Trumps Immigration Executive Order

[GMDino]

(02-14-2017, 10:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Still waiting on a ruling?

I suppose.

LOL!

I was getting at those who were SURE it would be upheld...and it wasn't.

Now we'll see how it holds up in a higher court if the Administration can present any evidence for it.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-14-2017, 10:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: I suppose.

LOL!

I was getting at those who were SURE it would be upheld...and it wasn't.

Now we'll see how it holds up in a higher court if the Administration can present any evidence for it.

According to Matt that isn't the case.  The merits of the order itself have not been ruled on.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2017, 10:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: According to Matt that isn't the case.  The merits of the order itself have not been ruled on.

The initial stay.

The appeal only ruled on whether the issue could even be reviewed.

[Belsnickel]

(02-14-2017, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

I was telling my wife this morning that even though Trump is no stranger to lawsuits, including ones for lots of money, it's still like the difference between college and pros.

(02-14-2017, 10:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: According to Matt that isn't the case.  The merits of the order itself have not been ruled on.

(02-14-2017, 10:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: The initial stay.

The appeal only ruled on whether the issue could even be reviewed.

We have seen judges make comments that they don't believe the order to be legal, but we haven't seen an official ruling on the actual order itself. We have seen stays/injunctions/restraining orders/etc. that prevent the order from being carried out until there is a ruling on the merits of the order. I think we will likely see the other cases held for Judge Robart's decisions, then the 9th, and then SCOTUS. This, believe, can't be picked up by SCOTUS through original jurisdiction, only through appellate.

Of course, this will all be moot if another EO is issued, which is what I anticipate.

Disclaimer: I have not read every court order, obviously, just some summaries and reports from sources I use for my news that give more raw details. I could have missed something and there was a ruling, but I don't think there has been because of the different language that would be used for that.

[BmorePat87]

(02-14-2017, 10:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Still waiting on a ruling?

Yea, the so called judge who put a hold on enforcement is now allowing the case to move forward. Best guess from the stories I have read is this means it will move to discovery after this, which is why the administration was trying to stall it, they were not able to present evidence that there was a national security risk.

All still pre-trial, no idea of when the trial will even be held.

[Belsnickel]

Wow, page 3. I just didn't want to create a new thread since this belongs here. It's a story about where I live that our local public radio station did.

http://wmra.org/post/new-anxiety-harrisonburgs-refugees-and-immigrants

[GMDino]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/border-patrol-agents-stop-domestic-travelers-at-new-york-airport-w468643

Quote:Border Patrol Agents Stop Domestic Travelers at New York Airport

A search for a deportation target leads to a demand for travelers' "papers" at JFK
CBP agents, like the one pictured here in January in Atlanta, searched travelers from a domestic flight in New York City Wednesday. Erik S. Lesser/EPA/Redux
By Tim Dickinson
19 hours ago[/url]

Passengers of a domestic Delta flight from San Francisco to New York were told to show their identity documents to uniformed agents of the Customs and Border Protection agency upon their arrival at John F. Kennedy airport on Wednesday evening.



CBP officers are border agents, whose statutory authority is generally limited to international arrivals.

CBP agents inspected passenger identifications on the jetbridge by the door of the aircraft. A CBP spokesman insisted to Rolling Stone that this action is "nothing new" and that there is "no new policy." But the unusual – and legally questionable – search of domestic travelers comes days after the Department of Homeland Security [url=https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/02/21/secretary-kelly-issues-implementation-memoranda-border-security-and-interior]outlined its plans to implement President Trump's sweeping executive order targeting millions of "removable aliens" for deportation.
Upon deplaning from Delta Flight 1583 in New York, passenger Anne Garrett tweeted, "We were told we couldn't disembark without showing our 'documents.'"

My flight from SFO to JFK. We were told we couldn't disembark without showing our "documents." pic.twitter.com/9ugQspTqeX

— Anne Garrett (@annediego) February 23, 2017

Another passenger, Matt O'Rourke, snapped a similar picture. O'Rourke tells Rolling Stone that the Delta flight attendant alerted passengers, "You'll need to show your papers to agents waiting outside the door."

