There's nothing particularly notable about a mandate, and the Heritage proposal was wildly different in every other respect. Notably, it only called for skinny, catastrophic plans.
There's nothing particularly notable about a mandate, and the Heritage proposal was wildly different in every other respect. Notably, it only called for skinny, catastrophic plans.
“It says Romneycare on the Wikipedia page, so clearly it was his idea.” If only you had read the article, you’d have seen the discussion of the legislative history where he vetoed most of the bill and it was passed over his objections.
Meh. The counties can just ratify the agreements.
It really wasn't.
Nope.
westchester.news12.com/port-chester...
Yep. Three DUIs.
The firefighter had, what, 3 DUIs?
What makes you think they don't have training? The jeans?
That was a grown man.
Maybe. reason.com/2023/08/21/c...
They were going to put her in the hospital where she very clearly belonged.
Sure, but they also ran crap like this: www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/u...
Now exclude 17 - 19 year old "children" and rerun the chart. So fucking dishonest.
Who would want a decline in crime, anyways?
Easy for an antisemite to say.
Well, the result of the change is that: (1) poor families can still get free lunches; (2) wealthy families can't.
I fail to see how making wealthy parents pay for their kids' lunches is a crisis.
You have to have gotten a removal order in order to get withholding of removal. The name should've made that apparent.
Interior deportations is more relevant:
She, transphobe.
Woman, you transphobic asshole.
Jesus you're dumb.
They're being charged what they owe.
It's becoming eligible for the green card that's the trickier part.
What people care about is the border. Keep that orderly and there's a chance that the green card spigot can be opened up.
He can't file for asylum - the claim is time-barred. Did you mean withholding of removal?
"Claim"? Better to respect the rule of law. Since "ERA ratification" by the Virginia legislature in January 2020, federal judges by 18-0 have REJECTED attempts by pro-ERA litigants to have the ERA recognized as part of the Constitution. 13 were named by Democratic presidents, 5 by Republicans.
"Removal hearings are civil, not criminal, proceedings, which means that immigrants don’t have the same rights as criminal defendants. Removal hearings take place before a judge only; there is no jury. " www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res....
That's for criminal trials. Immigration isn't a criminal matter.
As a matter of rule of law, those laws should certainly be enforced.
We have laws that govern who can immigrate. If the law changes to allow more people to immigrate here, great, but until then anyone who cares about rule of law should want the laws to be respected and enforced.
Depends, right? Naturalized citizens that use fraud to get their citizenship can and *should* be denaturalized and deported.
BERNIE SANDERS: ".. I am glad the Trump administration is in agreement with the amendment I offered three years ago." @barrons.com $INTC www.barrons.com/articles/int...
It is. This is what US law expressly permits.
No. They had 700 at the start of the Trump administration, and the BBB authorized hiring enough to get to 800 judges. You fall pretty easily for misinformation, apparently. Try to be a little more of a critical reader. It'll do you good.
If you want to apply....... www.usajobs.gov/job/841105500
They fired Biden appointees. And now they're hiring replacements plus an additional 100 IJs.
They're hiring judges now.
Notably, his attorneys aren't contesting that he can be deported to another country; if he were deported to Costa Rica he'd already be gone.
Not sure what your point is. Yes, he was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, but that doesn't change the fact that he can be lawfully deported anywhere else without further process (as courts will ultimately find)
That's withholding of removal, which only prevents him from being deported to El Salvador. He can be deported anywhere else with no further proceedings.
No, he's not here legally. He has a final order of deportation - the only restriction is that he can't be deported to El Salvador.
He's an illegal alien, and should be deported in accordance with rule of law.
Canada won't take him.
He had that due process in 2019 when an immigration judge ordered him removed.
Is it not generally used almost exclusively by those on the left?
He did get due process on his immigration claim, and has a standing deportation order. The issue is that he can't be deported to his home country, but in those circumstances US law allows him to be deported to a third country.
He already got due process on his immigration case.
He is here illegally and has a final order of deportation.
Yep. And it doesn't matter if he committed a crime or not. He has a final order of deportation, we can't send him to El Salvador, so that means we can deport him to a third country.
