DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court rejects atheists' attempt to scrub 'In God We Trust' off US currency

And it's going through the process like almost everything Trump decides to do. It will go to a higher court next. And nowhere does it say, "no funds for you". Of course you seem to never have gained a grasp of the English language.

Your comprehension skills are still very much lacking unless you missed this part...

"In a 2-1 decision that overturns a nationwide injunction, the DOJ is now allowed to give preferential treatment for community policing grants to cities that don't defy federal immigration enforcement."

Here's what you're missing. "Preferential treatment" is not saying "no funding".

Trump administration scores win over challenge to asylum restriction


Democrats outraged by new rules cracking down on asylum seekers

A federal judge decided Wednesday to leave in place a Trump administration rule that imposes restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States if they passed through a third country on their way to the border between the U.S. and Mexico, potentially leading to a sharp reduction in Central American migrants entering the country.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, requires people seeking asylum to first apply in one of the countries they pass through on their way to the U.S., with certain exceptions. The rule was quickly met with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. The rule will remain in place for the duration of the case, unless the decision is successfully appealed.

"We are disappointed in the court's decision today," said Claudia Cubas, litigation direction for the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition.

Kelly, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump said the immigrant advocate groups who filed the lawsuit did not show that their work would be irreparably harmed if the policy moved forward.

With certain exceptions, the rule requires individuals to apply for and be denied asylum in another country in order to apply in the U.S. That means that migrants from Central American nations who travel through Mexico – who make up a significant portion of recent asylum seekers – will not be eligible for asylum in America unless they previously applied for asylum in Mexico or any other country they traversed and were turned down.

The new rule’s exceptions include certain cases of human trafficking.

The rule is meant to crack down on asylum seekers coming to the U.S. more for economic reasons than to escape persecution in their home countries. Administration officials say this could help close the gap between the initial asylum screening that most people pass and the final decision on asylum that most people do not win. The goal in part is to allow quicker determinations in these cases.

The policy follows the Trump administration's Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly referred to as the "remain in Mexico" policy. Under that policy, asylum seekers were often told to go back to Mexico to await hearings, rather than be allowed to remain in the U.S.

Democrats railed against that policy, with 2020 hopeful Beto O'Rourke calling it "inhumane."

A reduction in asylum seekers would ease the burden on federal agencies currently overwhelmed by the volume of individuals seeking entry into the U.S.

Detention facilities have been notoriously stretched for resources, resulting in outcries against the government. The criticism has particularly been strong when it comes to the conditions in which migrant children have been kept.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-scores-win-over-move-to-limit-asylum-claims

Is that all that he's missing?

Hey, treating people following a legal process as illegal as possible seems reasonable. I mean maybe if we make them all feel like they're in prison they'll quit trying to follow the legal process and just come here illegally.

No, wait....

Step by Step by Step, your open borders agenda is closing.

Boy did I jut start a thread you need to read.

Good ruling. If you pass scott free through another country to make us decide, I call BS.

Claim asylum in the first country you enter. It's wrong to say we are going to claim asylum in the USA another 2,000 miles away.

No wonder California is screwed up. We got all the rejects Mexico didn't want.

Not so fast...

Federal court blocks Trump asylum rules hours after judge ruled to keep restrictions in place

A federal judge in California on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from imposing restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States, just hours after a judge in Washington had decided to let the rule stand while lawsuits play out in court.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, required people seeking asylum to apply first in one of the countries they cross on their way to the U.S. -- with certain exceptions. It targeted tens of thousands of Central Americans who have crossed Mexico each month trying to enter the U.S.

The rule was met quickly with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. But hours later, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, an Obama appointee, blocked the enforcement of the rule. His ruling took effect immediately.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-scores-win-over-move-to-limit-asylum-claims

I guess Trump will need to do more court stacking...

Yeah, because, "Mexico isn't sending their best people", right?

I mean Mexico is just rounding up the ones they don't want and expelling them to America.

You sound like trump in a bad way. I mean you do know that these are people that wanted to leave Mexico and that Mexico didn't "reject" these people, right?

Why do you just want to make up BS peen?

When your arguments are based on lies, it's hard to find real facts to back them up, that's why.

Supreme Court paves way for Trump administration to use military funds for border wall

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction.

