Patrick Spurlock

Non-Partisan, Neutral, Non-Denominational Individual.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@FlaTruckerFrank @SkrizzlyIam also, the scripture says God made “man”in his image, not “a man”

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

your referencing Genesis 1:27 - which is the author’s narration - not a quote from God, the creator.

Throughout the Bible and all 66 books, the many authors themselves reference God in the masculine. The only exception would be where Jesus cause God, “Father” but then again he may be referencing the Trinity - God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@GuntherEagleman:
Unfortunately, James is technically correct and Genesis 1:26 confirms it. God said, let us make a man in OUR image, after OUR likeness. In this passage, he was referencing the holy Trinity.

Throughout the Bible, the authors of the 66 books are the ones that referenced God in the masculine. It stands to reason in the time of the creation and throughout Bible history, the ideology of gender identity was not sufficiently evolved for the Bible to accurately define a stance.

We can only go by certain stories that speak about homosexuality to determine it’s biblical stance - that it is a sin and so was the reason for the destruction by great flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@FlaTruckerFrank @SkrizzlyIam Genesis 1:26 - “ and God said, let us make a man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the following of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth.”

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

Technically God never referenced gender identity other than to say in Genesis 1:26, “ and God said, let us make a man in our image, after our lightness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the seat, and over the file of the air, and over the cattle, all over the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth.”

In this scripture, he is referencing the divine Trinity: God, the father, God, the son, and God, the Holy Spirit. It is the authors of the many books of the Bible that referenced God as masculine.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@RonFilipkowski No... the airlines will more than likely sue to block the policy rather than absorb the financial injury that would be caused by implementation of this policy.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@Melissa20335783 @EricLDaugh @SecMullinDHS Don't count on that. It is very likely that this rule could be challenged by the airlines, by the airport systems themselves, and/or by the current federal employees who stand lose employment by these changes. Don't rule that out yet!

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

You didn't read my response to @MandalorianGe0.

You're correct. However airlines have multiple hubs. I used these as an example. Most of these Airlines have additional hubs in cities like New York, Newark, etc. and those aren't subject to State laws like Texas, but my same argument stands -- Airlines would suffer the injury here -- not the cities.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

You're correct. However airlines have multiple hubs. I used these as an example. Most of these Airlines have additional hubs in cities like New York, Newark, etc. and those aren't subject to State laws like Texas, but my same argument stands -- Airlines would suffer the injury here -- not the cities.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

No. @SecMullinDHS's proposal is shortsighted. He thinks he is affecting these cities, when he in reality is only screwing the airlines themselves. Example: United Airlines main hub of operations is in Houston, American's is in Dallas, just as Delta's is in Atlanta.

If @SecMullinDHS removes or blocks international flights at these hubs, then the direct damages (injuries) would be to the airlines -- not the cities themselves. They would have the right to sue and block this directive as being capricious and malicious. They would have sufficient standing and argument to sue and win!

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@BillMelugin; @FoxNews; @SecMullinDHS: @SecMullinDHS's proposal is shortsighted. He thinks he is affecting these cities, when he in reality is only screwing the airlines themselves. Example: United Airlines main hub of operations is in Houston, American's is in Dallas, just as Delta's is in Atlanta.

If @SecMullinDHS removes or blocks international flights at these hubs, then the direct damages (injuries) would be to the airlines -- not the cities themselves. Airlines would bve forced to relocate their primary hubs to other cities and redirect their flights to accomodate international flights. The injury would be to the airlines themselves (the incurred expenses due to CBP removal.) They would have the right to sue and block this directive as being capricious and malicious. They would have sufficient standing and argument to sue and win!

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

An RFE with a due date of 08/12/2026 would have had to have been issued on 05/12/2026 (87 days prior). The policy was announced on 05/22/2026. It is impossible to have an RFE issued under this policy be issued 10 days before the policy was announced.
That's why it is most likely fake!

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@RealOriginalist @josephmcgregor Congress also established the change-of status laws in 1952, overriding the presidential veto of President Truman by 2/3 majority of both chambers. It's federal law - making the current memo illegal.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

You don't completely understand the system and what @USCIS; @DHSgov; and @SecRubio propose to do. They're proposing to start the multi-step process all over again.

The general process is:

1. A petition is filed with USCIS (I-130
Petition)
Note: Petition approval (I-130): often 10–17
months

2. USCIS approves the petition

3. The case goes to the National Visa Center (NVC)
Note: This is where the actual backlog exists.
These can take much longer because of
annual visa caps:
*Spouses of green card holders: often
2–3 years;
*Adult children or siblings of U.S.
citizens: can take 7–20+ years
depending on category and
nationality

4. The applicant submits documents and fees

5. A U.S. embassy schedules an interview
Embassy interview wait: can range from 1 month
to nearly a year, depending on the
country/consulate.

Note: If approved, the immigrant receives an
immigrant visa (usually B1 (Tourist)).

After entering the U.S., they become a lawful permanent resident and later receive the physical green card by mail.
The exact timeline depends heavily on: the
immigration category, the applicant’s country,
embassy backlog, and whether there is a visa
quota for that category.

(Information courtesy of https://t.co/VggzZHrG0P and https://t.co/2CNmHNLvqp)

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@FuckDmtAliens @pushbackdu @Patrickwebb @realDonaldTrump They don't believe that it is, but that is not the reality at all -- the outcome is worse.

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@SaltyGoat17 This memo violates Federal Law. Congress passed and legally implemented the "change-of-status" policy in 1952. That's federal law. Only Congress can change it -- not the President and certainly not with a memo! #legalchallengeneeded

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@AnthrapologyX @jfbrly Where do you get 3-4 months? The earlier priority date for a visa - the first step, is October 2018. There's a backlog in the system right now...

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@jfbrly 2 years or even more...and that's even if Rubio let's her back in....

[Patrick Spurlock @RealPatSpurlock]

@operatorjojo @Patrickwebb @realDonaldTrump what community note?