Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Biden uses more money to process more illegals into the country. It is totally about the misuse of money by Joe Biden and Mayorkas.This is why Trump and the republicans are fighting Biden's request for more funding for the Border Patrol. As usual, it's all about money.
It is about creating a process to legally vote. That is the end goal. We all know the border has been opened by Biden, yet he claims he cannot do anything. There is a goal in mind is all.Biden uses more money to process more illegals into the country. It is totally about the misuse of money by Joe Biden and Mayorkas.
What else is he supposed to do? Those hearings are required by US law.Biden uses more money to process more illegals into the country. It is totally about the misuse of money by Joe Biden and Mayorkas.
He's complying with existing law in that regard. But Biden is asking for more money to add people to the border patrol to keep others from coming in illegally. And that's what Donald Trump objects to; now that the economy is booming, all he has left is the border as an issue, and if Biden gets the resources to add border patrol and adjudicate asylum requests more rapidly ( to remove those illegally applying) he has no issues left.Biden uses more money to process more illegals into the country.
Trump promises that he won't be restrained by the law if he's elected. Believe it or not some Americans actually think it's a good thing. Trump's boss certainly does....What else is he supposed to do? Those hearings are required by US law.
I cannot find where you are from but it must not be that you are from the Southwest, New York or DC. Those two cities found the Invasion as distasteful as we do in the Southwest.While I know conservatives love referring to what is happening at the border as an invasion, that's not what the Constitution means by that. This paper does a pretty good job of laying out what it does mean. Now I will admit it focuses on a different clause then the one you are, but I think it's probably safe to assume the founders didn't have different meanings in mind. https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-cont...R-SST-CompactClause-JoshuaTrevino-paper5-.pdf
Barbarian, implication without supporting fact is, almost, always not true.Trump promises that he won't be restrained by the law if he's elected. Believe it or not some Americans actually think it's a good thing. Trump's boss certainly does....
Actually I am from New York. Even if I wasn't though, that wouldn't magically change the Constitutional meaning of "invasion" which is what my post had to do with.I cannot find where you are from but it must not be that you are from the Southwest, New York or DC. Those two cities found the Invasion as distasteful as we do in the Southwest.
Still being vague and that leaves me to think well north of NYC, maybe south of Watertown and out of touch with loosing jobs and revenue to the Invasion of Illegals ranging from Jose Mexican to Omar Terrorist and Chinese Who Can Guess. I am sorry but you are out of touch with reality.Actually I am from New York. Even if I wasn't though, that wouldn't magically change the Constitutional meaning of "invasion" which is what my post had to do with.
The author of that archived definition has presented a much more concise explanation,While I know conservatives love referring to what is happening at the border as an invasion, that's not what the Constitution means by that. This paper does a pretty good job of laying out what it does mean. Now I will admit it focuses on a different clause then the one you are, but I think it's probably safe to assume the founders didn't have different meanings in mind. https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-11-RR-SST-CompactClause-JoshuaTrevino-paper5-.pdf
Would love to see some credible source to that attack on legal immigration.I don't think that the republicans object to legal immigration. Their reluctance to fund border security is based on contributions they get to look the other way on illegal immigration.
Other than Donald Trump, I'm not aware of any republican leader who has objected to legal immigration.Would love to see some credible source to that attack on legal immigration.
Trump sided with Putin against our own intelligence agencies. Would you like to see that? Or would you like to see Trump's statement that he'd be a dictator ("for a day") if re-elected?Barbarian, implication without supporting fact is, almost, always not true.
Are you actually going to address the content of my post or just continue with this bizarre personal attack?Still being vague and that leaves me to think well north of NYC, maybe south of Watertown and out of touch with loosing jobs and revenue to the Invasion of Illegals ranging from Jose Mexican to Omar Terrorist and Chinese Who Can Guess. I am sorry but you are out of touch with reality.
It's the way the founders of America set things up. We had no immigration restrictions until the end of the 19th century. Turns out, prosperity tends to track with immigration.So now we have the worst of both worlds, labor mobility of the most needy, with no regulation.
EVERYONE who loathes lawful immigration and joyfully conducts operations that undermine that process, including those who think they are doing the Lord a service, isn't.
“Therefore, submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13)
You have shown me this trash before but, in context, Trump is not guilty of this.Trump sided with Putin against our own intelligence agencies. Would you like to see that? Or would you like to see Trump's statement that he'd be a dictator ("for a day") if re-elected?
Or would you like to see both of those?
This is not any form of attack, I'll respond when you post fact and not allusion to Pasuado Fact.Are you actually going to address the content of my post or just continue with this bizarre personal attack?
Seriously? You are calling me out of touch with reality and you think that isn't a personal attack?This is not any form of attack, I'll respond when you post fact and not allusion to Pasuado Fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?