Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vox)   Amy Barrett hates immigrants. No wonder Trump loves her   (vox.com) divider line
57
    More: Creepy, Immigration to the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, United States Constitution, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Immigration, Trump's key immigration policies, advancement of immigrant rights, Seventh Circuit  
•       •       •

2377 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2020 at 4:50 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



57 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
JDAT [OhFark]
2020-09-28 11:50:50 AM  
Policies mentioned in the article are similar to Canada's.
 
GardenWeasel [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 11:54:43 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
whidbey [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 12:56:54 PM  
Two years as a judge.

This person is not qualified to be on the SCOTUS, and this nomination is one big Stigginit.
 
Smackledorfer [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 2:56:02 PM  

BeesNuts: Smackledorfer: Kirablue42: In her whopping 40-page dissent in that case, she laid out why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future - even if they have never used public assistance in the past.

Meet the RACIST AS HELL "pre-crime" handmaiden.

Meh.

1. Any country should be able to unilaterally decide who can become a citizen.

2. If they sign onto any international agreements those should have binding power to some extent.

3. Denying migrants based on the expectation they may need assistance is stupid. But I do think we should have that right.

If the US cannot determine who can become a lapr or citizen, who should be able to? India? China? Honduras? The UK?

The ONLY reasonable answer is us, via our executive and legislative branches as elected by the people.

Sure, we technically have the "right" in international law.

It's also unamerican horseshiat and I stand against it.

The plaque doesn't say "Bring me your means-tested 95th percentile citizens, yearning to pay lower taxes", after all.


I don't disagree with you.

My point was just that unless a protected class, treaty, or existing legislation precludes a change to immigration, the correct judicial ruling is to let the administration be as benevolent or terrible as the American people voted for.

I can't defend DACA and prosecutorial discretion for 8 years and turn around and say Trump's executive branch should be blocked by the courts based not in law, but in the whim of the courts.

Of course, if we didn't have a broken senate design and horrendous gerrymandering, this wouldn't even come up.
 
Father_Jack
2020-09-28 3:06:41 PM  

GardenWeasel: [Fark user image 540x539]


solid.
 
life of the sausage party
2020-09-28 4:22:35 PM  

Smackledorfer: Kirablue42: In her whopping 40-page dissent in that case, she laid out why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future - even if they have never used public assistance in the past.

Meet the RACIST AS HELL "pre-crime" handmaiden.

Meh.

1. Any country should be able to unilaterally decide who can become a citizen.

2. If they sign onto any international agreements those should have binding power to some extent.

3. Denying migrants based on the expectation they may need assistance is stupid. But I do think we should have that right.

If the US cannot determine who can become a lapr or citizen, who should be able to? India? China? Honduras? The UK?

The ONLY reasonable answer is us, via our executive and legislative branches as elected by the people.


Yes, there is a method for this, it's called a constitutional amendment.
 
Smackledorfer [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 7:11:26 PM  

life of the sausage party: Smackledorfer: Kirablue42: In her whopping 40-page dissent in that case, she laid out why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future - even if they have never used public assistance in the past.

Meet the RACIST AS HELL "pre-crime" handmaiden.

Meh.

1. Any country should be able to unilaterally decide who can become a citizen.

2. If they sign onto any international agreements those should have binding power to some extent.

3. Denying migrants based on the expectation they may need assistance is stupid. But I do think we should have that right.

If the US cannot determine who can become a lapr or citizen, who should be able to? India? China? Honduras? The UK?

The ONLY reasonable answer is us, via our executive and legislative branches as elected by the people.

Yes, there is a method for this, it's called a constitutional amendment.


Which would sadly backfire because we have a country based on states and not population.

:(
 
Displayed 7 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want more news before we break it? Try

TotalFark

See what's behind the green door
and help keep the tap flowing

learn more | sign up

On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.