The decision, which split the bench along ideological lines, allows the administration to move ahead with plans to use military funds to replace existing fencing in California, Arizona and New Mexico.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...for-border-wall

Build that Wall
Straight and Tall
Stop them Criminals
The Big and The Small!


You Can't Stump The Trump!

The president celebrated the ruling on Twitter: "Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!"
"Nice poem 40"

Nice poem indeed! Congrats to President Trump on this ruling.

He keeps on working to fulfill his campaign promises as the Left does all it can to stop him.

Winning!

By the way, the do nothing Congress is taking a vacation from doing nothing while the Nation struggles with their inaction on the border. Shame!

Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to use Defense funds for border wall construction

(CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to use $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense to construct parts of a wall along the southwestern border that the government argues is necessary to protect national security.

The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.

In a brief order, the court said that it was ruling in favor of the Trump administration before the litigation has played out because the government had made a "sufficient showing" that the challengers did not have the legal right to bring the case.
Three members of the liberal wing of the court -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- wrote they would have blocked the funds for now. The fourth member, Justice Stephen Breyer, wrote separately to say that he would have allowed the government to use the funds to finalize the terms for contractors but block the funds from being used for the actual construction.

The Supreme Court's order is a significant win for Trump, who is likely to use the construction of a wall as a major talking point on the campaign trail. The President celebrated the decision in a tweet Friday evening.

"The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed," the President tweeted. "Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!"

The decision overrules a lower court decision that had blocked the transfer of funds while appeals played out. A panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the use of the funds earlier in the month, holding that the challengers were likely to prevail in their case because the use of the funds "violates the constitutional requirement that the Executive Branch not spend money absent an appropriation from Congress."

The order comes after Trump ended a 35-day government shutdown in February when Congress gave him $1.4 billion in wall funding, far less than he had sought. He subsequently declared a national emergency to get money from other government accounts to construct sections of the wall.

The $2.5 billion had been shifted from various programs including personnel and recruiting, Minuteman III and air launch cruise missiles, E-3 aircraft upgrades and the Afghan security forces training fund. The Pentagon said it was able to move that money due to uncovered cost savings as part of a process known as "reprogramming." The money was moved into a Defense Department counter-drug account that is authorized to spend money on the construction of border barriers.

Many lawmakers slammed the decision to move the money away from those national security priorities, threatening to strip the Pentagon of its ability to move money around, something the Defense Department has acknowledged would be detrimental.
"We are pleased with the Supreme Court's decision," Pentagon spokeswoman Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich told CNN.

Lawyers for the government had asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis and unblock the use of the funds while legal challenges proceed in the lower courts.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco noted in court papers that the projects needed to start because the funds at issue "will no longer remain available for obligation after the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2019." He said that the funds are necessary to permit the construction of more than 100 miles of fencing in areas the government has identified as "drug-smuggling corridors" where it has seized "thousands of pounds of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine" in recent years.

"Respondents' interests in hiking, birdwatching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government's efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border," Francisco argued in the papers, regarding the challenge from environmental groups.

Legal expert Joshua Matz said the decision is a major victory for Trump.

"But the Court did not signal that Trump followed the law. Instead, the majority took a narrow view of who, if anybody, is allowed to challenge Trump's decision in court," he said.
It is a loss for critics, including the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition that argued the administration had illegally transferred the funds after Congress denied requests for more money to construct the wall. The groups argued the wall -- in areas in Arizona, California and New Mexico -- would harm the environment.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the groups, argued in court papers against a stay of the lower court ruling, fearful of the wall's impact on border communities.
"Issuance of a stay that would permit Defendants to immediately spend this money is not consistent with Congress's power over the purse or with the tacit assessment by Congress that the spending would not be in the public interest,"ACLU lawyers told the court.

The ACLU slammed the decision after it was released Friday evening.

"This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump's border wall.
Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution's separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied," said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/supreme-court-pentagon-border-wall-construction/index.html

DONALD TRUMP'S BORDER WALL: HOW MUCH OF THE BARRIER HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT—AND WILL IT EVER BE COMPLETE?

For much of his life, President Donald Trump, a real estate-tycoon-turned world leader, has been a builder. With towers going up around the world in his name, it could be argued that success, for the U.S. leader, is a tangible thing only made real once it's written across the skyline.

So, it should have come as little surprise when, in 2014, Trump, then referred to as a "real estate tycoon" and "Celebrity Apprentice" star in the headlines, first hinted at what one of his first priorities would be if he were to be elected president.

Back then, it was a "fence"—"a border fence like you have never seen before," the real estate magnate told an audience in New Hampshire in April 2014. That summer, the "fence" would become a "wall" as Trump's advisers considered how to best brand a 2016 campaign that could be run on the promise of cracking down on immigration and putting "America first."

"And what better way than to have his brand incorporated by Donald Trump saying, 'Yeah, I'm going to build a wall. Nobody builds like Trump'?" former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg once told NPR.

Fast forward five years later and one of the biggest election upsets in U.S. history, and Trump, now president, is seeing his border wall ambitions become a reality one "beautiful" steel slat at a time, as the U.S. leader has put it, despite an uphill battle in Congress to see his vision brought to fruition.

How much of the wall has been built?

So, just how much of the president's long-promised border wall has been built? According to data provided by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, not a whole lot.

"Since January 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and [CBP] have received funding to support construction of up to 201-205 miles of new border barriers," CBP said in a "border wall status" update dated on June 14.

Of those 201-205 miles the Trump administration has received funding for through a combination of appropriations and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF), however, only 46.7 miles have been built two-and-a-half years into Trump's presidency. Much of the border wall that has been built has been put up in places where construction is replacing "dilapidated designs."

While, during his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had vowed to build a towering 2,000-mile wall that would stop migrants in their tracks before they considered attempting to cross into the U.S. outside a designated port of entry, the U.S. leader scaled back on that promise in January of this year, admitting that his border wall would not, in fact, be the "a 2,000-mile concrete structure from sea-to-sea" that he promised to build. "These are steel barriers in high-priority locations," he said.

The 46.7 miles of border wall that has so far been built (a meager 2.3 percent of the border itself), according to CBP, stands small in the shadow of the 654 miles of barriers that already existed along the southwest border before Trump took office. That total included 354 miles of pedestrian fencing, designed to stop people from crossing on foot, in addition to 300 miles of vehicle barriers, which prevent vehicles from driving across the border, but which can be scaled by a person on foot.

The graphic below, provided by Statista, illustrates that border apprehensions are hitting historic highs.



Is Mexico paying for Trump's wall? If not, who is?

While during his presidential campaign, Trump vowed to make Mexico pay for the construction of his long-promised border wall. However, it quickly became apparent after the U.S. leader's election that it would be U.S. taxpayers footing the bill.

With the U.S. leader unable to convince the country's southern neighbors cover the costs, Trump has faced repeated barriers of his own in Congress, with Democrats determined to push back against the president's plans.

Overall, the president's administration has been able to secure $6.1 billion in funding as of May 2019 to build it's border wall, according to CBP. That total includes funding that has been approved by Congress, in addition to extra money the U.S. leader has mined after declaring a state of emergency over immigration in February.

While Democrats in Congress have questioned just how much Trump's long-promised border wall would actually accomplish in deterring illegal immigration, CBP has backed the president's plans, asserting that "many older segments [of pre-existing border barriers] "are dilapidated, having been built with scrap metal from left-over Vietnam-era landing mat," in addition to having been, in some cases, "welded by Border Patrol Agents in the 1990s."

"Since 2008, CBP has received little funding to upgrade border barriers and no funding to expand the border wall's footprint into operationally necessary locations," CBP said in its progress update.

The Customs and Border Protection agency is not alone in believing those upgrades are necessary, with some Trump supporters showing so much enthusiasm for the president's border wall plans, that they were willing to pay for and build it themselves.

One landowner in Sunland Park, New Mexico could now face up to three months in jail after allowing part of a citizen-led border wall project to be put up on their property without city permission after a GoFundMe campaign calling on Americans to build Trump's wall themselves raised more than $23 million over the span of five months.



Border barrier or 'vanity project'?

While many within Trump's base would like to see the president's border wall plans brought to fruition, the majority of Americans appear to believe their money could be spent better elsewhere, with a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in January finding that the majority of Americans, or 58 percent, to be against Trump's plans to expand U.S. border barriers, while 40 percent were in support of the plan.

Meanwhile, Trump's harshest critics, including California Senator and 2020 Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, have dismissed the president's bid as nothing more than "vanity project" aimed at securing an emblem to represent his legacy.

Immigration experts also appear to agree with that sentiment, with one former senior DHS official speaking to Newsweek on the condition of anonymity earlier this year, branding the border wall project a "truly absurd" waste of money that will see Americans' money "burned" for the "vanity project of an egomaniac."

"There are things that we can do with that money. So many things that would be more valuable to the average American," the former DHS official, who served under the Obama administration, said.

Rather than using taxpayers to build Trump's wall, which the former senior official said "isn't going to do anything," the Trump administration should be focusing on the "push factors" that drive refugees to flee their countries and come to the U.S. in the first place.

In Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, which are collectively known as the Northern Triangle, poverty, violence and food security are among those push factors.

Current homicide rates in Central America are among the highest ever recorded in the region, according to the UNHCR, with several cities, including San Salvador, El Salvador; Tegucigalpa, Honduras; and San Pedro Sula, Honduras, being listed among the 10 most dangerous in the world.

Meanwhile, in Guatemala specifically, many asylum seekers are also being driven to leave their home country due to food insecurity caused largely by drought.

Trump, the former official said, is right that the U.S. does "have a crisis at the border. But, it's a refugee crisis. Not a crisis of illegal crossings."

"The way you address refugee crises is by ending the push factors wherever those refugees are coming from," they said.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-border-wall-built-progress-how-much-1446311

40, here is a complete list of Trump's promises and how he's done.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/

Yeah, at this rate, even if he's in office for a total of eight years, he will have built 300 feet of it.

What an accomplishment! lmao

Once again the unhinged Democrats get spanked...

Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, slams claims 'entirely divorced from the facts'

A federal judge in frank terms has dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against key members of the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over hacked DNC documents, saying they "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information.

The ruling came as Democrats have increasingly sought to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia, in spite of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings that the campaign in fact refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.

The DNC asserted in court filings that the Trump team's meetings "with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that the Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC's information" were a sign that they were conspiring with the Russians to "steal and disseminate the DNC's materials."

The suit did not allege that the stolen materials were false or defamatory but rather sought to hold the Trump team and other defendants liable for the theft of the DNC's information under various Virginia and federal statutes.

However, Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced" from the facts.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks-hacking-dismissed

Entirely divorced from the facts! Sound familiar?

It was in Mueller's report that the Russians did the hacking. But this Judge's ruling flies in the face of precedent IMHO. Disseminating stolen documents is why we've been after Assange for years. He didn't hack and steal those docs. So this will get interesting for hacking laws.

BTW, I agree they didn't steal them. But Trump knew who stole them.

I could go online right now and buy IDs, SSNs, and CC#s knowing they are stolen and if I just post them online for others to see, I'm going to jail. I don't see the difference between that and what wikileaks/Trump did, do you?

"Entirely divorced from the facts!"

read the edit above.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Not so fast...

Federal court blocks Trump asylum rules hours after judge ruled to keep restrictions in place

A federal judge in California on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from imposing restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States, just hours after a judge in Washington had decided to let the rule stand while lawsuits play out in court.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, required people seeking asylum to apply first in one of the countries they cross on their way to the U.S. -- with certain exceptions. It targeted tens of thousands of Central Americans who have crossed Mexico each month trying to enter the U.S.

The rule was met quickly with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. But hours later, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, an Obama appointee, blocked the enforcement of the rule. His ruling took effect immediately.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-scores-win-over-move-to-limit-asylum-claims
-------------------------------------------------------------

WHOA!!!

Not so fast again!

Appeals court sides with Trump administration on asylum rule, limits injunction

A federal appeals court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in the legal battle over its efforts to limit asylum claims from Central America – blocking, for now, a nationwide injunction that blocked the implementation of the rule.

“The district court clearly erred by failing to consider whether nationwide relief is necessary to remedy Plaintiffs’ alleged harms,” the ruling says. “And, based on the limited record before us, we do not believe a nationwide injunction is justified.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-trump-administration-asylum-rule