Six justices know what ‘Temporary’ means . Haitians must go home now. Or, creators of TPS would not have said temporary. So we all agree on that.
One critic says that it is racist and discriminating to send them home, as SCOTUS has ruled. We can solve that criticism by sending ALL people who are here illegally….home.
Let’s have a discussion on this one. I need not bother with posting the definition of temporary. I tried to define debt and deficit for Wildgrass, but it was not convenient for him….. he disagree with that definition. It was from Webster..
So should the Haitians who were here on the temporary protective status have that status removed and stay here indefinitely?
@AverageJoe1 saidWe clearly need to get them to stop eating their neighbors' dogs and cats.
Six justices know what ‘Temporary’ means . Haitians must go home now. Or, creators of TPS would not have said temporary. So we all agree on that.
One critic says that it is racist and discriminating to send them home, as SCOTUS has ruled. We can solve that criticism by sending ALL people who are here illegally….home.
Let’s have a discussion on this one. I ...[text shortened]... ho were here on the temporary protective status have that status removed and stay here indefinitely?
@Suzianne saidBring Korean citizens here too? It only seems fair?
We clearly need to get them to stop eating their neighbors' dogs and cats.
Do you realize that we cannot heal the world?
You are a small thinker in such matters. They have been here for 15 years. Hairi has settled down where they can go live their own lifestyle. That is not so unreasonable. There are people in the jungles of South America that have their ways as well. Do you want to go down there and be sure they do everything like we do?
Geez
Dogs can be food you know. So can horses. Settle. Each country has their own customs. Next year will say bring them here and let us learn their customs actually that is happening in America. They certainly do not want to learn ours.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidMaybe you can get your boss to outlaw people who are not white.
Bring Korean citizens here too? It only seems fair?
Do you realize that we cannot heal the world?
You are a small thinker in such matters. They have been here for 15 years. Hairi has settled down where they can go live their own lifestyle. That is not so unreasonable. There are people in the jungles of South America that have their ways as well. Do you want to go down t ...[text shortened]... learn their customs actually that is happening in America. They certainly do not want to learn ours.
Maybe you can get ALL of them to get deported and never allow any more in.
You all know you want him to.
It'll be the last thing this tinpot dictator will ever do.
@Suzianne saidWhat has white got to do with it? Y'al write white a lot but leave it hanging. I have no idea.
Maybe you can get your boss to outlaw people who are not white.
Maybe you can get ALL of them to get deported and never allow any more in.
You all know you want him to.
It'll be the last thing this tinpot dictator will ever do.
Secondly, yes, maybe we should . We are trying. Screaming dank looking girls with frizzy hair and big eyeglasssew, who all look alike, keep trying to stop us. But yes we should deport illegals, it will free up more jobs for one thing.
Thirdly, we all agree on the Forum that we need immigrants, some work for me today. We do not need persons wjo are here illegally, sneaking in, or whatever. We need to PICK the people we want to enter our country.
A lot of sarcasm back and forth. How about clear the air since you seem to have your back up, and tell us that you think that it is OK for people to come here illegally, break our laws, when law abiding immigrants are waiting in line to qualify as citizens.
On this topic did you see where SCOTUS, except for 3 non-white judges (speaking of white), approved Trump's right to deport lawbreaking illegal invaders from our country??? I read about it in Mother Earth News.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 said"Follow the law"?
Six justices know what ‘Temporary’ means . Haitians must go home now. Or, creators of TPS would not have said temporary. So we all agree on that.
One critic says that it is racist and discriminating to send them home, as SCOTUS has ruled. We can solve that criticism by sending ALL people who are here illegally….home.
Let’s have a discussion on this one. I ...[text shortened]... ho were here on the temporary protective status have that status removed and stay here indefinitely?
The TPS statute says that before a determination can be reversed, A, B and C must be done.
Everybody concedes the Trump administration didn't do them.
The SCOTUS says they didn't have to after all despite the clear language of the law because there is a provision in the law that determinations are not subject to judicial review.
But reading it the way the right wingers did violates a basic tenet of statutory interpretation i.e. rule against surplusage which says every clause must be given its "fair and reasonable meaning" and every provision was put there for a reason.
@no1marauder saidWhat does TPS stand for?
"Follow the law"?
The TPS statute says that before a determination can be reversed, A, B and C must be done.
Everybody concedes the Trump administration didn't do them.
The SCOTUS says they didn't have to after all despite the clear language of the law because there is a provision in the law that determinations are not subject to judicial review.
But reading i ...[text shortened]... ause must be given its "fair and reasonable meaning" and every provision was put there for a reason.
@no1marauder saidYou suggest that SCOTUS ignored rhe 'rule against surplusage'.
"Follow the law"?
The TPS statute says that before a determination can be reversed, A, B and C must be done.
Everybody concedes the Trump administration didn't do them.
The SCOTUS says they didn't have to after all despite the clear language of the law because there is a provision in the law that determinations are not subject to judicial review.
But reading i ...[text shortened]... ause must be given its "fair and reasonable meaning" and every provision was put there for a reason.
I have been awaiting your saying something like that for about 8 years.
Mott,,,,,,could you take this one,,,,,,I am going for a scotch.
PS: Don't forget that SCOTUS screwed up on this decision.!!
@Mott-The-Hoople saidTemporary Protected Status.
What does TPS stand for?
Here's the relevant statutory text:
(A)Periodic review
At least 60 days before end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation, of a foreign state (or part thereof) under this section the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, shall review the conditions in the foreign state (or part of such foreign state) for which a designation is in effect under this subsection and shall determine whether the conditions for such designation under this subsection continue to be met. The Attorney General shall provide on a timely basis for the publication of notice of each such determination (including the basis for the determination, and, in the case of an affirmative determination, the period of extension of designation under subparagraph (C)) in the Federal Register.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1254a
at (b)(3)(A)
That's a lot of "shalls" not "cans".
1 edit
@no1marauder saidBut you leave us hanging....
Temporary Protected Status.
Here's the relevant statutory text:
(A)Periodic review
At least 60 days before end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation, of a foreign state (or part thereof) under this section [b]the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, shall review the conditions in th ...[text shortened]... ps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1254a
at (b)(3)(A)
That's a lot of "shalls" not "cans".
Can we assume that SCOTUS got such a finding of the atty general , that, it was open up, time to send them home, to live and build their country,,,,,Haiti? Your relevant statutory text lends nothing to the discussion.
Your point, please, You will acknowledge the 15 years......riiight? (sue says right a lot).
Really, the point of your post?????
@AverageJoe1 saidYou'd assume wrong; there's very little evidence that the Attorney General consulted with the State Department at all regarding the present conditions in each country.
But you leave us hanging....
Can we assume that SCOTUS got such a finding of the atty general , that, it was open up, time to send them home, to live and build their country,,,,,Haiti? Your relevant statutory text lends nothing to the discussion.
Your point, please, You will acknowledge the 15 years......riiight? (sue says right a lot).
Really, the point of your post?????
Moreover, according to the majority, they have no obligation to do so despite the language of the statute.
@no1marauder saidYes, and NO evidence that the State dept consulted wth the secretaries and number-crunchers in one of the OTHER department\s (which departments answer to the State Department!) to arrive at info given from State Dept to the Attorney General, which found-its-way to SCOTUS, for them to amass a world of data to arrive at their conclusion!!!!! We can agree tha they had a lot if info to collect prior to their decision.
You'd assume wrong; there's very little evidence that the Attorney General consulted with the State Department at all regarding the present conditions in each country.
Moreover, according to the majority, they have no obligation to do so despite the language of the statute.
Next, you yourself say that they have no obligation to consult with the State Department. so wht is your beef? What is your real beef. Keep these foreigners in our country???? Don' t we have enough? What are we missing here. ??There always is an underlying current with all of you, you are after something, you will not tell us what it is. What is it????
@AverageJoe1 saidI said no such thing (talking with an idiot is really annoying at times).
Yes, and NO evidence that the State dept consulted wth the secretaries and number-crunchers in one of the OTHER department\s (which departments answer to the State Department!) to arrive at info given from State Dept to the Attorney General, which found-its-way to SCOTUS, for them to amass a world of data to arrive at their conclusion!!!!! We can agree tha they had a l ...[text shortened]... g current with all of you, you are after something, you will not tell us what it is. What is it????
The statute's language requires them to.
The right wingers at the SCOTUS says they don't have to bother.
@no1marauder saidThen I will assume that they are correct, that they do not have to bother...Ball in your court, tell us where it says they have to bother..Last I heard, they can do what they want to do. Ha, who is there to charge them, are they not the last word?
I said no such thing (talking with an idiot is really annoying at times).
The statute's language requires them to.
The right wingers at the SCOTUS says they don't have to bother.