The Supreme Court is a legal recourse. Kidnapping her is not. The resolution is ridiculous, but legal. Kidnapping her is not. Nor is the President encouraging illegal actions. That's sedition.
You say what you think doesn't matter. Okay. You finally told me something true. You prance and dance and ignore the petition drive underway to remove that vile hag from her perch. We do not need violence. Stop claiming that is how she would be removed.
Golem, you can stop lying any time about what I believe. I support the recall drive against Gretchen Whitmer. I do not support violence against her.
Well, that's different (wink). Why didn't you say there was this woman.....who knew a guy........who thought they saw something. I can't believe posting schlock like that doesn't embarrass you. I was hoping you had more integrity than that.
I indicated when it was state or U.S. code. But it wasn't my burden. If you claim it's illegal, it's your burden to prove it. Not mine to prove you wrong. And yet, I did. So I went far beyond my requirements. I know you're under standing orders to not believe your own eyes so... I have no interest in competing with a "pseudo-deity".
Amazing how a simple order to not believe your own eyes given by a "pseudo-deity" can accomplish. I thought we would all be laughing at it by this time but... lo and behold... there are people who still abide by it. BTW, just for the record, I didn't have to present anything (even though I did). You made the claim that it was illegal, it's your burden to prove it. Not mine to disprove it. And yet... I did.... And you didn't.
I saw what I left out and let it slide, whereas you didn't. She is a senior nurse at a second nursing home. Okay. Make of it what you will. Whitmer has abused her powers and has tried to farm-out the misery to her health department now the licensing agency which would revoke business licenses like barber Karl Manke's if his November 19 hearing goes wrong. She is a vindictive woman and intends to shut him down at any cost. His lawyer thus far has successfully fended her off but pessimism intrudes with a woman that vengeful. As for integrity, well, I hear that from leftists all the time. *SNORK!*
I did. But YOU made the statement. Care to share your reason excuse why you refuse to quote the law to back up your statement?
Well, then you have to be more careful with what you say. Because we're talking about her attempted abduction and Trump's call to sedition, and you jump in with (quoting you) "You act as if we are to placidly accept whatever a tyrant leftist hag might dictate. I will not surrender." Nobody... not you, not the poster I responding to, not me, not Trump... has mentioned anything about some "recall drive"
Not to mention that Trump relegated decisions and responsibility to the governors. But when he doesn't like what they're doing, he attacks them mercilessly. And encourages the people of the state to do the same. Fabulous leadership skills.
Quote the law that supports your statement that they can only apply for asylum if they come in through a designated point of entry.
Wrong again and still. I've mentioned it before, but won't let that stop your fantasy-ride. https://www.change.org/p/michigan-state-house-impeach-governor-whitmer
They can apply for asylum but nothing there says that the are exempt from being prosecuted for illegal entry.
International law prohibits it. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which has been ratified by the U.S. and, therefore, is binding, prohibits "“impos[ing] penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees . . . where their life or freedom was threatened.”
Here all the text including the the stuff you did not want me to see. " 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence." 1) The" typically" are economic refugees under our law and don't have an refugee status under this international law. 2) They don't typically have good cause for illegal entry. 3) They typically are not "Directly" threatened in Mexico but instead from central America instead and so they don't have these protections. 4) when they pay people to help them avoid the border patrol, they are clearly not intending to go immediately to the border patrol to turn themselves in. Sure if they were being hunted down by a drug cartel and could not safely get to a port of entry to cross, I would understand how they would meet these conditions. The vast majority of these people do not, and only claim asylum because they got caught,not because they were on their way to turn themselves in.
They are refuges the minute they receive refugee status. They cannot be prosecuted before that, they cannot be prosecuted after they received that status even if they entered the U.S. "illegally".
What did Trump do.Did he virtually prop-up those like BLM and Antifa.Responsible for Damages in excess of $ 2 Billion in a summer filled with Rage and Hate.Trump had nothing whatever to do with that.Where over 30 americans had their lives ended. Some were cops. Where V.P. Kamala Harris even vocalized the need for BLM to keep up their Protests.She encouraged it.Then adding sheer insult to injury helped raise funds to bail out those Radicals protesting during summer.Where we have No Names as to who did the Killings. Yet 2 men have been arrested from the storming of the capitol as implicated in the death of Capitol Cop Sicknick. Whose death is a complete mystery.We have their names and Pics.How about any Involved in the deaths all last summer. 2 conflicting Standards.One for anyone even remotely being a MAGA supporter { let alone wearing a hat } and those actually involved in Deaths and Burning down of Neighborhoods. Americans understand what's going on here.
According to international law, they can if they did not have "good cause" for crossing illegally and/ or they didn't immediately turn themselves in after illegally crossing.
