% of asylum claimants were actually approved. The majority of the time was because the claimants could not prove that they were coming except for economic opportunity. Recently, liberal legal aid societies have been working to get more illegals approved for asylum. The data showed in 2017 about 20% of claimants were ultimately approved, so their cynical gambit may be working.

KcagL-768x573.png

The graph above shows asylum applications in the United States, broken out by applicants originating from somewhere in Latin America and applicants from the rest of the world. The lion’s share of Latin American applications comes from the Central American countries.

As you can see, asylum claims have risen in recent years for all origins, but especially for Latin American origins. While once these countries were a minority of claims of asylum, in 2016, the most recent available data, they were a substantial majority.

This is a cause for concern, because, as of 2016, of all Latin American cases pending in 2000 or applied since then, just 7.4 percent have been approved, compared to 35 percent for other countries. The numbers are even worse for the Central American countries, at 4.7 percent, and Mexico, at 3 percent.

So what you’re saying is that it’s not illegal to apply for asylum. Got it.
 
It's the 5 listed -race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, although the claims are judged on a case by case basis so results vary. There is a very short article explaining the concepts entitled The ABC's of Immigration: Grounds for Asylum and Refuge by Greg Siskind downloadable at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2aetYcA6XiNSqgYPTxsQQR

Yeah, I know what it is. My post mainly dealt with attendance/appearance at asylum hearings. Human Rights Groups claim the appearance rate is 90%. No reason not to believe them but really doubtful of this. Court records sited by DHS stated to Senate Judiciary 90% are not showing. The claim that they are coming for asylum but then do not show for hearings leads one to believe they were not really here for asylum. If one misses an asylum hearing/immigration court date, absentia and deportation are usually the result outside of some real extenuating circumstances.
 
The majority of them aren’t coming here illegally though. It’s not illegal to apply for asylum. Get that through your brick head.

I do not understand what you mean by "The majority of them . . . . could you explain what you mean? Do you mean the majority of immigrants? Or ???
 
The majority of them aren’t coming here illegally though. It’s not illegal to apply for asylum. Get that through your brick head.

Listen my young bleeding heart liberal friend...it’s perfectly legal to come here seeking asylum, but just because you claim asylum doesn’t mean it will be granted. There’s criteria that has to be met.
In addition, there’s only so much time and resources to process these tens of thousands of applications. Get in line, because it’s a long one.
What do you propose we do with all these people while they await their hearing? Just let them go have a good time in our country and hope they show up for their hearing?
 
The majority of them aren’t coming here illegally though. It’s not illegal to apply for asylum. Get that through your brick head.

Listen my young bleeding heart liberal friend...it’s perfectly legal to come here seeking asylum, but just because you claim asylum doesn’t mean it will be granted. There’s criteria that has to be met.
In addition, there’s only so much time and resources to process these tens of thousands of applications. Get in line, because it’s a long one.
What do you propose we do with all these people while they await their hearing? Just let them go have a good time in our country and hope they show up for their hearing?

That’s fine if it’s not granted. You’re under the impression that I’m all for letting people just pour into the country like it’s a free for all. The problem with people like you is that you believe everything Trump says about immigration when 99% of what he says isn’t true.

There are no easy answers to immigration but caging kids and separating them from their parents isn’t an answer. Trump likes to blame the democrats for immigration but he’s had two years with his administration to figure it out and they’ve proposed nothing but a wall which will do nothing.

If you want to call me a bleeding heart because I care about kids then I’m a bleeding heart.
 
Is that you AOC?
Don’t you have an economics class to attend somewhere?
i'm not sure what you mean by mentioning her. if its a random econ opinion of hers, I likely disagree.

but it sounds like you favor empowering government, rather than empowering individuals & our freedoms. why is that?
 
I agree with you that parents are “using” their children but I can’t condone mistreating children. We need to change some laws now!

I mean Beth....come on. People are "using" their kids? Ever think they're doing it FOR their children? You think the guy who drowned swimming across a river with his daughter was "using" her?
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
Economic opportunity is not an accepted rationale for granting asylum. As of 2016, based on data from 2000 - 2016, only 7.4% of asylum claimants were actually approved. The majority of the time was because the claimants could not prove that they were coming except for economic opportunity. Recently, liberal legal aid societies have been working to get more illegals approved for asylum. The data showed in 2017 about 20% of claimants were ultimately approved, so their cynical gambit may be working.

KcagL-768x573.png

The graph above shows asylum applications in the United States, broken out by applicants originating from somewhere in Latin America and applicants from the rest of the world. The lion’s share of Latin American applications comes from the Central American countries.

As you can see, asylum claims have risen in recent years for all origins, but especially for Latin American origins. While once these countries were a minority of claims of asylum, in 2016, the most recent available data, they were a substantial majority.

This is a cause for concern, because, as of 2016, of all Latin American cases pending in 2000 or applied since then, just 7.4 percent have been approved, compared to 35 percent for other countries. The numbers are even worse for the Central American countries, at 4.7 percent, and Mexico, at 3 percent.

If only there was a data point to show when Trump cut off aid to those Central American countries as "punishment".
 
That’s fine if it’s not granted. You’re under the impression that I’m all for letting people just pour into the country like it’s a free for all. The problem with people like you is that you believe everything Trump says about immigration when 99% of what he says isn’t true.

There are no easy answers to immigration but caging kids and separating them from their parents isn’t an answer. Trump likes to blame the democrats for immigration but he’s had two years with his administration to figure it out and they’ve proposed nothing but a wall which will do nothing.

If you want to call me a bleeding heart because I care about kids then I’m a bleeding heart.

Again, if they were kept in wooden enclosures instead of chain link, would that be better?

How about we put them up in hotels?

Are you for housing children with non-relative adults?

The problem is, the numbers coming over the border, regardless their claim for doing so, has overwhelmed the resources. There’s only so much that can be done to accommodate them.
 
I think what will be interesting is that the S Ct intimated that perhaps the question about citizenship could well be appropriate, HOWEVER the reason that the Administration said it was proposing to ask the question was not true and simply a pretext so it was prohibiting it. So it appears to me that following the receipt of that S Ct opinion that the DOJ had no inclination to say "Well... you are right, we made up our rationale and misrepresented it to the trial court and to the Supreme Court, but now we want to provide a new reason that may fly." Unfortunately for them the President seems to be forcing them to make that or a similar acknowledgment in order to continue to litigate the matter. For lawyers who presumably would to keep their license, that kind of position likely makes them uncomfortable, to put it mildly. That is the background, imho, for a considerable portion of the comments made by the Judge in that transcript.
On Friday, the Trial Court ordered that the discovery process now be completed.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw23pxNtP2FYp_6xAgb5MlzD&cshid=1562433639381
 
I think what will be interesting is that the S Ct intimated that perhaps the question about citizenship could well be appropriate, HOWEVER the reason that the Administration said it was proposing to ask the question was not true and simply a pretext so it was prohibiting it. So it appears to me that following the receipt of that S Ct opinion that the DOJ had no inclination to say "Well... you are right, we made up our rationale and misrepresented it to the trial court and to the Supreme Court, but now we want to provide a new reason that may fly." Unfortunately for them the President seems to be forcing them to make that or a similar acknowledgment in order to continue to litigate the matter. For lawyers who presumably would to keep their license, that kind of position likely makes them uncomfortable, to put it mildly. That is the background, imho, for a considerable portion of the comments made by the Judge in that transcript.
The ACLU filed a memorandum and motion in the SDNY census case calling out the Administration for the, shall we say, "fluidity" of its position that there was such urgency to have the matter fully done by the end of June that extraordinary levels of expedience in the judicial process, including limiting preparations, but that with an adverse ruling by the S Ct the absolute closing date had dissipated into the mists.

Memo is downloadable at

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3KvSWpmpYLtq0XWl9-F-UB&cshid=1562512734175
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
Yeah man, nothing racist in posting a pic of a handful of African Americans implying the photo represents the whole.

It's about as racist as dems bringing up a false lawsuit against the Trump organization from 30 years ago.
But, you're either racist or you're not. You can't be "a little" pregnant.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT