Originally posted by BingB: Title 42 was the policy Trump was able to use to stop immigration during Covid. Before his Title 42 policy he could not control immigration problems at the border. In 2019 the number of border encounters was the highest it had been in 15 years, and this was with the Migrant Protection Protocols ("stay in Mexico") in place. Trump did not have the border under control at all until he was able to rely on Title 42 due to the pandemic.
But now the policy he used to reduce immigration has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the pandemic is over. So even if Trump is re-elected he will not be able to use that policy again.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Fred, you are clueless.
Indeed he does not. Title 42 was not invented for covid. The outbreak of measles in Chicago is all that is needed.
I linkt three articles for you all to educate yourselves on Trumps policy under title 42. Anyone who knows anything about the immigration issue over the last few years knows exactly what I am talking about. It was probably the single most debated issue regarding immigration since Biden took office.
Your ignorance on this subject just proves how completely clueless you are on immigration. Apparently you both have been getting your information from a source that claimed Trumps implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols was what staunched the flow of immigration in 2020. But the truth is that the MPP were in place for all of 2019 when we had the more immigrants coming across the border in 15 years. It was not until the Title 42 policy was put in place that the immigration stopped. But the SCOTUS has ruled that we can not return to that policy.
Once again, I'm well aware of what Title 42 is. I want YOU to explain to me specifically what section of Title 42 he used, because you're parroting left-wing news without actually understanding what you're saying. That's like saying you're "going to go all Title 10 on me." I want to see if you can figure it out.
The whole last section here of your response is absolutely silly. Trump had instituted a "Remain in Mexico" policy, which itself instituted a mad-rush to the border since people feared this would be their last chance. But it's eventually what began to stem the flow of illegals from coming across. The United States is under no obligation to just accept anyone who wants to come here... refugee or otherwise. The Refugee Act of 1980 defines exactly what a refugee is, and sets the ceiling to 15,000 refugees per year. It also authorizes the president of the United States the ability to alter these limits (increase / decrease), or halt them all together under emergency declarations. Trump was well within his power to effectively halt people coming across the border ... "legally." The problem was illegals being able to evade detection and getting through the porous border ... which Trump was trying to secure. Democrats did everything in their power to prevent Trump from building the border wall. You should be asking why. Under the pandemic, Trump utilized a specific rule and law (which I want you to look up) to halt all immigration during that time frame. But in large part, most countries already had slowed emigration due to the absolute fear of what the Wuhan Virus would lead to.
I honestly feel like responding to you in any sensible way is totally pointless, because you're not about the exchange of information or discussion. I don't really know why you do what you do, but I have a feeling you suffer from a lot of cognitive dissonance, or perhaps you ignore it entirely because you're so loyal to your party politics. I've said it before, and I'll say it again so you don't respond with the usual nonsense... I was a Democrat long before I was a Republican, and neither "party" means much to me. I'm about solutions, and if a gay prostitute was running for President with all the right ideas, and I thought "they" could win, I would vote for that gay prostitute.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-01-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The whole last section here of your response is absolutely silly. Trump had instituted a "Remain in Mexico" policy, which itself instituted a mad-rush to the border since people feared this would be their last chance. But it's eventually what began to stem the flow of illegals from coming across.
There is zero evidence to support this claim. Even with the "Remain in Mexico" policy in place southwest border encounters with illegal immigrants were averaging several thousand per month right up until March of 2020 when Trump instituted his total ban under Title 42. In April the numbers dropped to just 924 and remained low through the pandemic. Trump never had control of the border problem until he was able to invoke emergency powers that the SCOTUS now says are not available.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Once again, I'm well aware of what Title 42 is.
Yeah, you are now, but you clearly were not when you said this
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
you're randomly throwing out "Title 42" which literally has thousands and thousands of laws in it, as if that's supposed to mean something.
The issue of the policy Trump invoked under Title 42 has been the single most debated issue regarding immigration over the last few years. No one who knows anything about immigration would think that a mention of Title 42 was "random" and had no meaning.
Yeah, you are now, but you clearly were not when you said this
The issue of the policy Trump invoked under Title 42 has been the single most debated issue regarding immigration over the last few years. No one who knows anything about immigration would think that a mention of Title 42 was "random" and had no meaning.
Hahah... sorry Fred, this doesn't work. I know you enjoy trolling, but none of us are dumb here. We "all" know what you mean by Title 42, the question is, I want to know if YOU REALLY know what you mean when you repeat "Title 42." Because, Title 42 is literally a portion of the Code of Federal Regulations that deals with "Public Health." But it includes many chapters, sub chapters, and sections. What I'm trying to get at, is that you are basically highly ignorant of law, and you tend to just repeat left-leaning news out of hand in most of your posts, very ignorantly. We're trying to see if you're willing to actually look up what section of Title 42, specifically, it was that President Trump used to block all immigration into the U.S. during that period.
The rest of us know you're ignorant here... so the question is, are you going to go onto Westlaw, eCFR, etc., and look it up, or have we gone beyond the point of your ego to which it would be too embarrassing for you?
We're trying to see if you're willing to actually look up what section of Title 42, specifically, it was that President Trump used to block all immigration into the U.S. during that period.
I will gladly look it up if you challenge its existence. Otherwise there is no point. It has nothing to do with the conversation. Every media source cited it. It was all they talked about for months. Yet for some strange reason you had no idea why I was bringing up title 42 in a discussion of immigration. Your own language proves that you did not know what you were talking about.
I will gladly look it up if you challenge its existence. Otherwise there is no point. It has nothing to do with the conversation. Every media source cited it. It was all they talked about for months. Yet for some strange reason you had no idea why I was bringing up title 42 in a discussion of immigration. Your own language proves that you did not know what you were talking about.
"Your own language proves that you did not know what you were talking about."
Hahaha!!! Nope! No one here thinks I'm not aware of it. Please quote me exactly where I said I didn't know what "Title 42" is.
"I will gladly look it up if you challenge its existence. Otherwise there is no point."
I absolutely do not challenge that "Title 42" exists. But I challenge your point that "there is no point." I absolutely insist you look it up. I'll even give you a head start, this is a FREE service provided to the public: https://www.ecfr.gov/
Please find the specific section in "Title 42" that Trump used. If you do not, then all of us here will assume you're just blindly parroting left-leaning news and don't actually know what you're talking about, as you've succinctly stated, "Every media source cited it."
Please find the specific section in "Title 42" that Trump used. If you do not, then all of us here will assume you're just blindly parroting left-leaning news and don't actually know what you're talking about, as you've succinctly stated, "Every media source cited it."
This is absurd.
If you tell me I am wrong about it then I will look it up. But I am not going to waste my time researching something that absolutely no one has challenged. Even the SCOTUS has ruled on it. There is no dispute to resolve by looking anything up.
If you tell me I am wrong about it then I will look it up. But I am not going to waste my time researching something that absolutely no one has challenged. Even the SCOTUS has ruled on it. There is no dispute to resolve by looking anything up.
Good, so we acknowledge then that you don't actually know what you're referring to, but just repeat what you hear on the news. That's all I needed.
Originally posted by BingB: I will gladly prove that I am right and you are wrong. Just give me the specifics.
Is your brain on drugs ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: ... I am not going to waste my time researching something that absolutely no one has challenged. Even the SCOTUS has ruled on it.
Your challenge from 82-T/A [At Work] was to identify which section of Title 42 did your last President use to curb illegal immigration.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2024).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Your challenge from 82-T/A [At Work] was to identify which section of Title 42 did you last President use to curb illegal immigration ?
He never "challenged" anything I said as being false. So I don't see any challenge. All I see is a pathetic attempt to avoid discussing the actual issue which is that Trump never had the border situation under control until he used an emergency power under Title 42 that Biden can not use now.
I don't care if TA82 challenges me to find a four-leaf-clover or do 50 push ups. I don't play those silly games.
Your challenge from 82-T/A [At Work] was to identify which section of Title 42 did you last President use to curb illegal immigration ?
Exactly this... pretty much ignoring his nonsense that he writes after this. He knows he can't find the specific part within Title 42 that Trump used, because none of the liberal news articles ever reference it, and he doesn't even have a basic understanding of how the law works to be able to figure it out. I could probably find it in a couple of minutes... but he's the one parroting liberal talking points without actually understanding what he's saying, which is pretty common.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: He knows he can't find the specific part within Title 42 that Trump used, because none of the liberal news articles ever reference it, and he doesn't even have a basic understanding of how the law works to be able to figure it out.
I don't care. I don't have to cite the law to be correct. I don't have to know the science of a nuclear warhead to discuss the issue of nuclear proliferation.
All you are doing is running away from the discussion. My ability to cite the exact law has nothing to do with that.
Originally posted by BingB: I don't care. I don't have to cite the law to be correct. I don't have to know the science of a nuclear warhead to discuss the issue of nuclear proliferation.
All you are doing is running away from the discussion. My ability to cite the exact law has nothing to do with that.
Sure you do... but this is you trying to get out of it because you've been called out on saying something dumb. Knowing the law is explicitly important in understanding what the limitations are of such a law, when it can be used in other situations, and to what extent the law can be used.
As you are unwilling to look it up, even after I provided you a link with "Title 42" literally accessible from the first page... it means you're squeamish as to whether you will even be able to find the section, or you're concerned about what you will find.
Either way... this is a big "L" across your forehead.
"The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it would formally remove a case concerning the controversial Trump-era immigration policy known as Title 42 from its calendar, likely because the Covid-19 public health emergency that serves as the legal underpinning of the program has expired."
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 04-04-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Sure you do... but this is you trying to get out of it because you've been called out on saying something dumb.
I never said anything "dumb". I never said anything wrong.
You were the one mystified about why I was mentioning Title 42 in a discussion about immigration.
You were the one claiming that Trumps Migrant Protection Protocols allowed him to get control of the immigration problem. I proved tat was wrong by showing the border encounter numbers while the MPP were in place throughout all of 2019 and up to March 2020 when the Title 42 policy was implemented. Those numbers show that border encounters went UP while the MPP were in place and did not drop dramatically until Title 42 policy.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 04-04-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: The issue of the policy Trump invoked under Title 42 has been the single most debated issue regarding immigration over the last few years.
Yet you don't know what section allowed your last President to use it, ?
Originally posted by BingB: We are not waiting. They (SCOTUS) have already dismissed the case because the pandemic is over and the Title 42 emergency powers are no longer valid.
Now I see why you are ignorant about the subject you claim to be an expert on. CNN.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: "The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it would formally remove a case concerning the controversial Trump-era immigration policy known as Title 42 from its calendar, likely because the Covid-19 public health emergency that serves as the legal underpinning of the program has expired."
They never said it could not be used in the future. They did not strike down Title 42.
The particulars of the challenged case do matter.
As I said before in this thread, the measles outbreak in Chicago is enough reason to use it, not to mention the recently reported tuberculous outbreak.
Tell us god genius, what keeps US legal citizens from bringing in fruits, vegetables, animals, from abroad ? Title 42.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2024).]
Why not ? Tell us about the case which SCOTUS dismissed.
It was titled Arizona v. Mayorkas, but there were several states included in the case.
https://cronkitenews.azpbs....o-preserve-title-42/ The Supreme Court has formally dismissed an Arizona-led effort to preserve Title 42, the pandemic-era immigration restriction that was officially ended by the Biden administration last week.
The court on Thursday dismissed Arizona v. Mayorkas as moot – with two justices saying the court should never have agreed to hear the case in the first place.
The dismissal was widely expected after the court removed the case from its argument calendar in February, when it became clear that the end of the pandemic would mean the end of the controversial border policy.
You are welcome for the education. Glad to help you out.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 04-04-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: Understanding how the law works is more important than citing code and section numbers.
god genius, don't show your "students" what you just said.
Wait, never mind. I want your "subjects" to see it.
You claimed to teach your own "subjects" to do their own research. Do you want your "subjects" to be as clueless as you ? Understanding law requires one see how the law is worded.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2024).]
Originally posted by cliffw: You claimed to teach your own "subjects" to do their own research. Do you want your "subjects" to be as clueless as you ? Understanding law requires one see how the law is worded.
I am not "clueless" I have not posted one thing that was wrong. I teach my students to do their own research whenever their is a dispute. But there is not dispute that what I said about title 42 was correct.
BTW this post is pretty comical considering that you were unable to do your own research on Arizona v Myorkas and had to depend on me to educate you. In that case you disputed what I was saying so I was happy to do my own research to show how clueless you were.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 04-04-2024).]
834 posts in 5 months, a full time job as a teacher that posts all hours of the day and night.
When do you have time for lesson plans, grading papers, researching the topics of your posts, community activities.......?
Quite an efficient fellow, I would think.
We diffused yesterday that he in fact is NOT a school teacher, or a lawyer... these are made up personas. They are personas that he has literally made up, for the sole purpose of convincing 5 people on the internet, within an obscure car forum, that his views have increased merit. You don't need to hear my opinion on this, we're all thinking the same thing.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: We diffused yesterday that he in fact is NOT a school teacher, or a lawyer
You are wrong.
If you really are omniscient and know these things then tell me what you think I do for a living. Should be pretty easy for you since you are all-knowing.
If you really are omniscient and know these things then tell me what you think I do for a living. Should be pretty easy for you since you are all-knowing.
I don't care that much. But if you're interested, right off your picture you posted of your car, we could look at any information stored on it, unless you cleared it out, which I expect any half-way knowledgeable person would. But we can also tell that you live in a state that requires a front plate, since you intentionally took a picture that hid it. We can also tell that you do not live in an HOA community, and likely live outside of town since you store your Fiero in a metal shed like structure on top of a concrete pad. We could even look at the moss growing on it, and determine that you likely live somewhere in the mid-west, or the east coast, but above Georgia. Possibly even the Pacific North West... but that at least limits a search criteria. I mean, I'm not even trying here... but that's just a start... and off one picture you've posted.
If I really wanted to figure out who you are, I could quite literally use Maltego and put in a few bits of identifying information, and I'd have your home address and everything else within a few minutes through their use of a "knowledge graph" that can make inferences from disparate data points that are uniquely related. BingB + Fredtoast (written the way you do it, not how I do it), and it would literally find everything. BUT... I'm not a weirdo, I would never do that. Aside from the fact it would be a huge waste of my time because I don't enjoy such things, but I'm also not a creep, and I would never have any desire to affect you negatively, or you personally in your life / career / whatever. And to be quite honest, I just don't care.
What you should be doing, is not worrying about me. You should be trying to figure out why you continue to get banned on every site you go to... including this one. That's a more valuable mental exercise. Figure out what it is that you're doing that causes people to get annoyed with you. You likely already know what it is, and the first thing your brain will do is try to reason why it's everyone else's fault. This is called cognitive dissonance, and it does takes effort to overcome.
EDIT: ... and if the next question is "why?" Then the answer to that is... because you make this place miserable for everyone involved. You intentionally bring out the worst in almost everyone you interact with. You don't really so much have a debate or conversation, so much as you seem to be trying to prove something, not to anyone here, but to yourself. In short, you bring your problems to everyone else. This is why you have been banned from multiple, multiple websites.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-05-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: ... I want congressional action instead of just leaving these policies to the whim of the current President. It is funny how I have seen you make posts complaining about how executive orders and administrative regulations subvert the Constitution. But when it comes to fixing the border you don't want congress to fix anything because that would take away your main attack on Biden. You care more about the politics of the situation than actually fixing the situation.
Proof of your claims Mr Evidence ?
What kind of Congressional action would you like to see ?
Congressional action has already been taken. They defined immigration law.
Originally posted by BingB: If you don't know what Title 42 means in relationship to immigration at the Southern Border then you are pretty clueless about the entire situation.
You do yourself no benefit by using CNN or NPR. One is judged by the company they keep.
When the Title 42 (generic) was lifted, what would happen ?
Without Title 42 in place, US immigration authorities will return to decades-old protocols at a time of unprecedented mass migration in the Western hemisphere.
Under that system, migrants are either removed from the country, detained or released into the US while their cases make their way through immigration court.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: We diffused yesterday that he in fact is NOT a school teacher, or a lawyer... these are made up personas. They are personas that he has literally made up, for the sole purpose of convincing 5 people on the internet, within an obscure car forum, that his views have increased merit. You don't need to hear my opinion on this, we're all thinking the same thing.
A lot of people believe in manmade global warming too.
?
?
