H/T Clash Daily.
How much of the money to pay the lawyers pressing this assinine lawsuit is sponsored by the DemocRats and George Soros?
This is why voting Republican on Tuesday, November 6,2018 to keep the DemocRats from running Congress.
The members of this mob are not American citizens, therefore, they do not have Constitutional Rights.
The same mass of humanity that thinks American immigration laws don’t apply to them somehow think that Constitutional rights DO?
What have they been smoking?
Even before they’ve made it to the US border, they’re plaintiffs against America and trying to invoke the 5th Amendment. No seriously.
Twelve Honduran nationals, including six children, are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The suit, which was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said it is widely known that Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are “undergoing a well-documented human rights crisis.” The lawsuit also claims that the plaintiffs’ right to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Declaratory Judgement Act were being infringed upon.
The suit cited a Trump interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, where the president laid out plans to build tent cities to house migrants. The suit questioned the functionality of such a project, and asked if these living quarters would qualify under the Flores Agreement of 1997. The agreement protects asylum-seekers’ rights and limits how long minors can be held.
Naturally, activist lawyers are working on ‘their behalf’.
“Their behalf” in this sentence is a phrase meaning “for the cynical political aims of their political allies”. Of course, the press would have us believe that they are deeply concerned about these twelve Hondourans.
They are as deeply concerned about that as they are — still today — about Ford. She outlived her usefulness to a political agenda, so they have moved on. And when these twelve do the same, they, too, will be forgotten by their great defenders in favor of the next politically expedient poster-child of the cause.
The asylum clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act says that anyone who arrives to the U.S. may apply for asylum based on a well-founded fear of persecution, and Trump’s decision was expected to prompt immediate federal court challenges.
Nexus Services Inc. is funding the lawsuits through a civil rights law firm called Nexus Derechos Humanos (Human Rights) Attorneys Inc.
“Federal law enables migrants to apply for asylum in the United States. President Trump and his administration have used ‘increased enforcement,’ like separating families and lengthening detention to violate migrant rights,” Mike Donovan, president of Nexus Services, said in the release.
There is another legal issue at stake, according to the lawsuit. The U.S. cannot send troops into Mexico to cut off the caravan from crossing the border, it said. Even with the National Guard at the border, once an immigrant indicates an intention to apply for asylum, the suit maintained the process has begun.
In the same way that ‘safe legal and rare’ was just a stopover point on the way to ‘on demand and without apology’ and then even ‘shout your abortion’, and Obamacare was the midpoint on the way to justifying the increasing calls for ‘single-payer healthcare’, the immigration situation is no different.
In ’93 Harry Reid said Birthright Citizenship was a horrible idea. Now he’s a great defender of it. That mirror’s his entire party’s ‘evolution’ on immigration. Ditto the rest of America.
With FOUR ‘migrant caravans’ (or, if you prefer, herds) currently en route to America, we are seeing an intentional catch-22 being created.
1) America is morally obligated to accept all these people.
2) America is morally obligated to allow these people, once here, an opportunity to plead their right to asylum before the courts
3) America is morally obligated to let these people go free while they await their hearing
– because (a) they can’t hold children with their families and (b) can’t separate families so (c) ‘must’ let both go free
4) America is forbidden to compel these people — if they fail to appear for their hearings — to leave, especially if they have sought safe haven in ‘sanctuary cities’
The rights — as outlined by these radical open-borders activists — all belong to the foreigner seeking entry and none belong to the nation seeking to enforce its national sovereignty.
Some would conclude that was exactly the point all along.