"She was weirded out by it," he says. The agents, O'Rourke says, said nothing to him, but took his ID and scrutinized it for nearly 30 seconds before letting him pass. He describes the experience as "a little bit alarming." Only later did O'Rourke find himself asking, "Why is a customs agent doing this search? The flight didn't enter from another country."

In a statement to Rolling Stone, a spokesperson for CBP said the agency had been asked "to assist in locating an individual possibly aboard Delta flight 1583" who had been "ordered removed by an immigration judge." The spokesman added that CBP agents "requested identification from those on the flight" but that ultimately "[t]he individual was determined not to be on the flight."

Rolling Stone asked CBP to point to its statutory authority to stop and examine the identity documents of deplaning domestic passengers. The spokesman sent a link to a document titled CBP Search Authority. The document refers to CBP's authority to inspect international arrivals. Specifically, it cites 19 C.F.R. 162.6, which states, "All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer." The CBP document adds: "CBP has the authority to collect passenger name record information on all travelers entering or leaving the United States." (Emphasis added.)

Asked to clarify CBP's authority over domestic passengers, the spokesman replied that "at this time this is all I have."
Rolling Stone asked CBP to clarify whether the CBP document search was truly a "request" – or instead a legally binding demand by the agents. The spokesman again could not clarify CBP's legal authority, warning only, "It is always best to cooperate with law enforcement, so as to expedite your exiting the airport in a timely manner."

Rolling Stone asked the New York Civil Liberties Union for its understanding of the law in this incident. NYCLU Staff Attorney Jordan Wells writes that "CBP does not have carte blanche to refuse to let people off a domestic flight until they show ID." His advice: "While one may choose to produce identity documents to avoid further hassle, it is important to remember that in the United States people have a constitutionally protected right to remain silent."

[GMDino]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/25/trump-rejects-dhs-intelligence-report-on-travel-ban.html

Quote:Trump rejects DHS intelligence report on travel ban


Officials in President Trump’s administration Friday downplayed an intelligence report by the Homeland Security Department that contradicts the White House’s main arguement for implementing a travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The report, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press, determined that the "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity."

The Trump administration has taken the position that immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries should be blocked from the U.S. due to their terror risk. Trump used terrorism a primary justification when he announced the now court-blocked travel ban in late January.
The intelligence report found that in the past six years, foreign-born individuals who were “inspired” to strike in the U.S. came from 26 different countries.


Senior White House Policy Adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News' "First 100 Days" Tuesday that a revised version of the travel ban would "have the same basic policy outcome."

A senior administration official told The Wall Street Journal that the DHS report’s assessment overlooked key information and the finished product that the White House requested has not been completed. The White House called the report politically motivated. Officials said it overlooked some information that supported the ban.

“The president asked for an intelligence assessment,” the official said. “This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for.”

The draft report determined that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

Gillian Christensen, a DHS spokeswoman, does not dispute the report's authenticity, but says it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.

“It is clear on its face that it is an incomplete product that fails to find evidence of terrorism by simply refusing to look at all the available evidence,” she said, according to The Journal. “Any suggestion by opponents of the president’s policies that senior (homeland security) intelligence officials would politicize this process or a report’s final conclusions is absurd and not factually accurate. The dispute with this product was over sources and quality, not politics.”

[GMDino]

Just getting rid of the "bad hombres".

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Immigration-agents-deport-Houston-father-of-two-10973728.php?t=e842b1a3cc438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium

Quote:Jose Escobar lost his legal status in a paperwork gaffe more than a decade ago when he was still a teen in Houston.

That slip-up, the fault of his mother who thought her child would be automatically included in her own renewal application, has trailed him ever since. Thursday it led to his surprise deportation to El Salvador, a country he hasn't seen in 16 years.

The government's decision to remove the 31-year-old father, who has no criminal record and is married to an American citizen, is the latest indication that President Donald Trump's administration plans to deport practically any immigrant here illegally, even some like Escobar who were temporarily protected, who happens to fall into its cross hairs.

It comes just days after the president told Congress that he was removing gang members and drug dealers just as he had promised.

"Bad ones are going out as I speak," Trump said.

