Sick Migrants Undergoing Lifesaving Care Can Now Be Deported

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
You are saying SCOTUS and all the lower courts have no jurisdiction over ICE because they have review judges? I still call BS on that.
Click to expand...
They have jurisdiction, but under Chevron, and other cases, they defer almost all of this jurisdiction back to ICE. Read the links I posted above, ask a lawyer about Chevron, or chat up a law professor. SCOTUS would have to reverse generations of precedent to do that, and they might, but there is no reason to think they will.

Don’t take my word for it (which you don’t anyway), ask someone else about Chevron and the related cases.

Back on topic, I remain pleased that the Administration is reviewing this, and hopeful that it will do the right thing and rescind this policy.
 
Theo520 said:
Your article supports my claim that they do have the option of judicial review for exceptions. Granted they are bound by our laws and thus it’s not an open field.
Click to expand...
Judicial review applies to decisions of IJ’s, not decisions made by ICE, which include deferred action. You really should have a long chat with an immigration lawyer sometime, you might be shocked at how little influence the court system has over it.
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
They have jurisdiction,
Click to expand...
They follow precedent and established law. It’s not surprising that they can’t / won’t intervene when ICE is acting appropriately. Same applies to other law enforcement agencies.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Your article supports my claim that they do have the option of judicial review for exceptions. Granted they are bound by our laws and thus it’s not an open field.
Click to expand...
It is not an open field. Is the case at hand reviewable or among the unreveiwable exceptions?
 
sallybutler said:
But it is the easiest to rail against if you know you are incapable of committing it (age , gender, lack of necessary organs due to surgery, etc).
Click to expand...
It is also easy to make single-agenda crusades against those sins that simple never tempt us. Yet at the same time, it simply must be understood that abortion is the single greatest sin of our country, if you count the numbers. Yet the point remains, it is not our only national sin, nor our only pro-life topic. If we were serious about demonstrating the value of life, we could continue to march, protest, and vote based on the evil of abortion, but include other issues, like health care in the case of this thread, to say that we also value life after it is born, and value you life for the sake of life, even if it is here illegally.
 
dvdjs said:
It is not an open field. Is the case at hand reviewable or among the unreveiwable exceptions?
Click to expand...
News flash - it’s also not an ‘open field’ for judges intervening in other areas of Govt.
 
Theo520 said:
it’s also not an ‘open field’ for judges intervening in other areas of Govt.
Click to expand...
IOW, notwithstanding your “calling BS” it has yet to be established that the case at hand reviewable or among the unreviewable exceptions?
 
I see plenty of people who are “capable” of committing abortion at pro-life rallies and doing pro-life work. We may not see them in the numbers that exist simply because they have babies and children to care for.

Try looking up images for the Pro-Life March in DC–I think you will be surprised.
 
I am referring to the people who say nothing can be done about anything else (sinful or not) because the grave sin of abortion still exists.
 
No, you got it wrong.
A judge can act if there is cause.
Cause though would require more than your ‘wishing’
 
Theo520 said:
No, you got it wrong.
A judge can act if there is cause.
Click to expand...
Unless the judge has no jurisdiction to review the case. It is not an open field.
The relevant question is whether or not the cases at hand are reviewable or not.
I would like to know if they are or aren’t. But “calling BS” is not persuasive in the least.
 
Well, I think that we have a system in which there are only 2 parties, and we have to vote for one or the other.

And the one stands for a lot of support for sinful behavior, and the other does not.

While some say that only one helps anyone, at least the other does not hinder our helping people ourselves.

Anyway, the argument has been gone through many times on CAF, and I think may even be happening again on Social Justice.
 
Last edited:
It’s OK, you can have the last word.
I know you never concede a point.
 
Theo520 said:
It’s OK, you can have the last word.
I know you never concede a point.
Click to expand...
I am not contesting a point, but am looking for information on whether these cases are subject to appeal in the federal the judiciary.
 
Annie said:
Well, I think that we have a system in which there are only 2 parties, and we have to vote for one or the other.
Click to expand...
In my state, there are other parties, and even then voting for the party is only an option. One can also vote for individuals.
 
" Who do we call the enemy?
The enemy is poverty.
And the wall keeps out the enemy!
And we build the wall to keep us free."
Click to expand...
Describes our times with great ability, the hatred of the poor.
“This song is ten years old… Any resemblance of any contemporary political figures to the King of the Underworld is purely coincidental.”
-https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-we-build-the-wall_b_581cbcb7e4b044f827a78c0a
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-we-build-the-wall_b_581cbcb7e4b044f827a78c0a[/spoiler]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HumbleIOughtToBe said:
Describes our times with great ability, the hatred of the poor
Click to expand...
It’s subsidiarity baby
We ARE responsible for our poor.

We are not responsible for governance in other countries, but we can help them. We just shouldn’t replace them.
 
RCIAGraduate said:
Doesn’t subsidiarity also call for aid from higher authorities when warranted?
Click to expand...
It says we should help the responsible authorities in other places better execute their roles/jobs, when/where they need help.

Thus we should help the Central American Bishops and their Governments, where we can.

If I was a doctor, this would mean I should publish and teach their doctors how to do any groundbreaking treatments I had developed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top