It's deportation - he got the legal process to which he was entitled.
It can only be done if their home country won't take them or we can't send them there, so it's not especially common.
How do you know he'll be imprisoned in Uganda?
He can't be deported to El Salvador, so we can deport him to another country.
No, it's not. The only thing necessary is that his home country won't take him.
You don't need to commit crimes to be deported.
Of course you can be.
If they get a positive screening, yeah - I think those regs are flatly contrary to the statute, but whatever. If they don't request asylum, or if they're waiting for an interview, the regs call for them to be detained. Eg 8 CFR 235.3 (b)(2)(iii).
From (a): "All aliens (including alien crewmen) who are applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers."
Expedited removal is (b)(1) - applicants for entry without authorization to do so are removed without review. The point is to make it a quick process, thus "expedited removal."
INA 235 www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
It's the expedited removal process. People without authorization to cross are removed quickly unless they pass a credible fear screening. That's what the statute requires, and it didn't happen.
Here's the stats for FY23. In September alone, Biden let around 200k people in to the country that had no right to enter. It was *insane* what he did. www.cbp.gov/newsroom/sta...
I believe statistics.
No, it doesn't happen now. Again, the stats are clear - people are placed into expedited removal now, which is what the law requires. That didn't happen under Biden.
That is exactly what happened. There wasn't time to remove people or even ask about asylum, so they just let them go. That's why when you look at the Biden era stats, you see very few credible fear processing and millions of "released - NTA."
And those people may have intended to ask for asylum, but they didn't get interviews at the border like the law requires.
They were 75% open - that's the percent of people that got through. The sheer numbers overwhelmed the system - there was no time to process anyone for removal, so Biden just arrested people and let them go into the interior. That's fucked up.
It'd be like saying theft isn't a problem if we don't prosecute it.
Once I saw the docs and confirmed a co-borrower doesn't have to make it primary, it's pretty black and white. I sure don't like being wrong - or, more to the point, falling for bullshit - but I'd rather be wrong and be corrected than go through life believing bullshit!
Looks like I was wrong. I did find the mortgage docs, and you're right. Appreciate the correction.
The FHFA said her mortgage app claimed it as a primary residence, so I'm looking for that doc.
Biden paroled *millions* of people into the country that otherwise weren't allowed to enter.
They only entered "legally" because Biden opened the borders and let everyone in.
The James doc says she intended to make it her primary residence (see below). The doc is floating around the web - I saw it but didn't see it on a quick search. www.housingwire.com/articles/doj...
The application in which they attest that the home is a primary residence.
Based on the mortgage docs themselves, the investigations don't look "ginned up."
Making fun of voters is quite the campaign strategy.
People that aren't MAGA don't use "stakeholder." The goal of the memo is to advise Democrats not to sound like wangs to regular people.
I'm not fucking running for office and trying not to alienate voters.
It's not that it's some sophisticated word; it's that it's a buzzword. You want to sound like someone giving a boring HR training, great, fire away.
A lot of people (1) don't have office jobs - you don't hear it if you're making pizzas; or (2) hear it and think "what a wanker."
The purpose of the memo, pace the impression from the Politico article, was to highlight terms that make normies roll their eyes or signal "I'm inside / you're outside." It's not a list of offensive or bad terms or anything.
For sure. Normies don't use that term.
Countries don't just take deportees on faith, dumbass.
Some are getting hearings. For others it takes time to line up travel docs.
I misread your last comment. Disregard.
Their legal right to remain ended prior to the deportation order.
"Illegal immigrants deported." Meh.
Deportations from the interior are on track to be.
Factcheck: nah.
He's on a sidewalk, freak.
We've almost deported as many from the interior as the most in any year of the Obama administration.
Right, because no one can buy fake badges or uniforms. Genius.
The flashing lights, the clothes that say "police," etc.
That's what accountability means in our system.
If the person arrested thinks unreasonable force was used they can get the officers' identities through discovery.
And if he weren't a citizen he'd be deportable. But he is.
Cite the federal law that says they can't wear masks.