Appeals Court Overturns New Jersey Sanctuary Law Shielding Illegal Aliens from Detention

[ChinoMoreno]

That is not necessarily true. Visa's have an expiration date and there are any number of reasons why someone might have missed renewal dates. Depending on whom you ask between 40% and 60% of illegal immigrants are people who overstayed their visas and if they are waiting at the court house its seems probable they would be from that group of people. Not the people who snuck across and would be absolute fools to reveal themselves.

Please stop pretending you give a single shit about the children accompanied or not that are working in any sort of field. For starters you're a conservative and conservatives right now are on the fucking warpath to eliminate laws against child labor. If I didn't know better I would say its a conscious effort to keep the poor poor but that would be giving you guys credit for being smarter than I think you are. Not more moral which you keep proving me wrong about. However if you did give a single shit the people running those farms would be perp walked on tv. You would make them famous the same way we are trying to make the Epstien people famous but you're not fooling any of us.

I don't smoke. I have just enough asthma that I took one puff when I was fifteen so we're talking 1998, choked and that was more than enough to keep me from ever toughing the stuff again. Doesn't mean I don't want it to be legal and at the federal level. See you guys refusing the legalize it at that level puts people in danger. Of course once again Conservatives don't care about safety. Owning the libs is your guiding light and nothing else matters.

I support laws in a general sense. There are laws that I disagree with and I'll be very open about laws I disagree with. Federal laws against weed are absolute bullshit. I'm sure if I went line by line I could find plenty of other laws that are bullshit or at least that I need someone with greater knowledge than my own to explain to me why we do this or that.

Our border laws are bullshit. That's not saying we should not have laws its that our laws are so slow that it encourages people to work around the law. Every time we start spooking people with enforcement we see just how dependent this area or that are on illegal labor. Funny how your boy Trump looked up and said "Shit, agriculture and hospitality need to be immune to this." I wish those people had enough money saved up to say fuck you and strike until an actual legal status could be achieved not a polite looking the other way until someone needs to make a quota but there it is.

Edit: If you are here on a work Visa often times you need a sponsor which lets ignore how immoral that is. The thing is if your boss says you don't have that day off you don't have that day off. I'm sure most of us are familiar with black out dates for various industries during peak season usually about a six week period where if you didn't put in for your time off six months in advance you're fucked for that period, get ready for six day ten hour weeks. The pay is great (for citizens anyway) but for migrants not so great. However once again these people missed a date. Maybe they were complete fuck ups. Maybe they didn't realize you needed to put in your days off in July during your Christmas days off. Maybe a lot of things. The fact that you're picking up someone at immigration court shows you aren't targeting drug dealers. The other criminals you claim to be interested in don't make money so I'm not counting them. These are people who have made a mistake or possibly haven't even done that and just need to show up in person to fill out the paper work. Whatever the circumstances they are trying to fix the problem and this is not encouraging people to go through the proper channels.

When people are telling you to go through the proper channels and then punishing you for going through the proper channels. . .

Look I've never believed that Conservatives gave a damn about the proper channels. They just don't like brown people. There is a reason why rather than assign more judges and whatever resources are needed to vet immigrants we're looking at removing child labor laws and encouraging people to have children. A declining birth rate and labor pool and you don't just start moving folk in. Brilliant.

Its almost like the difference, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is the faith and love of America. See I'm a believer that if we invite people in, give em a coke an apple pie and invite them to watch the Super Bowl it might take a generation and maybe you end up learning the difference between tacos and burritos but we all win. Also there are plenty of other refugees.

We can even put them in red states if you guys think you can act like adults.

Thank you for this information bro!

 

[icanhelp1]

You didn’t view it through my eyes—you just squinted at reality and hoped I’d blink first. What you actually did was dodge the central issue: Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers in a court that followed U.S. and state law. That’s not my opinion—it’s the legal record.

Your refusal to accept it isn’t a principled stand; it’s denial dressed up as moral superiority. You act as if Trump’s moral infallibility should be obvious to anyone thinking rationally. But it’s not obvious—it’s delusional. And when the facts don’t flatter your belief, you discard the whole system as rigged. That’s not justice—it’s wishful thinking wrapped in grievance.

I accept the justice system, flawed as it is. Trump wins some and loses most. I accept those outcomes—grudgingly, sure—but I don’t pretend justice wasn’t served. You, on the other hand, reject any loss outright, no matter the facts. That’s not fidelity to principle—it’s just loyalty to an immoral and seriously flawed man.

You keep bringing up Trump's supposed past. You base your conviction on a belief that Trump should be convicted because of all his past business behaviors. That's not justice, that's vengeance. Ya had a NY DA and a NY AG campaign on getting Trump. Not much biases or impropriety there LOL.

The results of the trial was fruit of the poison tree. The judge was conflicted and compromised. The grand jury omitted exculpatory evidence. The ole adage that you can indict a ham sandwich is certainly true in this case.

 

[HisArpy]

Right?!



Our president who I assume you voted for is a criminal my dude!.

And?

 

[HisArpy]

No you don't.

We've established this time and time again. You just cry "Lawfare" or "Judicial Witch hunt" whenever someone breaks the law and faces the consequences for it. You think the law should only apply to Democrats or poor people, but that Republicans and the wealthy should be above it. That is not "Standing for the Law." That is "Standing for a corrupt and absolute dictatorship."

Unless you can PROVE that I don't, as a lawyer, stand for the law, you need to shut the fuck up.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

And?

Bro that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[dmallord]

You keep bringing up Trump's supposed past. You base your conviction on a belief that Trump should be convicted because of all his past business behaviors. That's not justice, that's vengeance. Ya had a NY DA and a NY AG campaign on getting Trump. Not much biases or impropriety there LOL.

The results of the trial was fruit of the poison tree. The judge was conflicted and compromised. The grand jury omitted exculpatory evidence. The ole adage that you can indict a ham sandwich is certainly true in this case.

Blinded by the light... So, you've fallen back on the old, proven wrong support for the felon's old cases again. What's supposed got to do with it?

Did he break the law? That’s the question. Regardless of his past, Trump was tried and convicted based on the evidence and charges specific to this case—not prior conduct.

You keep waving away DAs and AGs as biased, but offer no substance to back it up. What you call bias is just your own grievance showing in broad daylight.

The “poisoned fruit” you’re chewing on didn’t come from the trial—it came from the echo chamber. Yes, the expert’s so-called exculpatory evidence was limited—but that wasn’t some deep-state sabotage. Judge Merchan ruled it wasn’t relevant to the specific charges. That’s not vengeance, that’s judicial discretion—something legal scholars across the spectrum agree he handled well.

And no, you can’t indict a ham sandwich in New York. Maybe a married pastrami on rye if it’s unlucky enough to have falsified its bookkeeping records about claiming payment to a porn star to remain silent about a sexual affair, which was just another normal business deduction!

Guilty as charged, convicted by a jury, and sentenced by a judge. One who gave him no jail time for his crimes and let him remain at large to run for the office of the president. Who else got that kind of a deal? Sounds like a 'crooked' judge to me, too!

 

[dmallord]

Unless you can PROVE that I don't, as a lawyer, stand for the law, you need to shut the fuck up.

The law would only say 'shut the fuck up' if a judge issued a gag order. So, unless you have a judge in your pocket, you'll just have to gag on his ability to be as vociferous as you, idiot.

Have you noticed you make this remark frequently, and no one shuts the fuck up? Obviously, not, since you continue to repeat the same thing over and over; that's the definition of insanity when you expect someone to comply and don't...

 

[icanhelp1]

Blinded by the light... So, you've fallen back on the old, proven wrong support for the felon's old cases again. What's supposed got to do with it?

Did he break the law? That’s the question. Regardless of his past, Trump was tried and convicted based on the evidence and charges specific to this case—not prior conduct.

You keep waving away DAs and AGs as biased, but offer no substance to back it up. What you call bias is just your own grievance showing in broad daylight.

The “poisoned fruit” you’re chewing on didn’t come from the trial—it came from the echo chamber. Yes, the expert’s so-called exculpatory evidence was limited—but that wasn’t some deep-state sabotage. Judge Merchan ruled it wasn’t relevant to the specific charges. That’s not vengeance, that’s judicial discretion—something legal scholars across the spectrum agree he handled well.

And no, you can’t indict a ham sandwich in New York. Maybe a married pastrami on rye if it’s unlucky enough to have falsified its bookkeeping records about claiming payment to a porn star to remain silent about a sexual affair, which was just another normal business deduction!

Guilty as charged, convicted by a jury, and sentenced by a judge. One who gave him no jail time for his crimes and let him remain at large to run for the office of the president. Who else got that kind of a deal? Sounds like a 'crooked' judge to me, too!

When an NY AG and a NY DA, both officers of the court sworn to uphold the constitution, a duty to promote justice, entrusted with the proper administration of our legal system, ensure fair treatment and maintain the highest of ethical standards, and yet publicly campaign to ensnare, prosecute and jail a political opponent is nothing short of judicial maleficent and abuse of power. Both are an embarrassment to the rule of law. Both should be disbarred and prosecuted for abuse of power. This bastardization of the rule of law is what you stand for and says a lot about you!

 

[ll74]

When an NY AG and a NY DA, both officers of the court sworn to uphold the constitution, a duty to promote justice, entrusted with the proper administration of our legal system, ensure fair treatment and maintain the highest of ethical standards, and yet publicly campaign to ensnare, prosecute and jail a political opponent is nothing short of judicial maleficent and abuse of power. Both are an embarrassment to the rule of law. Both should be disbarred and prosecuted for abuse of power. This is what you stand for.

The ones that rule in your party's favor are cool though.

 

[RoryN]

This is what you stand for.

You stand for racism:

I wonder if it's all those black daddies living by the 4 fs ( find them, feel them, fuck them, forget them ).

Post in thread 'The real badbabysitter finally revealed..' https://forum.literotica.com/threads/the-real-badbabysitter-finally-revealed.1504564/post-90980000

blacks have a higher propensity of violence than all races combined.

Post in thread 'If America Is Racist, Why Have Millions of Blacks Emigrated Here?' https://forum.literotica.com/thread...f-blacks-emigrated-here.1547263/post-93907526

I find that African Americans are more racist than white folks...I wouldn’t even think of walking a predominately black neighborhood, wouldn’t end well.

Post in thread 'White Officers in Minority Communities' https://forum.literotica.com/threads/white-officers-in-minority-communities.1525284/post-92435953

 

[icanhelp1]

The ones that rule in your party's favor are cool though.

Bullshit. Name one individual with dem party affiliation that was criminally prosecuted by a DA or AG that was openly hostile towards the defendant.

 

[icanhelp1]

You stand for racism:



Post in thread 'The real badbabysitter finally revealed..' https://forum.literotica.com/threads/the-real-badbabysitter-finally-revealed.1504564/post-90980000



Post in thread 'If America Is Racist, Why Have Millions of Blacks Emigrated Here?' https://forum.literotica.com/thread...f-blacks-emigrated-here.1547263/post-93907526



Post in thread 'White Officers in Minority Communities' https://forum.literotica.com/threads/white-officers-in-minority-communities.1525284/post-92435953

WELSHER!!

 

[ll74]

Bullshit. Name one individual with dem party affiliation that was criminally prosecuted by a DA or AG that was openly hostile towards the defendant.

Lol

 

[HisArpy]

Bro that makes you a hypocrite.

Trump was tried in a court of law, found guilty, sentenced. All according to the law. The cases which were dismissed were dismissed according to the procedures required under the law.

Do you somehow think that paying a debt to society requires more than what the law demands? Do you think that people who have been convicted don't deserve a second chance?

Basically, YOU put YOUR IDIOTIC, TDS DRIVEN, IDEOLOGY ahead of the law, whereas I put the law ahead of ideology.

Now tell us again how you're not a complete fuckwit for thinking that you're smarter than you really are.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

Trump was tried in a court of law, found guilty, sentenced. All according to the law. The cases which were dismissed were dismissed according to the procedures required under the law.

Do you somehow think that paying a debt to society requires more than what the law demands? Do you think that people who have been convicted don't deserve a second chance?

Basically, YOU put YOUR IDIOTIC, TDS DRIVEN, IDEOLOGY ahead of the law, whereas I put the law ahead of ideology.

Now tell us again how you're not a complete fuckwit for thinking that you're smarter than you really are.

You get very angry when you're wrong bro.

 

[HisArpy]

You get very angry when you're wrong bro.

Lol, yet another of the failed lefty narratives they toss around after they've been handed their asses.

You really need new material.

Oh, btw - this you?

It's a bad day for you if you're getting bested by a stoner bro

It's pretty sad when you say no one has ever called you a stoner when YOU CALLED YOURSELF ONE.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

I suggest you smoke another bowl

Bro you called me a stoner and I played on that lie.

It's a bad day for you if you're getng bested by a stoner bro

See my mans? You failed to provide proper context.

It's pretty sad when you say no one has ever called you a stoner when YOU CALLED YOURSELF ONE.

Now bro you can go back to being angry for being wrong again.

 

[Lazaran]

Bro you called me a stoner and I played on that lie.

See my mans? You failed to provide proper context.



Now bro you can go back to being angry for being wrong again.

Derpy is once again a victim of chronic concrete thinking.

Poor Derpy…

 

[ChinoMoreno]

Derpy is once again a victim of chronic concrete thinking.

Poor Derpy…

Bro I've traveled all over the southern hemisphere and one universal truth is that the loudest and angriest are usually the most wrong too

 

[HisArpy]

Bro you called me a stoner and I played on that lie.

See my mans? You failed to provide proper context.



Now bro you can go back to being angry for being wrong again.

dudly, it's your words. Others will read them and know the truth.

Good luck living that down.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

dudly, it's your words. Others will read them and know the truth.

Good luck living that down.

My mans you pretend to speak for others but there's been literally not a single person who agrees with you or your ludicrous claims. In fact more people are down with me than you on this stuff. Bong hit?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The "letter and sprit of the founders" never included embracing an invasion of illegal aliens.

Did the Founders ask permission from the Natives before they came over?

 

[HisArpy]

My mans you pretend to speak for others but there's been literally not a single person who agrees with you or your ludicrous claims. In fact more people are down with me than you on this stuff. Bong hit?

Again, those are YOUR words, not mine, where you ADMIT that you're a "stoner."

Good luck spinning that.

 

[dmallord]

When an NY AG and a NY DA, both officers of the court sworn to uphold the constitution, a duty to promote justice, entrusted with the proper administration of our legal system, ensure fair treatment and maintain the highest of ethical standards, and yet publicly campaign to ensnare, prosecute and jail a political opponent is nothing short of judicial maleficent and abuse of power. Both are an embarrassment to the rule of law. Both should be disbarred and prosecuted for abuse of power. This bastardization of the rule of law is what you stand for and says a lot about you!

When legal officials run for office, they often campaign on holding the powerful accountable. That’s not malfeasance—it’s transparency. If anything, we should expect them to be clear about pursuing justice, even when it makes some people uncomfortable.

You accuse them of abuse of power, but the courts—plural—allowed these cases to proceed. Judges ruled on motions. Juries weighed the evidence. Trump had top-tier defense lawyers, endless resources, and access to every legal remedy. He lost. That’s not a witch hunt. That’s a fair fight—and he got off lighter than many others would’ve.

You seem less interested in justice than in ensuring your political hero never faces consequences. That’s not noble skepticism. That’s selective outrage. You can't even admit that he was wrong about any of the case content, can you? It's so easy to say that he knowingly wrote checks for attorney services that were not legal deductions, but you can't accept even one count of fraud so plain and true with factual support. The jury saw 34 counts; you can't even see the moral wrong in any of his actions. That speaks volumes about you.

Honestly, I don’t think the system came down too hard on Trump—I think it bent over backward to avoid the appearance of bias. In the end, justice was served—just not the kind you were hoping for.

And as for what I “stand for”? I stand for the idea that no one is above the law. Not even your favorite defendant.

 

[TheScarletBlade]

When legal officials run for office, they often campaign on holding the powerful accountable. That’s not malfeasance—it’s transparency. If anything, we should expect them to be clear about pursuing justice, even when it makes some people uncomfortable.

You accuse them of abuse of power, but the courts—plural—allowed these cases to proceed. Judges ruled on motions. Juries weighed the evidence. Trump had top-tier defense lawyers, endless resources, and access to every legal remedy. He lost. That’s not a witch hunt. That’s a fair fight—and he got off lighter than many others would’ve.

You seem less interested in justice than in ensuring your political hero never faces consequences. That’s not noble skepticism. That’s selective outrage. You can't even admit that he was wrong about any of the case content, can you? It's so easy to say that he knowingly wrote checks for attorney services that were not legal deductions, but you can't accept even one count of fraud so plain and true with factual support. The jury saw 34 counts; you can't even see the moral wrong in any of his actions. That speaks volumes about you.

Honestly, I don’t think the system came down too hard on Trump—I think it bent over backward to avoid the appearance of bias. In the end, justice was served—just not the kind you were hoping for.

And as for what I “stand for”? I stand for the idea that no one is above the law. Not even your favorite defendant.

No one is above the law?

To include Barack Obama creating Russia gate in 2016? Fabricated intelligence data and referred it to the DOJ as grounds of Impeachment?

Sorry bro but you really don't wanna play the "Above the Law" game.