Republicon clown show failed again. Senate Dismisses Impeachment Charges Against Mayorkas Without a Trial

[gatomontes99]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

A. Please cite the relevant portion of material you are trying to cite. Naked links are lazy, and almost always used, as in this case, to create the appearance of evidence without any substance. Sure enough, if you had read your own citation you'd see that the Biden administration didn't "expand the definition of asylum." They reversed Trump era policy opinions: " In June 2021, the Justice Department revoked the legal opinions that had disqualified migrants fleeing domestic or gang violence from asylum, and said those cases would be governed by the rules Mr. Biden ordered to define "particular social group."  To be clear this doesn't even mean ungoverned, but simply through a different process. Meanwhile...

B. Because, again, if you had read your citation (even just the headline!) you'd see that it undermines the larger point you are making. "After promising to expand asylum, Biden moves to limit access amid record border arrivals." It's literally and article about Biden limiting asylum access.

C. None of this is relevant AT ALL because none of it has nothing to do with Mayorkas. Mayorkas didn't set this policy--that would be the POTUS and the AG. And even if he had, it would not be a case of "flat out ignored the requirement to secure the border" or "the government not following its own laws. Policy and legal opinion change--as they changed under Trump--but that's not ignoring the law. 

And at the root level that's why this impeachment was just asinine. Mayorkas is "guilty" of enforcing the laws and policies of the administration. Exactly as every other cabinet member in history. What did Nielsen do under Trump? Oh, yeah, the exact same thing. She enforced the policy of the administration. That's the job.

What you're actually supporting here is the idea that every cabinet member can--and should--be impeached by the minority party simply for doing the job of a cabinet member in terms of executing administration policy. Literally, every single one, for every POTUS would be guilty of the same. 

It's a silly position.

 

It isn't lazy to not quote entire articles, it is compliance. It is called the fair use doctrine.

Second, asylum is for those that are seeking refuge from political persecution. Adding things like domestic violence and fear of crime from gangs is a clear expansion of the policy without congressional approval. The law clearly states that Mayorkas must maintain operational control of the border and that includes following all laws as written by congress and signed by the President.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

It isn't lazy to not quote entire articles, it is compliance. It is called the fair use doctrine.

 

This is an entirely disingenuous reply--and you know it. Anyone who knows what "fair use doctrine" is surely knows that quoting lines or passages from an article as supporting evidence is in no way a quotation of "entire articles" nor are there any copyright implications. 🙄

Quote

Second, asylum is for those that are seeking refuge from political persecution. Adding things like domestic violence and fear of crime from gangs is a clear expansion of the policy without congressional approval. The law clearly states that Mayorkas must maintain operational control of the border and that includes following all laws as written by congress and signed by the President.

Blatantly false.

Domestic violence and gang violence were both accepted conditions for asylum prior to Trump. The Trump administration changed that policy. The Biden administration just changed it back. They didn't "expand the definition" they just put it back where it was before Trump changed the policy.

It's fine for you to hold the opinion that asylum should only be for political refugees, but that is not the law. The reason that these things are being decided on a policy basis by each administration is because the law as written is not explicit, and when that is the case the executive branch is empowered to make those decisions. 

So, again, the idea that Mayorkas isn't enforcing the law is pure political nonsense. 

Edited April 18 by Hodad

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Failing to convict? They wouldn't even allow a trial. They broke precedent, tucked their tails between their legs and ran away.

I can "influence" my family down there and folks who read this site. And I will continue to do so.

You don't even know what happened.

McConnell and Schumer negotiated HOURS of PUBLIC testimony for the trial, and a freshman Senator Mike Schmidt trashed that agreement, so Schumer brought down the hammer and that was that. Too bad, so sad. LMAO 

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Nitrogen makes up 78.1% of the atmosphere.

No evidence of ^this. Every source I've found says 78% is a ROUGH estimate AKA approximation, so either you're ignorant or lying.

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/16/asylum-standards-biden-494918

It is like you don't consume any news.

It's like you didn't even read your own article.

Quote

The Trump administration’s attempt to curtail asylum claims based on gender-based violence, gang violence and family membership reflected the administration’s focus on demonizing Central American asylum seekers and shutting our nation’s doors to those in need of protection.”

It clearly says that GARLAND returned to earlier standards of legal interpretation and those were MORE VALID.

It is CLEAR that the Trump admin CHOSE interpretations based on HIS GOAL of limiting immigration.

AKA political HACK.

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You don't even know what happened.

McConnell and Schumer negotiated HOURS of PUBLIC testimony for the trial, and a freshman Senator Mike Schmidt trashed that agreement, so Schumer brought down the hammer and that was that. Too bad, so sad. LMAO 

It's done. Your excuses mean nothing. Should Trump become POTUS, which looks likely, I hope he comes down hard on all the swamp creatures.

Should Trump decide to clean house, he'll have the full support of most people.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yeah, I'm not the one calling the free sites pay wall links.

Maybe you've not used all your free views cause you're a NEWBIE and IGNORANT. Your sites are PAYWALLED.

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It's done. Your excuses mean nothing.

You mean YOUR EXCUSES for NOT KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED. Too bad, so sad. LMAO

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Should Trump become POTUS, which looks likely, I hope he comes down hard on all the swamp creatures.

^Disappointment in the making. Don't cry. LMAO

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Should Trump decide to clean house, he'll have the full support of most people.

Only you MAGA CULT types will vote for Trump.

[gatomontes99]

28 minutes ago, Hodad said:

This is an entirely disingenuous reply--and you know it. Anyone who knows what "fair use doctrine" is surely knows that quoting lines or passages from an article as supporting evidence is in no way a quotation of "entire articles" nor are there any copyright implications. 🙄

Blatantly false.

Domestic violence and gang violence were both accepted conditions for asylum prior to Trump. The Trump administration changed that policy. The Biden administration just changed it back. They didn't "expand the definition" they just put it back where it was before Trump changed the policy.

It's fine for you to hold the opinion that asylum should only be for political refugees, but that is not the law. The reason that these things are being decided on a policy basis by each administration is because the law as written is not explicit, and when that is the case the executive branch is empowered to make those decisions. 

So, again, the idea that Mayorkas isn't enforcing the law is pure political nonsense. 

I'm not going to flood this page with 8 US Code 1158. However, if you'd like to read it,  it is right here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

It clearly states that only people that fear persecution are eligible for asylum. It also states that those people can and should be removed until such time as their asylum request is reviewed. Go have a look.

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Maybe you've not used all your free views cause you're a NEWBIE and IGNORANT. Your sites are PAYWALLED.

Statista is not pay walled. Neither is Chicago tribune. You are just making excuses to avoid reality.

[gatomontes99]

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. No evidence of ^this. Every source I've found says 78% is a ROUGH estimate AKA approximation, so either you're ignorant or lying.

It's like you didn't even read your own article.

2. It clearly says that GARLAND returned to earlier standards of legal interpretation and those were MORE VALID.

It is CLEAR that the Trump admin CHOSE interpretations based on HIS GOAL of limiting immigration.

AKA political HACK.

1. You are so oblivious that you don't even realize how you are making my point for me.

 

2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

 

The actual law. It absolutely obliterates your view. Go read it.

[Nationalist]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You mean YOUR EXCUSES for NOT KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED. Too bad, so sad. LMAO

^Disappointment in the making. Don't cry. LMAO

Only you MAGA CULT types will vote for Trump.

Dude...Brandon is losing. 

[robosmith]

31 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I'm not going to flood this page with 8 US Code 1158. However, if you'd like to read it,  it is right here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

It clearly states that only people that fear persecution are eligible for asylum. It also states that those people can and should be removed until such time as their asylum request is reviewed. Go have a look.

IF it says what you claim, you COULD QUOTE that part. Since you have NOT, the burden is STILL ON YOU.

Here is the section, now point out where it says what YOU CLAIM:

Quote

(b)Conditions for granting asylum

(1)In general

(A)Eligibility

The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.

(B)Burden of proof

(i)In general

The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

(ii)Sustaining burden

The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.

(iii)Credibility determination

Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal.

(2)Exceptions

(A)In generalParagraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that—

(i)

the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

(ii)

the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;

(iii)

there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States;

(iv)

there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;

(v)

the alien is described in subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien described in subclause (IV) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title, the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General’s discretion, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or

(vi)

the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.

(B)Special rules

(i)Conviction of aggravated felony

For purposes of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.

(ii)Offenses

The Attorney General may designate by regulation offenses that will be considered to be a crime described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A).

(C)Additional limitations

The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).

(D)No judicial review

There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(v).

(3)Treatment of spouse and children

(A)In general

A spouse or child (as defined in section 1101(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this title) of an alien who is granted asylum under this subsection may, if not otherwise eligible for asylum under this section, be granted the same status as the alien if accompanying, or following to join, such alien.

(B)Continued classification of certain aliens as children

An unmarried alien who seeks to accompany, or follow to join, a parent granted asylum under this subsection, and who was under 21 years of age on the date on which such parent applied for asylum under this section, shall continue to be classified as a child for purposes of this paragraph and section 1159(b)(3) of this title, if the alien attained 21 years of age after such application was filed but while it was pending.

(C)Initial jurisdiction

An asylum officer (as defined in section 1225(b)(1)(E) of this title) shall have initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6), regardless of whether filed in accordance with this section or section 1225(b) of this title.

31 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Statista is not pay walled. Neither is Chicago tribune. You are just making excuses to avoid reality.

You have no idea what you're talking about NEWBIE. I clicked on your naked links and was PAYWALLED.

Try again.