iluvatar5150
Well-Known Member
- Aug 3, 2012
- 25,469
- 24,385
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What you call a "school board" is starting to look more like propaganda machines.
I'm not even going to ask.
Updated: https://nypost.com/2019/06/18/law-g...s-drivers-licenses-could-lead-to-voter-fraud/
Looks like it went through.
Your earlier link talked about them getting voting rights. The new law only gave them drivers licenses.
Did you read the lawsuit link from 2018? Golden State Settles Suit Over Motor-Voter Rules
What about it? The lawsuit was about voters having to fill out duplicate forms.
I'm not sure if the admin lied or not
They did. Here is the supreme court's decision
It is hardly improper for an agency head to come into office with policy preferences and ideas, discuss them with affected parties, sound out other agencies for support, and work with staff attorneys to substantiate the legal basis for a preferred policy. Yet viewing the evidence as a whole, this Court shares the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot adequately be explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA. Several points, taken together, reveal a significant mismatch between the Secretary’s decision and the rationale he provided. The record shows that he began taking steps to reinstate the question a week into his tenure, but gives no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement. His director of policy attempted to elicit requests for citizenship data from the Department of Homeland Security and DOJ’s Office of Immigration Review before turning to the VRA rationale and DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. For its part, DOJ’s actions suggest that it was more interested in helping the Commerce Department than in securing the data. Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision. Unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived. The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. The explanation provided here was more of a distraction. In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 744. Pp. 23–28.
That's a nice way of saying that they lied.
; but what I do know is that the American people, at least the majority, support and see value in having that question on the census. I also understand it doesn't prevent people lying and simply checking the box anyway.
If there's a valid reason for having the question, go for it. But as it is, it doesn't seem to provide enough pertinent data to justify the downsides (of degraded data) and it certainly wasn't the agency's intent to add the question to make the census somehow better. They added it to disenfranchise Hispanics (who, for this purpose, were serving as a proxy for Democrats) and to bolster gerrymandering efforts.
All 5 of the people he brought back across had already been deported once:
Booker leads deported immigrants back across US border, blames Trump
That's fraud.
1.) It's not fraud if you're honest about who you are and what you're doing. Do you have any evidence that Booker or the women have lied about anything?
2.) He brought them to a port of entry. It's not illegal to go to a port of entry. Period. They then presented themselves to apply for asylum and were ingested by CBP.
His press conference can be viewed here:
Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker escorts migrants in Juárez to El Paso
His twitter thread:
Cory Booker on Twitter
3.) Your LET author is, at best, exaggerating. He cites (without linking) Courthouse News' David Lee, claiming that Lee said these women had been previously detained for illegally entering the country. But Lee's piece makes no such claim. Lee also doesn't state that all of them had been previously detained.
Upvote
0