Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Trump Just Released New Policy For Illegal Aliens With Children And Its PERFECT! SEE YA!

Published

on

President Trump is not bowing to pressure from the left over illegal immigration. He’s their worst nightmare… a leader who keeps his promises and has a spine. Following a court order to reunite more than 2,000 migrant children who were separated from their parents in May and June (a move that Trump had already done by the way), the Trump administration just released a new policy for illegal aliens with children. It’s perfect and they won’t like it in the least. He’s giving them two choices… leave the country with your children or leave the country without them. Works for me. The media and the left are in a meltdown over it.

The left is spinning this as Trump’s instructions are not allowing parents who were separated from their children under his “zero tolerance” policy to reunite with their children while they await a decision on asylum, a protection sought by thousands of migrant families fleeing violence in Central America. That’s not true as I understand it. But say it is, he’s given them a choice here. They can be reunited as a family and leave since they entered illegally, or they can choose to leave their children behind and still leave. They broke the law and I see nothing wrong with this ultimatum in the least.

Advocates for illegal immigrants are also claiming that even illegal immigrants who have already passed their initial asylum screenings are being presented with the form. “We are seeing cases where people who have passed credible fear interviews and have pending asylum claims are being given this form,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who is leading a class action lawsuit for family reunification. Most of these asylum seekers are not legitimate. To be granted asylum in the U.S., you must be fleeing genocide or threat of such, not gang violence or spousal abuse. They are playing the system, the only difference here is that Trump is through letting them play it.

Trending: Mark Zuckerberg Just Stole $315,000 From A Triple-Amputee Vet

The “zero tolerance” policy is not new. It was imposed under both Obama and Bush by a different name. It separates children from parents or guardians while illegal aliens are adjudicated and while they are vetted as the actual parents of these children. This stops human trafficking which is rampant on the border. Of the 12,000 children who came over the border before all of this, 10,000 did so without parents. Trump reversed the “zero tolerance” policy on June 20 by executive order. But the media isn’t telling you that. As far as I have heard, families are now kept together during the adjudication process, but that doesn’t mean they get to walk into America and stay as the left is demanding.

At question here is the definition of ‘asylum’ and whether it applies to most of these immigrants. I contend it doesn’t and so do many legal experts. The left from the very beginning has weaponized these children, playing on emotion to open the borders entirely. “A child should never be held hostage to force a parent to relinquish their legal right to seek asylum,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND). That is a straw-man argument. It is specious.

NBC News is howling over this:

“In a June 26 decision, U.S. Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California ruled that the government must reunify the separated parents from their children, but made no stipulation that parents must be allowed to remain in the U.S. with their children while they wait for a judge to hear their asylum claim — a process that can take years.

“The form U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are directed to read to detained parents instructs them to sign next to one of two lines: “I am requesting to reunite with my child(ren) for the purpose of repatriation to my country of citizenship,” or “I am affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily requesting to return to my country of citizenship without my minor child(ren) who I understand will remain in the United States to pursue available claims of relief.”

“The agents are instructed to read the form in a language the immigrant understands, which usually means Spanish, but it can be hard to find Americans who know the indigenous languages spoken by many migrants.”

Jennifer Elzea, who is a spokeswoman for ICE, points out that the form is designed to be given to immigrants who have received a final order of removal. It’s the last step before they are to be deported. That should make sense to even the most liberal-minded out there, but they refuse to understand it and accept the reality of enforcing the rule of law at our border. “An individual who has received a final order of removal has already been given the opportunity to make a claim of fear about returning to his or her country of citizenship,” Elzea said. “Alien parents who are ordered removed can elect to be removed with or without their children. Neither choice has any bearing on the alien’s eligibility to apply for protections available to them under the law,” she continued.

Asylum is a specific legal action with a narrow definition. Leftists are trying to manipulate it to fit all illegal aliens and their current status. It’s not going to work and it shouldn’t. NBC News is claiming that similar instructions were given to child welfare workers in U.S. Health and Human Services shelters before Trump ended family separations. The workers were instructed to reunite parents and children only if the parents agreed to drop their own asylum claims as well as the claim of their child and be deported.

Families who arrived in the U.S. after President Trump ended parent-child separations are being detained in family detention centers while awaiting a decision on asylum or deportation. The Justice Department has petitioned in a separate court case that the government should be allowed to hold children with their parents indefinitely. First the left screamed that families were being separated. Now, they are screaming that they are detained together. None of that matters. The end game here for the left is that they want the borders thrown wide open, all illegal immigrants released and immigration decriminalized. President Trump will never do this. He has vowed to secure our borders, our sovereignty and the rule of law.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

WATCH: Alec Baldwin tells donors to ‘Overthrow’ Trump at Democrat Fundraiser

Published

on

...

