Trump Administration Faces Pressure To Not Deport Detained Iraqi Christians

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Wasn't that all the hubbub that it affected GC holders?

the eo did affect gc holders but that has nothing to do with illegals already here obtaining asylum.

[CaliCat 3,957]

19 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

 

I am more open minded than that, and much more tolerant.

 

 

I am sure you probably believe that.

[IAMX 3,055]

42 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It's always amusing to see cases like this and then recall the story of the Romeike family (and a few similar cases), who came here illegally, we fought to deport them, people like Jay Sekulow said Obama was a horrible meanie to such fine upstanding Christians and they would be horribly 'persecuted' if we sent them back to Germany... Obama/USCIS won their case in court, but because the agency received so much heat, we allowed them to stay as deferred status. They are still here by all accounts. I'd like to know when Trump intends to deport them. I'll wait..

 

Hopefully as soon as possible.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

trumps fault? why are you so concerned with defending him? anyway - read the op. trump's own words, yet again, trying to hold him accountable.

Some MOR's are very concerned with defending Trump.

[Dashinka 25,898]

5 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Some MOR's are very concerned with defending Trump.

Not really defending Trump, but how is this his fault?  Last I heard, the ability of the US to deport illegals or GC holders for criminal activity came way before Trump was elected.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[CaliCat 3,957]

18 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Some MOR's are very concerned with defending Trump.

 

The cycle is as follows:

 

1. Defend Trump.

2. Divert or introduce a red herring.

3. Blame Obama or bring him into the discussion somehow.

4. Blame Hillary or bring her into the discussion somehow.

5. Blame Clinton or bring him into the discussion somehow.

6. Go back to 1.

 

These people are nothing if not predictable. 

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Not really defending Trump, but how is this his fault?  Last I heard, the ability of the US to deport illegals or GC holders for criminal activity came way before Trump was elected.

 

 

The buck. It should stop on his desk.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

The cycle is as follows:

 

1. Defend Trump.

2. Divert or introduce a red herring.

3. Blame Obama or bring him into the discussion somehow.

4. Blame Hillary or bring her into the discussion somehow.

5. Blame Clinton or bring him into the discussion somehow.

6. Go back to 1.

 

These people are nothing if not predictable. 

 

 

The buck. It should stop on his desk.

But they're definitely middle of the road.

[CaliCat 3,957]

Just now, Teddy B said:

But they're definitely middle of the road.

 

Like, so totally!

[Dashinka 25,898]

34 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

The cycle is as follows:

 

1. Defend Trump.

2. Divert or introduce a red herring.

3. Blame Obama or bring him into the discussion somehow.

4. Blame Hillary or bring her into the discussion somehow.

5. Blame Clinton or bring him into the discussion somehow.

6. Go back to 1.

 

These people are nothing if not predictable. 

 

 

The buck. It should stop on his desk.

So Trump is a immigration judge now as well?  I thought the judges were supposed to tell him what to do, not the other way around?

[Dashinka 25,898]

35 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

But they're definitely middle of the road.

I thought that was the Leftist playbook?

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

24 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So Trump is a immigration judge now as well?  I thought the judges were supposed to tell him what to do, not the other way around?

 

 

Is he? Has he appointed himself? Not that it would surprise anyone in the lease. 

[Dashinka 25,898]

20 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

Is he? Has he appointed himself? Not that it would surprise anyone in the lease. 

You said for these guys the buck stops at Trump's desk.  My knowledge of immigration shows they have to go before a judge.  Which is it?

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

You said for these guys the buck stops at Trump's desk.  My knowledge of immigration shows they have to go before a judge.  Which is it?

 

 

 

They go before a judge. I appreciate your newly found appreciation for the other branch of our government. 

 

As for the buck stops here comment, you are correct. Only relevant presidents can exert any type of influence in these cases. Trump doesn't qualify. My bad. 

[Dashinka 25,898]

21 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

They go before a judge. I appreciate your newly found appreciation for the other branch of our government. 

 

As for the buck stops here comment, you are correct. Only relevant presidents can exert any type of influence in these cases. Trump doesn't qualify. My bad. 

So when the president is relevant in your eyes that means they can exert influence on the judicial branch of government?  Last time I read the constitution, the only influence or control the president (relevant or not) has on the judicial branch was the ability to appoint said judges.  Beyond that and congresses (via the senate) affirmation of that appointment, the judges act without influence from the other branches.  As to newly found appreciations not sure where you got that, I always appreciated the judicial branch, but that does not mean I blindly agree with them all the time, however, I do adhere to their rulings.

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So when the president is relevant in your eyes that means they can exert influence on the judicial branch of government?  Last time I read the constitution, the only influence or control the president (relevant or not) has on the judicial branch was the ability to appoint said judges.  Beyond that and congresses (via the senate) affirmation of that appointment, the judges act without influence from the other branches.  As to newly found appreciations not sure where you got that, I always appreciated the judicial branch, but that does not mean I blindly agree with them all the time, however, I do adhere to their rulings.

 

A relevant president has enough cache to use his influence within the legal frame of his office. It's been like this for well over 200 years.