SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Intercept reports
A Federal judge in New York issued a nationwide temporary injunction [1], halting the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration on Saturday night, blocking the deportation of travelers with valid visas detained at airports in the past 24 hours.
Judge Ann Donnelly, a United States District Court Judge in Brooklyn, issued the ruling at an emergency hearing on a lawsuit [2] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on Saturday, as Trump's executive order temporarily banning citizens of seven nations with Muslim majorities from entering the U.S. took immediate effect.
The judge ruled that the government must immediately stop deporting travelers from those nations, including refugees who already went through a rigorous vetting process, and provide a complete list of all those detained, immigrants rights lawyer Lee Gelernt told reporters in Brooklyn.
[Ed Note (martyb): Original text and links from The Intercept are reproduced here — to bypass indirections and Javascript use the following links.]
[1] Direct link to a PDF of the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal (Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 8 Filed 01/28/17).
[2] Direct link to a PDF of the Original ACLU Complaint (Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 01/28/17).
Previously:
Breaking News: Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:33PM
Does the eastern distric of New York have authority to issue nationwide injunctions? I note that in the PDF, the injunction is to be served specifically on the US Marshall service, in the eastern district of New York. No, the question is not entirely rhetorical - I'm not sure where the eastern district's authority begins and ends. Does one judge have the authority to shut down a set of actions being performed by the executive branch around the nation?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:53PM
Who's going to decide? Hint: another judge.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by moondoctor on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:11PM
Yep. Just dawned on me that if trump was an evil genius he'd know that this would happen and planned it. The ultimate arbiter would be the Supreme Court of the United States, and he could theoretically be granted way more power if he wins. Drag it out until his new nominees are confirmed to lock it in and the fallout could be wild.
Doubt it, though. I think he's just not that smart and is simply making a mess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:20PM
It isn't even trump. Its Bannon and his lieutenant Stephen Miller whispering in trump's ear.
We are literally being governed by Breitbart. [nymag.com]
They even wrote the inaugural address. [thehill.com]
At least that's better than Clinton, right?
The media was in her pocket.
Now the presidency is in the media's pocket.
(Score: 2, Informative) by moondoctor on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:33PM
Yep, bannon is the new cheney.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:25PM
Yes. Better by far he listen to Bannon than the Saudis and Pakistan.
"Now the presidency is in the media's pocket."
Which media? Faux news, CNN, MSNBC? Oh, no, you're talking about Breitbart, so again it could clearly be so much worse.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:38PM
> Yes. Better by far he listen to Bannon than the Saudis and Pakistan.
Seems like he is listening to Saudis and Pakistans since neither of those countries are on the ban list, despite actually being the national origin of muslims who have killed people on american soil. Unlike the seven countries that are on the list. [cato.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:44PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:37PM
Non-sequitur to the rescue!
You have now prevailed in teh argument.
Your points proven, your claims validated!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:44PM
One problem. Perhaps because he was "Sort of a God", or just because of political expediency, the SCOTUS already awarded President Obama absolute plenary power over immigration. So unless they want to really get a Constitutional crisis going by reversing themselves in less than two years, they are going to have to let Trump also wield this new power.
Remember, Obama was not only declared entirely free to decide which laws passed by Congress would be enforced as a matter of resource allocation, his 'policy preferences' were binding Law upon the States because of this new emanation from some penumbra. They wanted to make their point extra clear and invented that whole bit about the absolute authority of the President over immigration policy to shut down any unruliness out in flyover country.
So we can probably expect Trump to ignore these lower courts, much like Obama did on DAPA, continuing to ignore injunctions by lower courts until the Supremes themselves recoiled at granting the President the new power to actually bypass Congress and write entirely new laws instead of enforce/ignore/interpret/reinterpret existing ones. And the idea Trump would actually allow one NY judge to issue a nationwide ban would mean he never intended to do this at all and was just throwing some red meat to his base because the odds of it some lawless proggie trying it was 100%. So far he has been acting like he meant what he said on the campaign. We shall see.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:58PM
Didn't this creeping unitary executive stuff start under Dubya the Armuhdilla Hunter? Lesson: never give an office political power if you don't want to see your opponent using it next term.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:16PM
It's been going on since at least FDR. Both parties certainly share some blame for it. But the polarization of politics has definitely contributed: Obama couldn't do anything via normal means because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't work with him on anything. When it was happening, I remember people warning about cheering on Obama's actions that were through executive orders out of fear for what a Republican president would do with the same power. It's unclear whether this was a deliberate strategy by the Republicans, but it unfortunately seems like it might be working out well for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:19PM
Obama couldn't do anything via normal means because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't work with him on anything.
Maybe so, but that doesn't justify him or anyone else exceeding their authority; it would be better if things didn't get done than having the Constitution be violated.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:25PM
Didn't this creeping unitary executive stuff start under Dubya the Armuhdilla Hunter?
Arguably, it began under George Washington, who already experienced a few crises where people questioned his use of executive powers. But that's not a serious answer -- federal power ebbed and flowed over the decades for roughly 150 years.
I've said this elsewhere, but I think the "creeping unitary executive" really began around the time of FDR. Have we had any significant curbing of executive power since then? Before then, there were still debates over the reach of the powers of the federal government. Laws were routinely overturned by SCOTUS for usurping the "police power of the states" and such. Since the early 1940s, I'm really not sure anyone takes any proposed restriction on federal power seriously. (Recall our former Speaker of the House literally laughing that anyone could ask a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare and the idea that there could be ANY restriction on federal power, other than perhaps explicitly enumerated "rights" in the Constitution -- and even those have been increasingly manipulated recently.) And while balance has shifted slightly among the branches, the Executive has always been the largest of the federal government, wielding the most resources.
P.S. I'm not some smart-government "nutter" -- I actually think we need federal programs and regulations to live in a modern world. But we left the world of "Constitutional constraint" many decades ago. And thus creeping powers have just happened unilaterally through SCOTUS reinterpretations and executive orders, with less public debate at every expansion, let alone Constitutional revision as the Founders would have required.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:57PM
Dang the luck - I've used all my mod points. That whole plenary power thing passed by me, thanks for the reminder!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:07PM
Dang the luck - I've used all my mod points. That whole plenary power thing passed by me,
Why are we not surprised? And the "Unitary Executive"? The "Nixon Doctrine"? The proper mix for concrete? What else has passed by you, Runaway? What else? As Dan Quayle said: "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:30PM
Which of my detractors are you? You have nothing better to do with your time, than to follow me around, making inane comments that contribute nothing. I'll probably just go mod bomb Aristarchus. Even if you're not him, he deserves it.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:13PM
Dude, paranoia much? What makes you think this was me? I am jmorris's SJW monitor, not yours! And besides, no one has to "follow" you around, you post shit everywhere, so it is kind of hard to avoid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:03PM
It really doesn't matter - I shoot like Obama. Some raghead needs killing, Obama launched a couple drones into random places where he hoped the raghead might be. Same here - I can just shoot some random SJW when they start creeping me out. Aristarchus is pretty damned random, if you ask me.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:43PM
now, Now, I was going to come to your defense as one of the more reasonable and moderate right leaning bastards around here ;)
In your defense you started with a good question, and you don't have to go to raghead and sjw's around here firing indiscriminately.
To put it at your level, try being cool like bugs bunny and not reactionary like Yosemite Sam ;P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:29PM
> the SCOTUS already awarded President Obama absolute plenary power over immigration.
Oh really?
And which case was that?
Because it sounds like a fantasy story from the land of alt-facts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:51PM
That is all jmorris is, memorizer of propaganda.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @02:55AM
This is fairly interesting to watch. The alt-right has simply crazy interpretations of events under the Obama administration. In their minds, Obama has already done everything, probably more, than Trump will do. So they believe that not only are they completely justified, but that they're getting vengeance against the other "team."
I don't have any solid predictions to make at the moment, but I just have a feeling what they "accomplish" over the new few years will blow up spectacularly. One can kick and scream at reality, but reality doesn't particularly care about anybody's ego.
Talk about a ham-fisted approach to immigration policy.
(Score: 3, Touché) by GungnirSniper on Monday January 30 2017, @11:30AM
Still better than dying to keep the Russians out of some gods-forsaken backwater than only Hitler could love thanks to Hillary.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday January 30 2017, @11:41AM
Remember, Obama was not only declared entirely free to decide which laws passed by Congress would be enforced as a matter of resource allocation
There is precedent for this going back well over a century, so it's not exactly an 'Oooo, Obama' thing. That said, there's a big difference between a President deciding not to enforce a law and a President deciding to break a law. The US legal system, inheriting from English common law, starts from the perspective that humans have all freedoms and that laws can only remove them (i.e. you may legally do anything that is not explicitly prohibited by law). This means that the former gives the President the power to grant more freedoms by refusing to enforce laws that remove them, whereas the latter gives the President the right to remove freedoms.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:08PM
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are kicked out of the national security council and Bannon is brought in. [usatoday.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:14PM
Yes it applies to the entire country.
And fuck off you dickless nazivwannabe.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:17PM
What a cunt. The question was serious enough to spur a somewhat thoughtful discussion. Were you one of those million angry women who marched on Washington? One of the millions of women who touched themselves while reading/watching 'Fifty shades of gray', but were OUTRAGED that a political figure may have joked about touching women? Go die a painful death, you cunt.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:26PM
I know, right? OP is such a cunt.
Who does she think she is? Bigotry won the election. Everybody must unite behind bigotry now and fight to destroy compassion and human decency.
That is how a democracy works.
Elections have consequences — Obummer!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:00PM
Muslims are scum, and should never be allowed to take root in Western nations. Actually, people from failed nations should never be allowed to immigrate into the U.S.
There's a reason why their countries are failed states. And that reason is because they're goddamn savages best displayed as zoo exhibits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:11PM
Muslims are scum, and should never be allowed to take root in Western nations.
WoW! That's funny, 'cause you know Ethanol_fueled is also scum, and he seems to have taken root in a Western nation! I guess that explains San Diego.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:37PM
The irony of your own ignorantly savage behavior seems to be lost on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:22PM
Bigotry won the election.
No, Clinton lost the election. Even if she was running against Donald Duck, she would have lost.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:18PM
Does one judge have the authority to shut down a set of actions being performed by the executive branch around the nation?
Uh yeah. The president does not have state-specific jurisdiction. The executive branch is a branch of the federal government. So obviously a federal court ruling would apply everywhere a federal order applies.
Trump obviously gave you multiple orgasms yesterday with his decision to force children back into warzones.
But try to keep your head, ok?
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:24PM
No, but yo Mama? How in hell am I supposed to keep my head, while your mama gives head?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaWSOlASWc [youtube.com]
Candy came from out on the island
In the backroom she was everybody's darlin'
But she never lost her head
Even when she was giving head
She says, 'Hey babe, take a walk on the wild side'
He said, 'Hey babe, take a walk on the wild side'
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:34PM
> No, but yo Mama? How in hell am I supposed to keep my head, while your mama gives head?
Its revealing that when your beliefs are criticized all you can respond with are generic meaningless insults.
Shows how empty and unsupportable your beliefs are to begin with. You've always been shallow
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:39PM
Offer something better than mindless insults of your own, and you may get something better than generic insults in return.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:46PM
Again, when your beliefs are criticized you respond with insults of nothing.
You can't even defend your beliefs.
Your beliefs are literally mindless.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:04PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STRqg0m13eo [youtube.com]
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:14PM
What's that?
Porn of your mommy diddling you?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:31PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTbkbH3x7LQ [youtube.com]
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:46PM
More video of you masturbating to ISIS beheadings?
No thanks!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:14PM
Offer something better than mindless insults
OK, stand back, hold my beer, and watch this! "Runaway, you are a doo-doo head!" Ha! Got ya! Man, that has got to hurt! Runaway is a poopy-head! Ha ha ha! I am invincible!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:02PM
He asked a specific question without any partisan crap and he got your shitty angry response instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:18PM
He asked a specific question without any partisan crap
Not really, he asked a stupid question that revealed a extensive ignorance of how the US legal system works, which is not surprising for a Trump Voter, so really it was not non-partisan, it was just stupid. Oh, but wait! While it is true that there are no "stupid questions", there are stupid people who ask things they could easily find out for themselves, stupid, lazy people. I believe we have found at least two!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @02:28AM
Most people have extensive ignorance about most things, how email works, what makes their car go, what doctors know, how science operates, and on and on. I would even go so far as to say that most lawyers have extensive ignorance about how the US legal system works, except in their own particular, narrow specialty. It can even vary quite a bit from state to state, which is why you frequently have to take the bar exam in the state where you mean to practice law, even though you might have previously passed the bar somewhere else.
So if you stop and think about it ignorance is the natural lot of modern man, amid bodies of knowledge too large to be fully absorbed by anyone given our common limitations of time, capacity, and appetite. Willful ignorance, and asserting certitude based on impressions rather than actual facts and knowledge, are a different matter. Discourage the latter, but practice understanding for the former.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @04:19AM
Maybe so. But how disconnected from reality do you have to be to believe that The Intercept would straight up lie about such a simple, mechanical issue of whether a federal injunction is "nationwide?" The only reason he asked the question is because he really, really wanted to disbelieve. Asking the question was the way he released the pressure of the cognitive dissonance of thinking muslims totally deserve to be fucked over hard and the fact that courts don't see it that way.
Just yesterday that asshole posted that standard islamofoe canard that "islam is not a religion its a political system" so 1st amendment protections don't apply.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:49PM
YOU'RE A MIND READING COCKSUCKER!!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:04AM
You don't have to be disconnected from reality at all. You only have to be generally ignorant of how courts and jurisdiction work. I am not disconnected from reality, but I too am in the dark about such matters. Why? Because I studiously avoid the entire subject; I loathe lawyers, judges, and courts and politicians, who are themselves mostly lawyers. There are far too many interesting things in the world to learn and understand, without wasting time on people and a general profession that irritate the crap out of me. When it does come time to hang the lot of 'em, I will be jockeying to be the guy that pulls the lever.
