That's not even REMOTELY feasible with the numbers involved. Stop deflecting.
In all seriousness, what deflection?
It's a problem and the law limits the responses available. If the cases of these people were heard within days and not years, they would know where they stood; most of them would leave the country (because a majority of asylum requests are not granted); many more of them would *appear* at their cases (because they'd be unlikely to go anywhere, if they knew they'd see a judge in a day or so; and because it would be easier to *keep* them from going anywhere); and the word would get out that most people who appeared at the border, after what might have been a long trek, would be ushered back out of the U.S. almost immediately.
Given that the law *requires* that these folks be given a trial/hearing, why not have enough judges and courts to take care of that immediately? Wouldn't any fan of law & order want that? You know, "justice delayed is justice denied" and all that?
The backlogs are enormous - finding qualified judges to end the line fairly is not realistic, no.
It's a problem and the law limits the responses available. If the cases of these people were heard within days and not years, they would know where they stood; most of them would leave the country (because a majority of asylum requests are not granted); many more of them would *appear* at their cases (because they'd be unlikely to go anywhere, if they knew they'd see a judge in a day or so; and because it would be easier to *keep* them from going anywhere); and the word would get out that most people who appeared at the border, after what might have been a long trek, would be ushered back out of the U.S. almost immediately.
Given that the law *requires* that these folks be given a trial/hearing, why not have enough judges and courts to take care of that immediately? Wouldn't any fan of law & order want that? You know, "justice delayed is justice denied" and all that?
The backlogs are enormous - finding qualified judges to end the line fairly is not realistic, no.
This... There aren't enough immigration immigration lawyers in existence to process the number of cases needed, and if there were, expanding the courts is a many-years long process.
Not going to happen. In fact, from what I can tell, we're already trying to add judges, but it's not going to make a dent. So *given this*, shouldn't the laws be fixed? That's the question he's deflecting from.
The backlogs are enormous - finding qualified judges to end the line fairly is not realistic, no.
This... There aren't enough immigration immigration lawyers in existence to process the number of cases needed, and if there were, expanding the courts is a many-years long process.
Not going to happen. In fact, from what I can tell, we're already trying to add judges, but it's not going to make a dent. So *given this*, shouldn't the laws be fixed? That's the question he's deflecting from.
I have no problem with the law's being fixed; but right now it *is* the law. Do you expect the Biden administration unilaterally to stop following it? Don't we have multiple people on this thread who are not okay with Biden's not following the law?
This... There aren't enough immigration immigration lawyers in existence to process the number of cases needed, and if there were, expanding the courts is a many-years long process.
Not going to happen. In fact, from what I can tell, we're already trying to add judges, but it's not going to make a dent. So *given this*, shouldn't the laws be fixed? That's the question he's deflecting from.
I have no problem with the law's being fixed; but right now it *is* the law. Do you expect the Biden administration unilaterally to stop following it? Don't we have multiple people on this thread who are not okay with Biden's not following the law?
I expect him, and his congress if necessary, to change the law. And some better border security wouldn't hurt.
A judge just REJECTED Sydney Powell's attempt to wiggle out of Dominion Voting Systems' $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit over false claims about the 2020 election.
This... There aren't enough immigration immigration lawyers in existence to process the number of cases needed, and if there were, expanding the courts is a many-years long process.
Not going to happen. In fact, from what I can tell, we're already trying to add judges, but it's not going to make a dent. So *given this*, shouldn't the laws be fixed? That's the question he's deflecting from.
I have no problem with the law's being fixed; but right now it *is* the law. Do you expect the Biden administration unilaterally to stop following it? Don't we have multiple people on this thread who are not okay with Biden's not following the law?
Biden changed the laws to make the problem worse.
You cannot live in your leftist bubble and come to any intelligent conclusion on any subject because you have not heard the other side of the argument on any issue...
The Biden administration picks and chooses when and where it considers the COVID pandemic to be "over". They ended Title 42 for political reasons and made the illegal immigration problem worse. Liberal areas are demanding toddlers be masked 24/7 even outdoors all while they cheer for unlimited illegal immigration from waves of unvaccinated unmasked people.
Biden suspended the remain in Mexico policy on day one of his presidency.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
ah the old 'who benefits.' The dumbest logic ever.
clearly, the US invaded Poland in 1939 and bombed London so after the war the US would dominate the world economy.
Amirite, girls?
Cicero figured this out over 2000 years ago and you're still struggling to understand.
Did you and your fellow pseudo-neolists hear about Marge Taylor Greene? Check this: polyamorous tantric sex gurus. I kid you not, Magoo. That is some seriously messed up stuff. Shades of Puff Diddy.
Cicero figured this out over 2000 years ago and you're still struggling to understand.
Did you and your fellow pseudo-neolists hear about Marge Taylor Greene? Check this: polyamorous tantric sex gurus. I kid you not, Magoo. That is some seriously messed up stuff. Shades of Puff Diddy.
Don't use words if you don't know what they mean it makes you look stupid.
I'm a libertarian so I think people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it no one gets hurt.
I'm not a Democrat like yourself who can't seem to enjoy their sexuality unless they tell a bunch of 6 year olds about it or a right wing religious nut who thinks sodomy is worse than murder.
Did you and your fellow pseudo-neolists hear about Marge Taylor Greene? Check this: polyamorous tantric sex gurus. I kid you not, Magoo. That is some seriously messed up stuff. Shades of Puff Diddy.
Don't use words if you don't know what they mean it makes you look stupid.
I'm a libertarian so I think people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it no one gets hurt.
I'm not a Democrat like yourself who can't seem to enjoy their sexuality unless they tell a bunch of 6 year olds about it or a right wing religious nut who thinks sodomy is worse than murder.
If there’s a gay first grade teacher, is he not allowed to say he has a husband? I remember my teachers talking about their spouses.
This... There aren't enough immigration immigration lawyers in existence to process the number of cases needed, and if there were, expanding the courts is a many-years long process.
Not going to happen. In fact, from what I can tell, we're already trying to add judges, but it's not going to make a dent. So *given this*, shouldn't the laws be fixed? That's the question he's deflecting from.
I have no problem with the law's being fixed; but right now it *is* the law. Do you expect the Biden administration unilaterally to stop following it? Don't we have multiple people on this thread who are not okay with Biden's not following the law?
Biden’s changing of immigration policies is what led to the mass surge. He simply needs to revert to those policies that were in place before he took office. Stop acting like he is powerless in this matter.
Don't use words if you don't know what they mean it makes you look stupid.
I'm a libertarian so I think people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it no one gets hurt.
I'm not a Democrat like yourself who can't seem to enjoy their sexuality unless they tell a bunch of 6 year olds about it or a right wing religious nut who thinks sodomy is worse than murder.
If there’s a gay first grade teacher, is he not allowed to say he has a husband? I remember my teachers talking about their spouses.
Did you and your fellow pseudo-neolists hear about Marge Taylor Greene? Check this: polyamorous tantric sex gurus. I kid you not, Magoo. That is some seriously messed up stuff. Shades of Puff Diddy.
Don't use words if you don't know what they mean it makes you look stupid.
I'm a libertarian so I think people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it no one gets hurt.
I'm not a Democrat like yourself who can't seem to enjoy their sexuality unless they tell a bunch of 6 year olds about it or a right wing religious nut who thinks sodomy is worse than murder.
No, man. As a Libertarian myself, I can tell you that there is nothing in your posting that suggests any Libertarian tendencies at all. None. You are what you are, and it's as I said. Fact.
So have you heard about this Taylor Greene stuff? It's breaking right now. If this ploytantrous sex stuff turns out to be true, we are looking at a Jimmy Swaggert type sitch. She's be up there crying, looking up at J. Christ, beseeching a forgiveness He will never give. I think you know damn well how ugly this is going to get for you guys.