* By

These Hollywood lunatics don’t seem to get it. The more they make threats towards our President..The more they fire up the American people. So please..keep it up. That giant red tsunami is coming in November.

Baldwin’s career is so in the gutter that the only job he can get is being unfunny on SNL.

Oh..and by the way..‘The Alec Baldwin Show’ Premiere Totally Bombs. Breitbart has more on that story.

From Fox News:

MANCHESTER, N.H. – Less than 24 hours after reprising his Emmy Award-winning parody of President Trump on “Saturday Night Live,” Alec Baldwin took aim at the president again.

“In an orderly and formal way, and lawful way, we need to overthrow the government of the United States under Donald Trump,” Baldwin said Sunday night at a major fundraising dinner for New Hampshire’s Democratic Party.

“I flew here this morning after doing ‘Saturday Night Live’ last night,” the actor, comedian and longtime liberal political activist told a crowd of some 800 party office-holders, candidates, officials and activists, drawing loud applause.

Baldwin said his role as Trump on “SNL” wasn’t supposed to last as long as it has.

“‘Just three shows,’ he said,” Baldwin recalled “SNL” producer Lorne Michaels saying as he tried to convince the actor to portray then-candidate Trump. “‘Till the election,’ he said. ‘Then he’ll be gone,’ he said. ‘Three shows. It will be fun,’ he said.”

But Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election resulted in an extension of Baldwin’s run on the late-night comedy show – including this weekend’s opening sketch about Trump’s recent meeting with rapper Kanye West.

Turning serious, Baldwin then rallied the crowd to vote in next month’s midterm elections, saying “this election and the one that follows in 2020 will be the most consequential elections since the election of FDR.”

He added: “It is time to overthrow the government of Donald Trump — not in a violent way or unlawful way — but it must be overthrown nonetheless.”

Baldwin ended his nearly 20-minute-long speech by putting his own spin on the president’s famous campaign slogan.

“Let’s make America great again by making Donald Trump a casino operator again,” he said.

“Let’s make America great again by making Donald Trump a casino operator again.” — Alec Baldwin

Some New Hampshire Republicans criticized the state’s Democrats for choosing Baldwin as their keynote speaker. They pointed to Baldwin’s past problematic behavior, including making abusive comments to and about women, and making homophobic remarks.

Taking questions from reporters after his speech, Baldwin didn’t directly answer.

“Most of the time people are trying to tar me with a brush about defending Woody Allen,” he said, referring to the filmmaker who has long faced allegations of sexual assault, which he has denied.

Baldwin also told reporters that he’s “always dreamed” of running for office himself, but explained it’s not in the cards for him at this time.

“My wife told me she’d divorce me if I ran for office,” he joked.

He also downplayed suggestions that his Democratic activism would limit the success of “The Alec Baldwin Show,” his new venture on ABC.

Baldwin has long been a backer of Democratic candidates and causes. He famously declared that he’d move to Canada if then-Texas Gov. George Bush won the 2000 presidential election. Though Bush did win, Baldwin didn’t move.

More recently, Baldwin campaigned last year for Democrat Ralph Northam in Virginia’s hotly contested gubernatorial election. And last November he headlined the Iowa Democrats’ major fall fundraising gala.

New Hampshire is the state that holds the first presidential primary every four years — and Sunday night’s dinner over the years has been a key stop for potential Democratic White House hopefuls.

Baldwin previously made headlines in June when he told radio host Howard Stern that if he made a 2020 presidential bid, he would beat Trump.

“If I ran, I would win,” Baldwin said. “I would absolutely win.”

Baldwin said Sunday that if he had decided to run, “I thought it would be such a pleasure to go around the country and try to remind people that, Let’s get back to a time of common sense.”

But Baldwin said he’s not very optimistic when he considers the potential field of Democrats vying for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020.

“I’m hoping that someone that isn’t necessarily on the horizon right now would materialize,” Baldwin said, “because I don’t think anybody that’s a frontrunner now of the top six, seven, eight names that I’ve seen, I don’t think any of them is going to have an easy time of it.”

He also took another shot at the president.

“Every day I wake up, I still am horrified,” he said. “I feel like I’m in some dream that Trump is president of the United States. I almost can’t even say it.”

Continue Reading

BREAKING: Federal Judge Dismisses Stormy Daniels’ Defamation Lawsuit Against Donald Trump

Published

on

...

* By

This is breaking right now. A federal judge has dismissed Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against Trump, and said that Trump is entitled to legal fees from her.

Trump has emerged victorious!

The Washington Times is reporting:

“A judge has dismissed the defamation lawsuit brought against President Trump by a porn star who claims to have had an affair with him.

According to a Fox News report, the judge also ordered the porn actress, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford and who has been represented by attorney Michael Avenatti, to pay Mr. Trump’s legal fees — customarily, a rebuke of a lawsuit ever being brought.

“No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer Mr. Avenatti can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels,” said Trump attorney Charles Harder in a statement issued by the White House.”

Stormy’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti responded:

“Re Judge’s limited ruling: Daniels’ other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.

We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.”

The Hollywood Reporter also reported:

“A judge sees Trump’s tweet about a “con job” as “rhetorical hyperbole” and orders the porn queen to pay his attorneys fees.

First Amendment.

Stormy Daniels was the plaintiff in this one.

She not only sued Trump to invalidate a hush agreement over an alleged affair, but in the midst of the controversy, her attorney Michael Avenatti sheparded a claim over one of Trump’s tweets.

Last April, Avenatti released a sketch of a man who allegedly threatened Daniels into remaining silent back in 2011. Trump tweeted, “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”

In response, Trump moved to have the complaint stricken under Texas’ anti-SLAPP statute, which provides special protection against frivolous litigation usurping one’s free speech activity. Charles Harder, his attorney, argued that the statement at issue represented protected opinion and that Daniels hadn’t sufficiently alleged damages nor stated facts to show Trump acted with actual malice.

U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero concludes that Daniels has failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation.

“The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States,” states the opinion. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.”

The judge continues by defining “rhetorical hyperbole” as “extravagant exaggeration employed for rhetorical effect” and characterizes Trump’s tweet as displaying “an incredulous tone, suggesting that the content of his tweet was not meant to be understood as a literal statement about Plaintiff. Instead, Mr. Trump sought to use language to challenge Plaintiff’s account of her affair and the threat that she purportedly received in 2011. As the United States Supreme Court has held, a published statement that is ‘pointed, exaggerated, and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage’ cannot constitute a defamatory statement.”

Otero adds that Trump made a “one-off rhetorical comment, not a sustained attack on the veracity of Plaintiff’s claims” and that this distinguishes this suit from other cases where courts have seen enough to deem defamation from a public statement. The judge adds that Daniels’ assumption that Trump knew of the 2011 threat doesn’t establish facts adding up that he did, in fact, know about the threat. The judge ends up agreeing with Trump that Daniels hasn’t shown actual malice nor adequately pled damages.

Daniels won’t get the opportunity to amend her complaint to cure deficiencies, and what’s more under Texas’ anti-SLAPP statute, she now has to pay Trump’s legal costs — perhaps a rubbing of salt in the wound to those who contributed to Daniels’ legal defense fund. However, she does have a right to pursue an appeal.

UPDATE: In a tweet following publication of this story, Avenatti attempted to frame the ruling as “limited” and said it wouldn’t affect her other claims looking to invalidate the contract. (There, Trump offered her a covenant not to sue and is arguing a court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain that controversy.) Avenatti added, “We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.””

A little history on the lawsuit:

A U.S. federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday appeared poised to throw out adult film actress Stormy Daniel’s defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump on free-speech grounds, Reuters reported.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, sued the president in April over a tweet in which he denied her claims of being subtly threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011.”

“Daniels said the man was threatening her for going public about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the affair took place, and cast doubt on her story of being threatened.

“A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!” Trump tweeted.

Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti said the tweet damaged her credibility by portraying her as a liar. Trump’s attorneys have asked a federal judge in Los Angeles to dismiss the suit.

“The question is whether the tweet by the president is protected communication or political hyperbole and non-defamatory on its face,” U.S. District Judge James Otero said during Monday’s hearing.

“He’s a public official, he’s president of the United States, so it doesn’t get much higher than that,” Otero said. “It’s free speech by a public official on a matter of public concern.”

He continued, “(Allowing) the complaint to go forward and to have one consider this to be defamatory in the context it was made would have a chilling effect,” Otero said during the hearing.

Avenatti told reporters he expects a ruling within days and plans to appeal if the suit is dismissed.

Otero scheduled a hearing Dec. 3 to discuss Trump’s efforts to dismiss another lawsuit by Daniels over a hush-money agreement related to their alleged affair.

Daniels sued Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who negotiated the deal, so she could speak publicly about the alleged affair without fear of reprisal. Cohen had threatened to sue her for $20 million.”

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend