Trumps Immigration Executive Order

[Rotobeast]

(02-10-2017, 12:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Are they same people that think allowing gay marriage is giving gays "extra rights"?

That, I do not know.
They shouldn't feel that way, as the maritals of others is none of their business, nor the government in my mind.

I suppose having more moderate solutions may help.
It seems issues are dragged too far to one side or another.
That and the lip-service combined with blaming the other side for failure is breeding the hostile environment.

[GMDino]

(02-10-2017, 12:59 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: That, I do not know.
They shouldn't feel that way, as the maritals of others is none of their business, nor the government in my mind.

I suppose having more moderate solutions may help.
It seems issues are dragged too far to one side or another.
That and the lip-service combined with blaming the other side for failure is breeding the hostile environment.

It is sold as too far on one side or the other.  On that I agree.

[Belsnickel]

(02-10-2017, 11:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm a little confused. I thought the President has the right to impose travel bans from certain countries. To me the people who already have Visas is a different story. Matt are you saying that they aren't saying the ban is illegal, only that the lower court had the right to temporarily halt it while it is reviewed?

(02-10-2017, 11:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's what I have been reading. The court hasn't made a judgement on the constitutionality of the order, just that the court has the authority to put a hold on the order while it is reviewed and the administration hasn't provided enough evidence that there is a threat to national security if this order is halted in the meantime. 

Pat beat me to it, but yes. The district court never ruled on the legality of the order, they only put a hold on its implementation while it is being reviewed. The DoJ then appealed the halt on the order to the circuit court and that was what their ruling was on. The halts put in place are temporary measures until the overall matter is resolved in the courts, which will take a much longer time. The DoJ, on behalf of the Trump administration, is just trying to claim that the threat to national security is so great by halting the implementation that it should not be done. As of yet, they have been unable to make that argument satisfactorily.

[GMDino]

(02-10-2017, 01:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pat beat me to it, but yes. The district court never ruled on the legality of the order, they only put a hold on its implementation while it is being reviewed. The DoJ then appealed the halt on the order to the circuit court and that was what their ruling was on. The halts put in place are temporary measures until the overall matter is resolved in the courts, which will take a much longer time. The DoJ, on behalf of the Trump administration, is just trying to claim that the threat to national security is so great by halting the implementation that it should not be done. As of yet, they have been unable to make that argument satisfactorily.

The bigger question is does the litigator and chief understand that?

[Belsnickel]

(02-10-2017, 01:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: The bigger question is does the litigator and in chief understand that?

Come on, now, if you are going to use the title, phrase it correctly.

[GMDino]

(02-10-2017, 02:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Come on, now, if you are going to use the title, phrase it correctly.

Ha!
Fair enough. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Quite honestly, at this point it would be better to withdraw the EO and immediately issue a new one that is less ambiguous and based on a firmer legal foundation.  While I still think it's readily apparent that the travel and refugee ban is well within the scope of the POTUS's authority at this point getting what they want would be much quicker and significantly more simple by withdrawing and replacing.  Probably won't happen though as it would be viewed as a political defeat.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-10-2017, 02:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly, at this point it would be better to withdraw the EO and immediately issue a new one that is less ambiguous and based on a firmer legal foundation.  While I still think it's readily apparent that the travel and refugee ban is well within the scope of the POTUS's authority at this point getting what they want would be much quicker and significantly more simple by withdrawing and replacing.  Probably won't happen though as it would be viewed as a political defeat.

Honestly I think Trump thinks he's going to be able to bully his way around the court room like he does with some poor schlep he wouldn't pay.  He's going to have a rude awakening.  Whether the ban is within the scope of his authority, I'll leave for the court to decide.  However I do think the EO was completely unnecessary.  The vetting process is already very extensive lasting two years or more.   Refugees have languished for more than ten years in refugee camps in many cases.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2017, 03:33 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Honestly I think Trump thinks he's going to be able to bully his way around the court room like he does with some poor schlep he wouldn't pay.  He's going to have a rude awakening.  Whether the ban is within the scope of his authority, I'll leave for the court to decide.  However I do think the EO was completely unnecessary.  The vetting process is already very extensive lasting two years or more.   Refugees have languished for more than ten years in refugee camps in many cases.

I was making no comment, or judgment, as to the EO's necessity or whether it's morally right.  I do think you're correct that Trump is starting to learn the difference between being an autocratic CEO and an elected official, even one as powerful as the POTUS.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-10-2017, 03:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was making no comment, or judgment, as to the EO's necessity or whether it's morally right.  I do think you're correct that Trump is starting to learn the difference between being an autocratic CEO and an elected official, even one as powerful as the POTUS.

I wasn't suggesting that you were making that comment or judgment on the EO.  I was just stating that was my opinion that it was unnecessary, sorry if I made it sound like you were suggesting so.  It was not my intention.  At any rate, I don't think he's learning anything...media reports his negative actions=fake news, Judge rules against EO="so called judge"...etc.  I guess I'm just still amazed that there are people out there that voted for this guy.  As an American citizen, I'm embarrassed by it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2017, 04:14 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I wasn't suggesting that you were making that comment or judgment on the EO.  I was just stating that was my opinion that it was unnecessary, sorry if I made it sound like you were suggesting so.  It was not my intention.  At any rate, I don't think he's learning anything...media reports his negative actions=fake news, Judge rules against EO="so called judge"...etc.  I guess I'm just still amazed that there are people out there that voted for this guy.  As an American citizen, I'm embarrassed by it.

No worries and I wasn't offended or anything, just clarifying my position.  He hasn't even been in office a month, I don't think we'll get four years of the kind of behavior and reactions we've gotten the last three weeks (and no, I'm not saying he won't last four years).  As for those who voted for him, I think they're getting exactly what they voted for.  I was discussing this with friends over the weekend.  I made the point that no one should be shocked by his actions as he's doing exactly what he said he'd do on the campaign trail.  People voted him in on the exact ideas and actions that he is currently implementing.  I get that people who didn't vote for him are unhappy, but I think they drastically overestimate the "buyer's remorse" of those that did.  Again, they're getting exactly what they voted for and the impression I'm getting is that they're pleased by that.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-10-2017, 04:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No worries and I wasn't offended or anything, just clarifying my position.  He hasn't even been in office a month, I don't think we'll get four years of the kind of behavior and reactions we've gotten the last three weeks (and no, I'm not saying he won't last four years).  As for those who voted for him, I think they're getting exactly what they voted for.  I was discussing this with friends over the weekend.  I made the point that no one should be shocked by his actions as he's doing exactly what he said he'd do on the campaign trail.  People voted him in on the exact ideas and actions that he is currently implementing.  I get that people who didn't vote for him are unhappy, but I think they drastically overestimate the "buyer's remorse" of those that did.  Again, they're getting exactly what they voted for and the impression I'm getting is that they're pleased by that.

Oh I agree with everything you just posted, I can't imagine this kind of behavior for 4yrs.  But you are correct IMO that people voted for him exactly on the actions and ideas he is currently taking.  But I'd be surprised if even his own party let him have a second term.   I can't think of president from either party that acted as such a classless, sleazy, rich D-bag.  Like I said it's embarrassing.

[BoomerFan]

I just add that not all people likely voted for him for the same reasons. You can imagine a block of moderates who were worried about the rise of ISIS and terrorism (even if just abroad) who still might become disenchanted with his handling of that topic while being very unhappy with where he is on everything else. These folks are less likely to have been vocal about who they were voting for all along.

Another large group is social conservatives. It will be interesting to see how they respond. I mean, I think you can be religious and still not feel like Betsy DeVos should be anywhere near our kids. Nor does the naked avarice of Trump set a particularly good example. On the other hand, they were able to stomach voting for him in the first place. My prediction: Through incompetence or callousness of his actions yet to come some social conservatives will be turned off by Trump by 2020. That's just a guess though -- I could be totally wrong.

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/11/immigrant-communities-fearful-after-hundreds-arrested-what-feds-call-routine-surge/97786276/

Quote:Hundreds of undocumented immigrants were rounded up this week in a half-dozen states in what advocacy groups and a U.S. congressman from Texas call targeted raids. Immigration officials, however, cast the arrests as a routine enforcement "surge" while acknowledging the bar for deportation has been lowered.


Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed operations in more than a half-dozen cities and states, including Chicago, Georgia, Los Angeles, New York, South Carolina, North Carolina and Texas.

ICE officials reported 161 arrests in Southern California over the past five days and 192 arrests in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina alone. Advocacy groups began receiving calls Thursday from immigrants and their lawyers reporting raids at homes and businesses in the greater Los Angeles area.

In one case, agents showed up at the home of a 50-year-old house painter named Manuel Mosqueda in the Los Angeles suburbs looking to arrest an immigrant who wasn’t there. In the process, they spoke with Mosqueda, arrested him and put him on a bus to Mexico — though lawyers were able to halt his deportation and bring him back, the Associated Press reported.

In Austin, the Mexican Consulate told the American-Statesman that 30 Mexican immigrants were detained by ICE on Friday and 14 were detained Thursday. By comparison, the Austin consulate had seen an average of four to five Mexican immigrants detained daily in recent years.
ICE officials insisted the arrests were routine operations carried out severals times each year and targeted individual criminals, not communities. Gillian Christensen, acting press secretary for the department of Homeland Security, said ICE "does not conduct sweeps or raids that target aliens indiscriminately," KTLA reported.
[/url]
Advocacy groups and some Democratic politicians, however, viewed the arrests as a new move against undocumented immigrants in the wake of a sweeping executive order signed Jan. 25 by President Trump.

That order made clear that just about any immigrant living in the country illegally could be a priority for deportation, particularly those with outstanding deportation orders. It also said enforcement priorities would include convicted criminals, immigrants who had been arrested for any criminal offense, those who committed fraud, and anyone who may have committed a crime.

Under President Obama, more than 2 million people were deported, including a record of more than 409,000 in 2012, but the government focused on immigrants in the country illegally who posed a threat to national security or public safety and those who recently crossed the border.

“These reports show the serious consequences of (Trump's) executive order, which allows all undocumented immigrants to be categorized as criminals and requires increased enforcement in communities, rather than prioritizing dangerous criminals,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,  said in a statement.

“This is retaliatory and it is a way to provide political cover ― ‘Look what we’re doing, we’re out there being tough on criminals’ ― when in reality, they’re breaking up families,” Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., told The Huffington Post. “It’s callous and it’s very, very dangerous.”

The arrests are playing out against a backdrop of fear within immigrant communities, underscored by the deportation Thursday of an Arizona woman, and mother of two American-born children, who came to the U.S. 22 years ago as a 14-year-old.

The deportation of Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, 36, of Mesa, Ariz., who was taken into custody Wednesday during a routine check-in at the Phoenix offices of ICE, prompted the Mexican government to warn of a "new reality" for its citizens living in the United States and advised them to "take precautions."

Her removal also signaled that federal authorities, who have focused in recent years on the worst criminals for deportation, were lowering the bar. Rayos, who was convicted in 2008 of using a fake Social Security card, had been reporting in regularly to immigration officials but until Wednesday had been allowed to remain in the country.

Fears of a crackdown have been mired in recent days in something of a semantic game over what is — and isn't  — "routine" between advocacy groups, immigrants communities and federal authorities.

U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, said Friday that he was informed by ICE officials in San Antonio of the launch of "a targeted operation in South and Central Texas as part of Operation 'Cross Check.'"

“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state. I will continue to monitor this situation," he said.

In Los Angeles, David Marin, field office director for ICE enforcement and removal operations in the Los Angeles area, announced Friday that 161 people were arrested in six Southern California counties over the past five days in what he called an "enforcement surge." He denied reports that the operations amounted to mass arrests.

"The rash of these recent reports about ICE checkpoints and random sweeps and the like — it is all false, and it is definitely dangerous and irresponsible because reports like that create a panic, and they put communities and law enforcement at risk,” he told reporters on a conference call. He said the operation was planned prior to President Trump taking office.

He noted that 151 of the arrests involved people with criminal records, with about 75% having been previously convicted of felonies, including child sex crimes, weapons charges and assault. Marin said five people were detained because they had final deportation orders already in place.
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/10/border-wall-would-cost-216-billion-homeland-security-report-says/97769162/]

The other five people deported had no criminal record. Marin said those five would not have fallen under the enforcement priority list under Obama, but did so now under Trump's executive order, an indication of changes afoot under the new directive.

Another sign of change came from comments before Congress by new Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who indicated the use of new tactics for enforcing immigration laws. He told lawmakers that immigration agents expressed frustration that they were not fully allowed to enforce immigration laws under the Obama administration. He predicted Trump’s directives would end that frustration.

“I think their morale has suffered because of the job they were hired to do, and then in their sense, they’re … kind of hobbled or, you know, hands tied behind their back, that kind of thing,” Kelly told the House Homeland Security Committee. “And now, they feel more positive about things. I bet if you watch the morale issue, you’ll ... be surprised going forward.”

A report released Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center estimates more than 2.5 million immigrants in the country illegally live in the metropolitan areas of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, which have pledged to fight President Trump’s plans to expand deportations.

In addition, 37% of immigrants living in Phoenix, Houston, Dallas and Denver lack legal status, compared to 26% nationwide, the report said.

Coming door to door to see your papers.  Straight on the bus to Mexico (even they aren't from there).

[Belsnickel]

I'm surprised no one has brought up the beefed up security needed for the judges because of the death threats they received for their ruling on the order.

[*bfine32*]

(02-11-2017, 03:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm surprised no one has brought up the beefed up security needed for the judges because of the death threats they received for their ruling on the order.

Welp......

[BmorePat87]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-judge-234980

James Robart, the judge that Trump referred to as a "so called judge" has denied the DOJ's request to put a lawsuit over the immigration ban on hold. Robart referred to a Trump tweet and said "I thought the president said, We'll see you in court?". He called the matter time sensitive and the next likely step will be discovery, which puts pressure on the DOJ to provide evidence for their case, something they seemed unable to do when they appeared before the appeals court.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-11-2017, 06:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp......

He sure is a good piss drinking christian passivist.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2017, 02:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-judge-234980

James Robart, the judge that Trump referred to as a "so called judge" has denied the DOJ's request to put a lawsuit over the immigration ban on hold. Robart referred to a Trump tweet and said "I thought the president said, We'll see you in court?". He called the matter time sensitive and the next likely step will be discovery, which puts pressure on the DOJ to provide evidence for their case, something they seemed unable to do when they appeared before the appeals court.

Even Trump seems to understand they could just rewrite it to be legal.

(btw, where are all the constitutional scholars here who were sure it would be found legal?)

But doing that would be admitting he did something wrong and that he lost.  I mean *we* all know he's lost in court many, many times, but he'd never admit to a failure.  He still thinks they are selling Trump Steaks.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-14-2017, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Even Trump seems to understand they could just rewrite it to be legal.

(btw, where are all the constitutional scholars here who were sure it would be found legal?)

But doing that would be admitting he did something wrong and that he lost.  I mean *we* all know he's lost in court many, many times, but he'd never admit to a failure.  He still thinks they are selling Trump Steaks.

Still waiting on a ruling?