I******s getting welfare?? (Page 4): Sorry I misunderstood when you said “ the Supreme Court did rule on it ”” They didn’t on it one way or the other , they ruled on Biden authority...

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Racmanaz wrote:

You really have some reading comprehension issues don’t you? I said the Supreme Court rule on it and said that Biden can end it. I didn’t say the supreme court ruled that it had to be shut down.

Sorry I misunderstood when you said
“ the Supreme Court did rule on it ””
They didn’t on it one way or the other , they ruled on Biden authority

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

DennyT wrote:

Sorry I misunderstood when you said
“ the Supreme Court did rule on it ””
They didn’t on it one way or the other , they ruled on Biden authority

LOL OMG you are dense. I SAID... "the Supreme Court did rule on it and said that Biden could end it."

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Racmanaz wrote:

LOL OMG you are dense. I SAID... "the Supreme Court did rule on it and said that Biden could end it."

So what does “ it “ refer to ?

Added

The case before the court originated in Missouri and Texas AG’s and the court said the administrative law they claimed biden broke was no even applicable .

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

DennyT wrote:

Sorry I misunderstood when you said
“ the Supreme Court did rule on it ””
They didn’t on it one way or the other , they ruled on Biden authority

But here is something interesting that the SC also ruled on that you claimed they never did either way.

U.S. Supreme Court rules to keep Title 42, the p******c-era policy to quickly turn away migrants, for now
The court ordered the Biden administration to continue enforcing the policy while Texas and other states that want to keep the Trump-era rule in place prepare their legal arguments.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/27/title-42-us-mexico-border-supreme-court/

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

DennyT wrote:

So what does “ it “ refer to ?

Depends on what the definition of "is" is. lol But in your case, it's "it". You are always deflecting and moving the goal post, that's what you Lefty cultists do.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

DennyT wrote:

It went back and forth over Biden authority to cancel but SCOTUS has really never taken a position on the agreement itself ( nor have been ask to ) . It was originally an agreement between America and Mexico BUT for quite awhile now Mexico has said they are no longer interested.

So those crying reinstate “ remain in Mexico” clearly don’t have a clue .

Do you think their lack of interest/cooperation could have anything to do with the lack of “incentives” to cooperate. I think you get my drift.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

DennyT wrote:

It went back and forth over Biden authority to cancel but SCOTUS has really never taken a position on the agreement itself ( nor have been ask to ) . It was originally an agreement between America and Mexico BUT for quite awhile now Mexico has said they are no longer interested.

So those crying reinstate “ remain in Mexico” clearly don’t have a clue .

SCOTUS said Biden could end the program but looking back, has he ever gone along with the program. You know, the program that was working quite well. IF the Mexican government did not want to stay with the program then perhaps some incentive could be given them to stay with it.

Biden's program of anybody, millions of foreigners, who just come across doesn't seem to be working for America does it? Even sanctuary cities are whining, crying and b***hing the federal government needs to give them more money to support these asylum seekers and i*****l a***ns who are here ILLEGALLY yet the Left wants them to stay and be supported in every way.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

DennyT wrote:

Sorry I misunderstood when you said
“ the Supreme Court did rule on it ””
They didn’t on it one way or the other , they ruled on Biden authority

THAT is a RULING. How is it you can't see that?

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Effate wrote:

Do you think their lack of interest/cooperation could have anything to do with the lack of “incentives” to cooperate. I think you get my drift.

Sorry but NO he does not get your drift. lil denny is incapable of understanding the most simple of concepts.

Dennis

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

dennis2146 wrote:

THAT is a RULING. How is it you can't see that?

Dennis

Not you too ? The ruling was on Biden authority NOT “ remain in Mexico a “ policy .
In fact the. Putts ruling told those who brought the suit, the law they quoted wasn’t even applicable .

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Effate wrote:

Do you think their lack of interest/cooperation could have anything to do with the lack of “incentives” to cooperate. I think you get my drift.

More than anything it was a changed in Mexico president ( just like America I guess)
But this is exactly why congress needs to tighten the laws - to prevent both sides applying them to suit their beliefs

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

dennis2146 wrote:

Sorry but NO he does not get your drift. lil denny is incapable of understanding the most simple of concepts.

Dennis

We just can't fix stupid.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

DennyT wrote:

More than anything it was a changed in Mexico president ( just like America I guess)
But this is exactly why congress needs to tighten the laws - to prevent both sides applying them to suit their beliefs

Exactly, the Mexican President didn’t arbitrarily decide is wasn’t a good idea, he felt no one had their “thumb” on his decision anymore. Lo entiendes?

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Effate wrote:

Exactly, the Mexican President didn’t arbitrarily decide is wasn’t a good idea, he felt no one had their “thumb” on his decision anymore. Lo entiendes?

New president new views- sound familiar?

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

DennyT wrote:

New president new views- sound familiar?

Yep, new President new views (and enforcement policy). That’s why Obama and Trump had less than 1.5 million cross at this time in their Presidency and Biden is north of 8 million.