Jump to content

Refugee Crisis in the U. S. (?)


B-Man

Recommended Posts

https://conservative-daily.com/2017/05/09/sanctuary-city-releases-illegal-alien-brought-stolen-police-rifle-school/

 

Mario Granados-Alvarado is an illegal alien from El Salvador. He was caught by Border Patrol in 2014, determined to be in the country illegally, and ordered to appear before an immigration judge to begin deportation proceedings. Because of President Obama’s catch-and-release policy at the time, Alvarado was given a notice to appear in court and released back into society.

 

He has absolutely no right to be in this country. Last week, Alvarado was arrested by Montgomery County Police after he drove a stolen car into a local high school parking lot. When officers opened the trunk, the found a rifle that was stolen from a police officer’s car.

 

Let’s just pause for a second. An illegal alien was arrested for stealing a car and a police officer’s rifle. Police also found a second stolen gun in the car. When the police ran his name and finger prints, they learned that he had an active deportation order against him.

 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement immediately asked the Montgomery Police to hold Alvarado so that Federal agents could make an arrest. Instead, Mario Alvarado was released from jail on just $2,000 bail.

 

They arrested an illegal alien on vehicular theft and stealing a police officer’s gun, not to mention the fact that he brought the gun to a school. He was thrown in jail on a Monday and back on the street by Wednesday. Thank goodness that ICE agents were able to make an arrest after the local police set him free. Otherwise, there is no telling the damage he would be doing right now.

 

This is what sanctuary city policies look like. They protect illegal aliens and let them bring stolen police guns to schools. They let illegal alien habitual drunk drivers get behind the wheel one more time and kill innocent people. It’s absolute madness.

 

In the same Maryland County, prosecutors announced this week that they were dropping charges against two illegal aliens suspected of raping a freshman girl in a high school bathroom because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the encounter wasn’t consensual. Where are these illegal aliens now? Are they being deported? Nope.

 

President Trump ordered the Department of Justice to begin cracking down on sanctuary cities but an Obama mega-donor, who was made a Federal judge, blocked Attorney General Jeff Sessions from taking any action against sanctuary jurisdictions.

 

Federal Judge William Orrick ruled that it is unconstitutional for the President of the United States to instruct the Attorney General to devise a way to legally and constitutionally punish sanctuary cities. If that decision confuses you, it should. There is no logic there, only politics. It is no surprise that a man who donated and bundled close to a quarter million dollars for Obama’s election campaign would issue a ruling like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the same Maryland County, prosecutors announced this week that they were dropping charges against two illegal aliens suspected of raping a freshman girl in a high school bathroom because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the encounter wasn’t consensual. Where are these illegal aliens now? Are they being deported? Nope.

 

 

Actually, yep. The rape charges were dropped, but one of them was charged (and the other has charges pending) with possession and distribution of child pornography, and released on his own recognizance, and was picked up by ICE for deportation as they left the courthouse.

 

But of course now the city of Rockville wants them released by ICE, because if they're deported Rockville can't try the case. In which case, Rockville sends them home...and is required by law to home-school them at taxpayer expense, since they can't go back to school...

 

It's just down the street from me, too. I wish I didn't have to hear about it every day. It's a real circus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilarious.................. :lol:

 

 

Judge Gets ACLU to Admit it Would Have No Problem with Travel Ban Under Hillary
It’s only “unconstitutional” under President Trump.

 

In testimony on Monday before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union was forced to admit that the only problem the organization has with Trump’s travel ban from terror-tied countries is the president himself. Had the executive order been signed by, say, President Hillary Clinton, it would’ve been totes constitutional.

 

In an audio clip posted at C-SPAN, ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat argued that President Trump’s travel ban was unconstitutional because of his previous campaign rhetoric about Muslims and not necessarily the order itself. Judge Paul Niemeyer recoiled at that idea and posed, “If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?”

 

Initially, Jadwat skirted a direct answer, but Niemeyer persisted: “We have a candidate who won the presidency -- some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took… Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

 

Jadwat replied:

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be
al.”

 

Judge Dennis Shedd chimed in and asked Jadwat pointedly, “Is [the executive order] legitimate on its face or not in your opinion?”

 

“I don’t think so, your honor, because the order is completely unprecedented in our nation’s history,” Jadwat replied, ignoring Obama’s similar Muslim travel ban.

 

Aghast, Judge Shedd asked incredulously, “So, the first order on anything is invalid?”

The audio ends there but it’s enough to display the inherent bias within the so-called civil rights organization of the ACLU.

 

As Powerline blog noted, “As usual, the liberals have no coherent theory. Basically, they believe that anything they don’t like is unconstitutional. And ‘unconstitutional,’ for them, has nothing to do with the actual written document called the Constitution, the charter on which our nation is founded. ‘Unconstitutional’ merely means something they don’t like.”

 

The sad fact is that Democratic presidents appoint Democratic judges who are willing to subscribe to such lawless nonsense.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/aclu-makes-it-official-the-only-thing-wrong-with-trumps-travel-order-is-trump.php

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/25/530051807/4th-circuit-court-ruling-keeps-trumps-travel-ban-on-hold

 

4th circuit court of appeals upheld the block on Trump's travel ban in a 10-3 decision. They used basically the same reasoning as the 9th circuit did, that Trump and his surrogates were very up front about the true intended purpose of the ban, and that there was no evidence to suggest immigrants from the chosen countries were an undue danger to national security.

 

Might end up going to the Supreme Court. We will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/25/530051807/4th-circuit-court-ruling-keeps-trumps-travel-ban-on-hold

 

4th circuit court of appeals upheld the block on Trump's travel ban in a 10-3 decision. They used basically the same reasoning as the 9th circuit did, that Trump and his surrogates were very up front about the true intended purpose of the ban, and that there was no evidence to suggest immigrants from the chosen countries were an undue danger to national security.

 

Might end up going to the Supreme Court. We will see.

It's an interesting situation. An order which seems completely legal in it's final form being undone by previously stated illegal motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

ANOTHER CALL FOR RUTH BADER GINSBURG TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM THE TRUMP TRAVEL BAN CASE:

 

If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump’s travel ban must require Ginsburg’s recusal in the Supreme Court’s review of that travel ban.

The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias. It only requires a review whether the public might “reasonably question” the “impartiality” of the judge in the matter. Liberals argued Justice Scalia merely hunting with a Vice President compelled his recusal.

 

 

 

Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson: How can Ginsburg participate in Travel Order case after her *campaign* statements about Trump?

 

 

 

 

Of course, following the rules does not apply to democrats..............she will never recuse herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

TRUMP BREAKS CAMPAIGN PROMISE ON “DREAMERS”

daca.jpeg?resize=110%2C85President Trump has decided to continue, for now, President Obama’s amnesty program (known as DACA) for illegal immigrants who came to the United States as small children. On Thursday evening, the Trump administration announced that the so-called Dreamers will still have legal status and be able to receive work permits, renewable every two years, assuming they satisfy certain minimal conditions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...