Is the rule of law starting, slowly, to win?

[This_person]

Supreme Court Says Trump Can Bar Asylum Seekers While Legal Fight Continues ​

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to bar most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States, while the legal fight plays out in the courts.

The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned order, said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country.

The court’s order was a major victory for the administration, allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation’s southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others. Mexican migrants, who need not travel through another country to reach the United States, are not affected by the new policy.

It was the second time in recent months that the Supreme Court has allowed a major Trump administration immigration initiative to go forward. In July, the court allowed the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction of a barrier along the Mexican border. Last year, the court upheld President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.

 

[transporter]

Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

1. This is not a "rule of law"....the Executive Branch can't create laws.

Then there is this lovely quote:

In a Supreme Court brief in the case, the solicitor general, Noel J. Francisco, said the new policy was needed to address “an unprecedented surge in the number of aliens who enter the country unlawfully across the southern border and, if apprehended, claim asylum and remain in the country while their claims are adjudicated.”

Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

1. According to CBP crossings have fallen to back to the level we had before Trump created the problem of increased crossings. So the FAKE need for the change in policy no longer exists.

 

[Kyle]

Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

 

[This_person]

Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

1. This is not a "rule of law"....the Executive Branch can't create laws.

Nope, they create regulations. Those regulations have the enforcement capability of law, because that's what the law says. The law gives the executive the authority to regulate with very broad discretion on far too many things, because otherwise legislative branch politicians would have to understand the complexities about that which they are making law.

So, regulations are, for lack of a more correct term, rule of law.

Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

1. According to CBP crossings have fallen to back to the level we had before Trump created the problem of increased crossings. So the FAKE need for the change in policy no longer exists.

Yes, certainly there is no chance of an increase again, and we have handled the problem of the influx.

Wait, neither of those things is true, therefore your "point" is, at best, invalid. In reality, not well thought-out. At worst, a knowing attempt to make things worse through your diatribe.

 

[glhs837]

Wait, how did Trump cause the increase? This sounds akin to blaming a store manager for increased shoplifting because he announced that CCTVs would be installed in two weeks.

 

[PsyOps]

Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

Please replace your needle, you damn broken record player.

 

[Kyle]

Please replace your needle, you damn broken record player.

His only working brain cell is a PROM.

 

[herb749]

Please replace your needle, you damn broken record player.

He has a list of things to use each time.

 

[herb749]

Nope, they create regulations. Those regulations have the enforcement capability of law, because that's what the law says. The law gives the executive the authority to regulate with very broad discretion on far too many things, because otherwise legislative branch politicians would have to understand the complexities about that which they are making law.

So, regulations are, for lack of a more correct term, rule of law.


Yes, certainly there is no chance of an increase again, and we have handled the problem of the influx.

Wait, neither of those things is true, therefore your "point" is, at best, invalid. In reality, not well thought-out. At worst, a knowing attempt to make things worse through your diatribe.

This is like, there is no crisis at the border, then needing to go there to see there is one. Then blaming it on rhetoric when its been going on way before that. So now before this is settled there will be an increase before this change goes into effect.