So, choose to judge Runaway and everyone else a little more kindly before rushing to judgement. Perhaps he was being coy as you suspect, but his initial question seemed legitimate to me. And, in the end, what did it gain anyone to jump on it as an invitation to a flame war? We are really at a time as a global society when those small decisions, to fight, or to try and get along, will doom or save us.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:59PM
I'm sure yo mamma jokes are more than enough consolation to those children being sent back to syria.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:36PM
Uhhhhhh - yeah. Got video of children being torn from their mother's breasts, to be cast from the battlements, to certain death?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:43PM
Two brothers, their wives and children left war-torn Syria with 16 suitcases and crossed the border into Lebanon. They were finally on their way to the United States after working for almost 15 years to join their family members stateside.
But after a flight from Beirut to Doha, Qatar, and then to Philadelphia on Saturday, the two families were told to get on a flight back to Doha. It was because President Donald Trump had just signed an executive order denying citizens from seven countries, including Syria, entry into the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/us/syrian-family-trump-travel-ban/ [cnn.com]
Of the more than 8,000 Syrian refugees admitted to the country so far, 78% are women or children, according figures released by the State Department this month. Fifty-eight percent are children, with a roughly even split between girls and boys.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/08/09/syria-refugees-united-states-women-children/88446226/ [usatoday.com]
Don't let facts get in your way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:26PM
Don't let facts get in your way.
They won't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:05PM
That family sent back to Doha was christian.
I guess this isn't a muslim ban after all!
Nah... Just unintended consequences.
Hey derpaway, how's that christofacism working out?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:47PM
The 7 countries under Donnie Tiny Hands' blanket ban are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia.
The Christian sect in Egypt are called Copts.
They are a minority of the population and are persecuted.
That non-Muslim sect and other non-Muslim sects have also taken root in adjoining lands. [msu.edu]
Note the overlap with the list of 7.
In their countries, those Christians are being targeted.
2015 kidnapping and beheading of Copts in Libya [wikipedia.org]
At least 25 killed in explosion at Coptic Christian chapel in Cairo [upi.com]
Christian Persecution in Somalia [opendoorsuk.org]
Cheating Donald [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org] claims to be a Christian, but his actions aren't anything like what the Nazarean taught.
It should come as no surprise that he has no empathy for those persecuted Christians.
...or even knowledge of their existence.
Expecting a president who gets his "information" from cable TeeVee to be well-informed and make wise decisions is just silly.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:26PM
Second link first - looks like a partisan paid advertisement. FFS, MSM makes some claim that Obama is bringing in women and children. But - that's not what your first link says, either. The wives and the children didn't come until the fathers were on their way, as well.
That first link is pretty tough, really. They flew all the way here, only to be turned around. But - wait a second.
"According to the Assalis, their family members do not speak English very well and were told by authorities they could either be detained and have their visas taken away, or they could take the first flight back to Doha.
Frightened and facing a language barrier, the six family members chose the second option. Sarmad Assali told CNN she wished she had been able to speak with them, since she would have told them to stay until she could arrive with her attorney."
So, the Assalis weren't *exactly* "kicked out". They were given a choice between detention, or returning to whence they came. They chose to return. Now, if they had just left a hot war zone, why didn't they choose to stay in a relatively safe detention center, until things could be worked out one way or the other?
It's still a rough deal for them, but they chose.
Maybe they aren't actually flying back into the danger you paint?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:33PM
What a masterful display of motivated reasoning!
First, straight up widely reported facts are actually "partisan paid advertisement."
Because everybody knows reality has a well-known liberal bias. So who needs reality anyway?
Second "eh, fuck'em they were weak, tough shit!"
You are the best, man!
I think I saw you on American Horror Story: Freakshow.
You were the logical contortionist!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:44PM
Yup, this is the example where Runaway goes from reasonable questions / points and wanders into the crazy zone. I'm all for personal responsibility, but you have to take extenuating circumstances into account. Instead, you double down on "their fault if they made a mistake" instead of "fucking fascists screwing with people's lives for no good reason". And it is no good reason, as many have pointed out the ban doesn't target the right countries and so does nothing to keep us safe. Not to mention that protecting against "terrorism" is statistically the worst allocation of resources possible.
Why would a family opt to take their chances in their home country instead of being "detained"? Gee, because many people detained in the US spend several years in detention along with the very real chances of abuse or even torture. Yeah, why would a responsible parent not send their kids into a foreign system they know nothing about? Come on Runaway, time to work on your "compassion" circuits.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @02:30AM
Or forced labor or extermination, as our own dear VLM has advocated. Let's hope that's a bridge too far for Trump's team.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @05:00AM
Don't worry, I got this one for you: You are sure this is just another partisan advertisement.
Trump Ban Leaves 12-Year-Old Girl Facing Return to War-Torn Yemen [propublica.org]
The girl, whose parents are U.S. citizens, was barred from boarding a plane yesterday and is now in limbo in Djibouti.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 30 2017, @07:07AM
Your grasp of the English language needs some work - but that's cool. Apparently, you grew up speaking another language.
That's a tougher story than the other one. It really sucks. But - again, it results from decisions made by her parents.
First, let me clarify that I disagree with that stupid-assed residency law for mothers. Any child born to an American mother should automagically become an American citizen, for the same reasons that anchor babies born to Mexican mothers should NOT automagically become American citizens. Nothing is more natural than for an American woman to give birth to an American baby - or for a Mexican mother to give birth to a Mexican baby. Citizenship should NOT depend on some accidental mis-location at the time of birth.
But, the law is the law. Mother decided to move to Yemen, to give birth there, and NOT to ensure that her baby would be considered an American citizen when she grew up. Mother did not value her citizenship enough to ensure that her baby would have all of her privileges of citizenship.
As a result, today, that baby is a pawn in a political game. That really sucks.
What is the solution? Hell, I don't know. Djibouti has to be one of the most suck-ass places to be stranded. I've been there. About the only thing worse than Djibouti, are places recently struck by earthquakes, and warzones. Maybe it's improved since I was there, but it still has to suck. Worse than Chicago or Detroit, if you need some kind of reference.
Bottom line here, is that parents should protect their children's rights, whether the laws make sense, or not. There have been tens of thousands of similar sob stories involving citizens of the UK, and people who THOUGHT they were citizens, over the years. People do get burnt sometimes.
Maybe someone will start one of those funds for this little girl? If you see one, let me know, I'll send her a little money.
After a little additional thought - parents made another mistake. Daddy is the sole breadwinner in the family? Why did Daddy have to go to Yemen? If Mommy has no job, it would have made more sense for HER to go pick up her daughter. Daddy could have kept on working, winning that bread, while Mommy took care of business in Africa. Poor decision making has a way of burning people.
But, I'll still send them some money if you can find a fund for them. I'll look around a little . . .
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @10:18AM
It is frickin a mazing to see the lengths you will go to rationalize cruelty.
"The law is the law." -- The circular justification of fascists everywhere.
After all, sending jews to the concentration camps really sucked, but it was the law and it was their choice to continue living in europe!
Baphomet's dick is so far up your ass that its the tongue you speak with.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 30 2017, @11:51AM
I didn't rationalize it. I attempted to explain that facts are facts. The world is a harsh fucking place, and her parents didn't take the proper measures to protect their child. If a mad dog attacks you child, there is no rationalizing that. But, you can take responsibility for your child, and keep her from being put in danger by the mad dog.
Once again - the residency law for female American citizens is obscenely fucking stupid. An American mother can only give birth to an American child. Unless the mother takes measures to renounce her citizenship, then citizenship is the birthright of her child, it's just that simple.
Let's get THAT stupid law changed, and a whole lot of children will avoid the kind of bullshit and heartache you see in this case.
But, Mommy put her child in that position, when all is said and done. Mommy had all the same opportunity that any of us has had to peruse citizenship laws. Mommy CHOSE to reside in a foreign land, and put her child's citizenship into jeopardy. Don't blame it all on Trump. Don't even blame it on me. I didn't write the law, didn't even get to vote on it.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday January 30 2017, @05:25PM
Hold on a second here. Why was the child not automatically a US citizen, with her parents both already being US citizens? Location shouldn't matter.
Otherwise, how the heck did Ted Cruz qualify for running for President? He was born in Canada (to US citizen parents).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 30 2017, @06:17PM
Residency requirements for a female parent. Let me find that thing for you . . . .
First link I find that mentions residency is this one - https://au.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/birth/transmit-citizenship/ [usembassy.gov]
Scroll down low on the page, to "if parents are unmarried at time of child's birth - the mother is a US citizen" - (javascript enabled, or it won't open)
"The mother must have had physical presence in the U.S. or its possessions for one continuous year.
(This is only for children born on or after December 24, 1952.)"
Similar heading, "If parents are unmarried at the time of the child's birth - the father is a US citizen"
"The father must have had physical presence in the U.S. or its possessions for five years, two years of which were after the age of 14; and blood relationship established between father and child; and father (unless deceased) agrees in writing, prior to the child turning 18, to support child while child is under age 18. Conditions include:
child is legitimated; or
father acknowledges paternity under oath; or
paternity is established by court adjudication.
(This is only for children born on or after November 14, 1986.)"
Note that link is in Australia, apparently published by the US emabassy.
This is NOT what I have read in the past - when the Birthers brought this issue up.
For a mother to confer residency on her child born abroad, she should have lived (continuously, I believe) for seven years within the US, AFTER having reached the age of 14. Meaning, no woman under the age of 21 can possibly give birth to a US citizen abroad, before she reaches the age of 21.
