Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j1zbn4p wrote

Reply to comment by low_dmnd_phllps in Supreme Court leaves in place Title 42 border policy for now by monstertruckbackflip

[deleted]

−4

low_dmnd_phllps t1_j1zd20x wrote

COVID can still be declared a national emergency without completely shutting down the border. Title 42 is an overly extreme measure that has no scientific basis whatsoever. If there is no evidence of an uptick in COVID cases brought into the US by asylum seekers, the fact that we have a COVID emergency has no bearing at all.

Keep the COVID emergency in place and reopen the border to asylum seekers.

5

enkonta t1_j1zqg5w wrote

> Keep the COVID emergency in place and reopen the border to asylum seekers.

And on a personal level, I’m fine with that, but that’s not the argument the administration is using.

0

WonderWall_E t1_j1zho5h wrote

It's not the same argument with contradictory stances. It's different responses to the same crisis because they address different aspects of that crisis. You can't argue that all responses to the pandemic should end because we've adequately addressed the problem in one specific arena.

2

[deleted] t1_j1zqmtg wrote

[deleted]

0

WonderWall_E t1_j20vxd2 wrote

Here's the entire section of Title 42 pertaining to the case:

>§265. "Suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases >Whenever the Surgeon General determines that by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health, the Surgeon General, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose." (July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §362, 58 Stat. 704.)

If you can show me where that rests on any sort of emergency declaration, you'll convince me. Until then, you can drop the bullshit you're spouting.

0

enkonta t1_j211eok wrote

Fair enough, I deleted my prior response...I was under the impression that HHS needed a state of emergency to have the power delegated to them. Regardless....I think it's a little disingenuous for each party to argue out of both sides of their mouth when talking about the state of Covid.

2