53 Esquire

Members
  • Content count

    2,462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About 53 Esquire

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/19/1968

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location
    Abuja, Nigeria
  • Gender
    Male
  • Springsteen fan since?
    1985
  • Does Mary's dress wave or sway?
    Sways
  • Interests
    Springsteen - my wife - my dogs
  • Sex?
    Sometimes

Recent Profile Visitors

9,241 profile views
  1. It's interesting - Clinton - Bush - Obama - is the first time since Jefferson- Madison-Monroe you have had three Presidents in row with two terms, yet now people assume that is the norm. Hardly. No wonder people think they can categorize Bush/Obama as Worst/Best, etc. They are idiots with no historical perspective. History weighs against a Trump reelection.
  2. All 100 Senators have been invited to the White House for a briefing on North Korea. According to Countable a preemptive strike is in the offing. Let's hope that is not the case.
  3. I liked To begin with, the executive order would probably get an F in a first-year legal writing class. Among its sins, it announces measures against “sanctuary jurisdictions” but provides no definition of that term. Its goal is to convince—or more properly intimidate—local governments in two ways. First, a number of cities have concluded that their police agencies will be more effective in solving crime if victims, witnesses, and suspects can talk to them without being afraid that police will turn them in to U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly want those localities to scrap those policies, and instead to let their law-enforcement officers not only pass information to ICE, but also to work as temporary immigration-enforcement personnel. Second, they want local jail authorities to honor ICE “detainers.” These are administrative requests (not court orders) to local jails to hold certain aliens—suspected of being undocumented—for 48 hours. Even if there are no charges pending against them, ICE agents want them held until they can pick them up with an eye to deportation. There are two problems with the detainers. First, they don’t come with funding. (According to figures submitted by Santa Clara County in this case, complying with detainers can cost it nearly $8 million a year.)
  4. It is a crazy idea. Please seek help.
  5. So I checked the judge's history out - he did raise a significant amount of money. He was nominated in January 2013 and confirmed for the bench largely along partisan lines. Not the most usual situation for Federal Judges, but as the judiciary has become the bigger part of politics, not a huge surprise. His professional history appears beyond reproach and to be completely qualified for the job. The big issue of course is the substance of the ruling. Like or don't like the judge for whatever reason the proof is in teh pudding. Forty-nine pages of analysis though lead one to the conclusion the judge was correct. The Administration damns itself. It's like my dad was elected President and appointed a bunch of his clones as spokespeople. You can think whatever you want, but that is does not mean it reflects the law. Even when an administrative rule is applied, all the beneficiaries are entitled in fact to due process and not subject to the changing arbitrary capriciousness of a new administration.
  6. Conversly if you want to do "dueling news links" Sanctuary cities ruling: When a judge quotes Sean Spicer, it’s not a good sign for the White House
  7. I don't even know what to say . . . too long to copy the whole thing - but here is a snippet. Transcript of AP Interview with the President
  8. But he also has the highest unfavorables of a new President. I remain as shocked today as I was in November, though I must admit, as some one who knows how government is suppose to work I cannot fathom voting for Trump.
  9. Since 1978 when the airlines were largely deregulated everything has worked pretty much the opposite of what was expected.
  10. Talk about not knowing what they are talking about.
  11. Lyrics are mediocre - not going to be the anthem of the #newamericanresistance - but still better than anything Trump has produced.
  12. Yes - everyone has to have a Visa or approved ESTA. And yes you don't know it by a phone call. How do you know who you are actually talking to. You are making the flawed assumption that one can assume they answered the question about terrorism wrong, but answer the birthdate correctly. Why would you assume that? But - I will admit it would have been even more satisfying if they had flown and then been denied entry.
  13. If you carry the passport of a visa waiver country such as the UK, if you want to travel to the United States you go online and fill out the ESTA form. That form is sent to USCIS and it is approved or rejected. 99.9% of them are approved - you then travel to the US - go through CBP, they verify what you filled out online, and then you enjoy your trip. If your ESTA is denied, as this child's was, you have to go to the Embassy or Consulate to apply for a visa if you still want to travel. There a Consular officer will interview you and make a visa determination. Obviously at that point one can tell one is taking about a bona fide infant. But, until that time, no one really knows what is going on with the applicant. And of course they still need to go through immigration. But I find it stunning you act like the Department is the dumbass in this situation. Look at the threads on this page where people demand we double and triple check immigrants even when they don't know what we do with those applicants. We are trying to protect national security, we are trying to protect Americans overseas, we are promoting human rights, we are trying to facilitate the feeding of the starving, and yet some dipshit who can't figure out to check the forms one last time is the epitome of the wronged? Really?
  14. No, no, no, NO! Until I have the applicant in front of me with the passport verifying who they are there is no way to know who you are talking about. And yes this certainly cost the US Government money - but the ineptness lay completely with the grandfather. He's the one who wasted US Government resources - and I can tell you - had it been me - I would not have been very nice at all - I would have said you are XX years old you would have thought you would have learned to pay attention to important things like this.
  15. Obviously once the baby arrived it was clear they would not be interviewed, but who knows what else they got wrong on the application, birthdates? Work histories? And let me tell you I have called minors in from across the country - knowing they and their families would need to take several days off work and spend money to travel. It does not seem extreme because then you don't what other things they screwed up. I support free travel across borders - but fill out the forms right. ETA - In the wake of 9/11 - Congress passed a law and the department instituted the Visa Lookout Accountability program - a consular officer who issues a visa to someone they should have known was ineligible for a visa due to terrorist or other criminal activity can lose their job and possibly be subject to criminal prosecution. making an infant travel five hours? BFD.