This site is some better, in that it shows pretty clearly that the law has been changed over time.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html [state.gov]
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock for the purposes of citizenship acquisition when the genetic and/or gestational parents are legally married to each other at the time of the child’s birth and both parents are the legal parents of the child under local law at the time and place of birth.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a)
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided:
A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth;
The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.
The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
While the person is under the age of 18 years --
the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile,
the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “Old” Section 309(a) of the INA- A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the “old” Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the child’s birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a).
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The U.S. citizen mother must be the genetic or the gestational mother and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
*** PLEASE NOTE ONCE AGAIN: I do not agree with any of that residency BS. It really needs to be stricken from US Code. The more stringent versions of this law that I've read in the past can only be considered barbaric - this less stringent version is much less so, but still barbaric. Border control can't deny the woman entry into the country, because she is a citizen - but they can bar her baby?
But then, we have Mexican anchor babies, whose parents can't be deported because the baby was born on US soil?
Preposterous.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jelizondo on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:13PM
Technically you are asking a judge for protection against an act of the Federal Government which will be/is harmful to you, so it doesn’t matter where the judge is, what matters is where you are. The judge granted a motion of stay pending a review of the legitimacy of the act.
A motion of stay means to keep things as they were before the act of the government, i.e. if you are detained, you are to be freed; if you were denied entry, to allow you entry, etc. After the legal review you may be detained, deported or whatever, but no before due process.
It does not apply to all cases, only to the particular cases where the judge has ruled a motion of stay. As someone else pointed out, it only applies to people already in transit to the U.S. or at airports in the U.S.; others will have to petition their cases separately.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:16PM
decent question. I just assumed that it was the Federal courts, and that a ruling in those courts did indeed affect Federal operations like DHS, TSA, etc.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:33PM
The short answer is for now, yes; but for always, no. Any Federal District Court can stay a federal law or executive order, (due to the existence of federal question and the Federal Government as Defendant Subject Matter Jurisdiction (see Constitution and 28 USC 1331 and 1346)), as long as other requirements (like proper venue) are met. That court will have jurisdiction over the entire US until some other court of higher authority or more specific geography decides otherwise. So, for example, that decision will hold in Dallas, TX until the Northern District of Texas, 5th Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court rule otherwise, due to specific geography; or the 2nd Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court rule otherwise due to having higher authority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:02PM
Does the eastern distric of New York have authority to issue nationwide injunctions?
Runaway, Runaway, why do you persist? Surely it must be obvious to you by now that there are things you do not understand and are better off just not commenting on?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:28PM
LOL, what a 'tard. It's obvious from my question that I don't understand the levels of the various federal courts. I ASKED. Some of our members chose to respond with informative comments. It's you, the 'tard, who wants to stifle discussion.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:18PM
You are a child, Runaway, and it is tiresome for the adults on SoylentNews to constantly have to stop the discussion to explain rather basic things to you. So if you could, preferably, just remain obscene and not heard? Just to facilitate the discussion?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:24PM
You, Sir, may fuck off and die, anytime.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @11:15PM
Again, how mature of you. But wait, how mature are you actually? Do you find you have problems remembering people's names? Have you ever recently been unsure what city or town you were in? Perhaps you should seek professional help. We all wish you the best, and hope you get better.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @02:37AM
For what it's worth, I am ignorant of how those things work, too. So for me the question is a legitimate request for knowledge. The polite thing to do, the helpful thing to do, would be to answer it succinctly and forthrightly. And, no, RTFM is not an appropriate answer in this case because TFM is very, very long and arduous reading, and Google will be of no real help. And even if you found a lawyer online to ask, chances are they'd be at odds with the next lawyer in line, at which point they'd devolve into an endless, desultory argument replete with minutiae and arcana, exchanged at a slowly growing volume. At least, that's been my experience with anything that's ever come out of a lawyer's mouth.
So, how about be a mensch and give the guy (and me, and others) a straight answer, if you know it, instead of jumping on another cheap opportunity to slam the guy?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:10PM
This ruling only applies to people who are already in transit.
The ban still applies to green card holders who have not yet boarded a plane. They will be prevented from boarding at their origin airports.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:03PM
Up vote. The headline is wrong. Only a small part of the order is halted. It's hard to talk about Trump without swearing at this point. I wasn't that proud to be American to begin with, but he is turning into a real shit-stain.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:14PM
Skid mark? Check.
Oh, wait. That's Hillary...... SORRY HILLARY!
Oh no. Wait. It's orange. It MUST be Trump!
Wait.
What?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:49PM
There are widespread reports that Customs and Border Patrol are ignoring the court order and continuing to deport people.
Here is one. [twitter.com]
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday January 30 2017, @12:43AM
Good. Not sure why anyone would fly to any countries on the ban list.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:55AM
It is weird how people think confessing to be stupid and ignorant is something they should be proud of enough to do publicly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @02:39AM
Be careful. Not everyone who confesses publicly to be stupid and ignorant actually is.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 30 2017, @06:45AM
“He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.”
― Groucho Marx
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:05AM
Ban "Username" immediately! Comments this stupid should not see the light of day! Save us!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @01:26AM
The ACLU in Boston has won a ruling for a 1-week temporary stay against the entire ban.
The final court order, though released too late to make immediate headlines, represents an important expansion of the stay issued in Brooklyn. Unlike the original stay, it lasts only one week, during which attorneys will have to file an updated complaint and attend a second hearing. But Matt Segal, the legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Massachusetts, said that the framing of the court order suggests that it applies across the country; if so, for seven days, the federal government will not be allowed to use Trump’s executive order to detain or deport travellers with valid visas, green cards, or refugee status. Lawyers also said that travellers who have not yet departed for the United States should be able to do so.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-boston-a-late-night-victory-against-trumps-immigration-ban [newyorker.com]
(Score: 5, Funny) by BsAtHome on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:27PM
The European Union has promptly responded to the new style of government in the USA by president Trump. As of 12:00 noon today, Sunday January 29 2017, no US citizens with a known christian belief may enter any of the European Union countries on suspicion that they may be planning Americanization campaigns. An exception is made for US citizens with native American and Mexican or Latino backgrounds, as well as US citizens with a different skin-color than white. Permanent residents of the EU with US papers, not falling in the exception categories, will be deported at the earliest convenience and on their own expense.
Luckily, the CJEU has a day off on Sundays, so all police and immigration staff may proceed without judicial intervention. It is expected that the courts will be kept in check for at least a couple of months, such that a clean house is to be expected before any potential adverse ruling may be entered in the record.
/s
Let the mud-fights begin...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:53PM
As of 12:00 noon today, Sunday January 29 2017, no US citizens with a known christian belief may enter any of the European Union countries on suspicion that they may be planning Americanization campaigns.
Why American Christians? They have no recent history of violently attempting to overthrow governments and instill a theocracy, nor the divine mandate to do so. If anything, we should ban US politicians [wikipedia.org] instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:57PM
> and instill a theocracy,
That depends. American christians have been working their asses off to turn Uganda and other african nations into theocracy. [thenation.com]
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:09PM
Seems to me they suck at it. Islam has been doing a great job in Africa.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:26PM
Well, here in the US those believers in Christ tend to blow up abortion clinics so I'm sure the EU is worried about increased terror attacks. The Christians also support inequality for homosexual people so I'm sure Europe is wary of having such narrow minded preachers of hate affecting their youth. American Christians also tend to be loud, disagreeable, and judgmental so for the public peace they will be banned. There are also a lot of Muslims coming to Europe recently and the EU probably my wants to keep them safe from the likely violence/murder by American Christians who smuggled their favorite guns over to help "deal with the Muslim problem." Hell, American Christians are the leading cause of most of the problems in the middle east. Europe just doesn't want to be the battleground for the next crusades!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:18PM
Except that's not a systemic problem.
33% of UK college educated Muslim students believe in the implementation of a worldwide Caliphate.
Only 53% categorically reject murder in the name of Islam.
40% support the implementation of Sharia in the UK.
6% believe that apostates should be punished according to Sharia. This means killed.
Only 29% believe Islam is fully compatible with western democracy.
Only 18% believe it's fully compatible with the separation between church and state.
That's well-educated educated young people who are mostly native born UK citizens, not some country bumpkin from Arkansas.
Source [globalmbwatch.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:11PM
Sure they do. They overthrew America. Ask any native.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday January 30 2017, @11:47AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:13PM
The individual EU states are soverign. If they don't want me thats their right. Guess it wont apply because I am not christian, but I am plenty white enough to be banned from new Europe.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:50PM
Its pretty sad how racists suck so badly at humor.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:58PM
Taking this particular thread seriously is a bad sign of the state of the human race. The hyperbole is exactly what we need to put things in perspective.
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Monday January 30 2017, @11:54AM
"The tyrant fears the laugh more than the assassin's bullet" - Heinlein
Well done taking the piss, BsAtHome!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @10:55AM
Funny. Plenty of European countries will reject your visa because you are not white enough. Which universe are you from? In this universe white people instituted colonialism. In this universe a black husband can have his visa denied while his white wife will get it. In this universe non-schengen European countries will reject your fully detailed tourist visa application for not being white (and that includes Britain, not just eastern Europe).
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:00PM
I really wish they would be so stupid. The EU wouldn't last a month past the day they did something that obvious. Remember the whole scheme depends on keeping the masses in Europe asleep while the New World Order is birthing, there are already far too many signs of people waking up and asking "where the Hell did my Country go?"
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:03PM
Besides the point that the EU does not have such authority, the individual countries are currently on their merry way to undermine themselves. The populists in the EU countries are already changing the landscape and, apparently, nobody is able to hold against the obvious fallacy of the populist premise. These are are both sad and exciting times. Lets hope that reason wins before a new war is required to reestablish reason.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:23PM
You have no country, jmorris! Remember? You are a lizard person from beyond the stars!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @02:43AM
Cut him some slack. It's stressful to be hunted by Kyle MacLachlan day and night [imdb.com].
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:15PM
Canadians may come and go as they want.
'Cause.
Man, we are loved! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:32PM
on suspicion that they may be planning Americanization campaigns. An exception is made for ... US citizens with a different skin-color than white.
No no no!!! Why would you want to make an exception for him? He's the cause of the problem in the first place!
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday January 30 2017, @12:36AM
Just goes to prove leftist are ok with banning people based on religion, which Trump has never done. Because it’s only correct if they do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:22AM
Dude, get a sense of humor.
Er, sorry, my condolences. I forget that this actually happened in the paranoid delusion you prefer to live in.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday January 30 2017, @12:43AM
And then in few months retarded ban is reversed when all those countries had their governments voted out of power.
Either way EU has made itself irrelevant, and it probably won't last the next four years. At one point I liked the idea, but after years of stupidity I say good riddance!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 30 2017, @01:11PM
Unlike yourself, I never "liked" the idea. Several Sci-Fi stories have explored that whole one-world-government idea. None of them work out well. In the 1940's a group of people were persecuted by a government, but as horrible as that persecution was, the vast majority of that group of people actually SURVIVED. There were other countries to go to, there were escape routes, there were people willing to hide some of them. In a totalitarian world government, there will be no escape routes. So, the next charismatic son of a bitch who takes a serious dislike to some group of people will be able to eradicate them. Extinct. Gone. The last of the Mohicans. Nevermore. And, at the rate things are going in the world today, it's likely to be all white people of European descent who are targeted. Maybe some of the swarthier Mediterranean and Slavik people will be exempted, but no more peach-colored skin, no blue eyes, absolutely no blonde hair.
THAT is the power of a one-world-government. THAT is the power that the UN wishes it could weild. And, THAT is the path that the EU is tentatively exploring today.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday January 30 2017, @06:52PM
I'm not going to argue because that is what it has become. But on the onset the ideas and hopes that myself and other Europeans had were vastly different than to execution. No one would agree to one world government type of nonsense from the onset. We, as in Europeans, just wanted to be closer to our peaceful neighbors. The idea of a landmass the size of Europe living together in harmony is just not that far fetched, I live in the US and the country as a whole gets on quite fine. No sane European would ever want to include the whole world, and not even all of Europe - it would be silly to have Turkey join after all, and Russia has identity too strong to tack onto something else. But the whole thing got hijacked by agendas galore, and turned into the absurdity we now have. So when it turned out to be a tumor, it means it must now be cut out. I foresee smaller unions between countries that are very similar forming out of the remnants, and those countries will definitely not be taking in refugees.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:41PM
It's obvious from his name that the judge is Mexican. Just as obvious, he's trying to get back at President Trump in a very very petty way, really just so small-minded. What a hater!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:28PM
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2016/1/25/ann-donnelly-sworn-federal-judge-eastern-district [brooklyneagle.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by nukkel on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:46PM
She's a woman -- 'nuff said.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @02:47AM
Irish [youtube.com]. (at 1:33)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @04:22AM
Is this an example of someone confessing to being stupid and ignorant but actually isn't?
Because how stupid do you have to be to think the OP was not a parody?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:48PM
I prefer trump's.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:17PM
You don't have to accept a bad deal just because there are worse deals out there.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:05PM
That's a bogus comparison. Compare Trump's policy to Obama's. This recent disaster wouldn't even have kept out the 9/11 terrorists. America is turning ugly. Hopefully those who are affected have other options, but I'm sure many don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:07PM
You know, that's says a lot about what kind of person you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:03AM
Is he going to jail Clinton, shut down all marjuana dispensaries, or ban transsexuals?
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday January 30 2017, @12:39AM
I know this is too much to expect from an AC, but reference of last two? I’ve never actually heard his stance on marijuana. I know he’s cool with trannys using his bathroom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:58AM
You are so stupid you are picking a fight with a fellow trump fellator and don't even realize it.
Obviously I'm no the OAC.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @03:14AM
I do wish he'd keep the first one. I really need to see rich and powerful criminals go to jail. I need to feel the visceral dread of the Elites as they get taken down several notches.
Washington DC delenda est.