Left behind now is Escobar's wife Rose, a receptionist at Texas Children's Hospital, and their two small children. It escalates the fear felt by many immigrants across the nation as they realize they are increasingly at risk.

"What the president is doing is going after everyone," said David Leopold, an Ohio immigration attorney and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "This case is a tragic example of what's happening on the ground."
Photo: Marie D. De Jesus, Houston Chronicle


Rose Marie Ascencio-Escobar, 30, holds a photo of her husband Jose Escobar, 31..
Jose called Rose at around 2:30 p.m. Thursday to tell her that he was in the San Salvador airport and too terrified to step outside. The removal came after their lawyer, Raed Gonzalez, requested a stay of deportation to reopen Jose's case. The government never responded, he said.

Cesar Espinosa, executive director of the advocacy group FIEL Houston, said Jose's deportation would heighten anxiety across the city.

"It just sends a shock wave through the community," he said. "It's all coming to fruition and it's very scary."

The Escobars had thought they were safe. Since 2012, Jose has had a temporary reprieve from deportation and a work permit. He checked in with immigration authorities every year.


Then Trump's administration last week issued its new guidelines, making almost every immigrant here illegally a priority for deportation. When the Escobars showed up at their routine appointment on Feb. 22, immigration agents told Rose to bid her husband goodbye.

She went outside and sobbed. Then she vowed to fight. She comforted herself that she had been here before, when Jose was first detained in 2011, and that she had won that battle. After an intense 7-month media and congressional campaign, immigration agents released Jose, granting him the reprieve.

His was part of a wave of provisional stays announced that year by the administration of former President Barack Obama, who said he wanted to focus the government's limited resources on deporting violent criminals, rather than people like Jose with clean records who had been here for years and have American children.

Jose came here when he was 15, qualifying for temporary protected status for people fleeing widespread disasters in certain countries. Then his mother assumed her renewal application covered him.

When he finally figured out that his permit had instead expired, it was too late. The government had already initiated deportation proceedings. His lawyer told him not to show up at the court hearing and in his absence, a judge ordered him removed in 2006.

By then, Jose was married to Rose, his childhood sweetheart whom he met in a Houston middle school. They tried to apply for his green card through his marriage to an American citizen, but lawyers said that he might risk waiting years in El Salvador because he had been here illegally.

Not knowing what to do, they carried on with their lives. They had a son, Walter. Then in 2011, immigration agents arrested Jose on the old deportation order.

Rose recruited the help of U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat, and in January 2012, Jose was released on an order of supervision, a provisional stay of deportation in a process known broadly as prosecutorial discretion.
But now the previous focus on violent criminals has been widened to almost anyone here illegally.

The change has swept fear across the country that has been heightened by widespread raids and incidents like the arrest this week of 22-year-old Daniela Vargas in Mississippi. Vargas previously had a protected status for young immigrants who were brought here illegally as children. Her permit expired last November, though she had since filed to renew it.

"This clearly sends a message," said Bill Stock, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "Now the dragnet is meant to capture whomever it captures."

Some argue that is a good thing, in keeping with Trump's promises during the campaign to stop illegal immigration.

"They are facing consequences for their choices," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington D.C. think tank advocating for reduced immigration, in an email. "Some people think it's not fair, but many others think it's not fair to ... look the other way when people remain here illegally."

Rose doesn't think it's fair to take her husband away from her children, especially when he was complying with immigration instructions and not committing any crimes beyond being here illegally - a situation he couldn't fix.

"I'm begging President Donald Trump to look into my case and see if my husband is really destroying America," Rose said at an emotional press conference.

She said her husband is shuttered in her grandmother's house in San Salvador, afraid to go outside in case the capital city's many gangs attacked him when they recognized his American clothes.

She worries about how she will explain it all to Walter, who is 7.

"He just went somewhere boring," she told him last week.

Since then, she's said that Jose is actually on vacation. But she knows she will have to explain it to her son soon. Her daughter Carmen, who is 2, is too young to understand.

Once again, Rose promised not to give up.

"My husband is coming back and he's coming back legally," she said. "I'm going to be his voice and my children's voice and the voice of those families who are being torn apart."

This is what happens when you have someone making the plans who doesn't care about "details" as long as it looks like he's a tough guy "keeping his word".