Giddy-looking Jeff Sessions calls deporting children the “compassionate thing to do”
The Trump administration's decision to punish 800,000 Americans who came to this country as children is the opposite of "compassionate."
In an act of cowardice, where he refused to take any questions, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Trump administration’s termination of DACA, the program that allows immigrants who came to the United States as children to remain in their homes.
Sessions has long been a staunch supporter of anti-immigrant policies, and he could hardly hide his delight in announcing this dreadful policy reversal — a reversal that could affect 800,000 immigrants and cost the United States $460 billion .
This, according to Sessions, is the “compassionate thing to do.”
During his remarks, Sessions also spewed a number of repeatedly debunked lies about the supposed drain on American resources caused by immigrant children and that their very presence in the United States somehow increases crime rates. Those claims are blatantly false and are nothing more than a perpetuation of ugly racist stereotypes that have no basis in fact. The vast majority of so-called DREAMers are employed or in school and are contributing to the economy and to the country.
In fact, DREAMers have lost their lives helping others in Houston in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. Jesus Contreras was brought to the United States from Mexico when he was 6 years old. He has been serving his community as a paramedic in Houston. Alonso Guillen, a DACA recipient, drowned in the flooding in Houston, working on a boat to rescue others.
These are the people Sessions and Trump think do not belong in this country.
Sessions also had the audacity to claim that kicking people out of the only home they ever known represents the Trump administration’s dedication to the “rule of law.” It’s an absurd and not credible thing to say only weeks after Donald Trump pardoned the criminally racist former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who flagrantly disobeyed a court order and was convicted of criminal contempt.
Trump cared nothing about the rule of law when he issued that pardon, and other actions by him and his inner circle to circumvent the law — on everything from him using his presidency to personally profit, to his potential obstruction of justice by trying to shut down the investigation into his campaign’s collusion with Russia — have made a disgraceful mockery of the rule of law and the Constitution.
Trump himself did not even have the courage to make the announcement himself. While he callously teased the expected announcement on Twitter, he left Sessions to do the dirty work of making the announcement. Trump, in fact, will not be facing any questions about this unthinkably cruel policy. Trump has not held a solo press conference in more than 200 days , clearly afraid to be held accountable by the media for his actions.
Make no mistake: The decision to punish children for whom America is their home is will have far-reaching and very negative effects for the United States. And it is the opposite of compassionate.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
110 visitors
This is Trump's revenge on the GOP Congress.
If they uphold his order , some of them will put their seats in jeopardy over the next few years.
Sessions can barely contain his excitement about getting back into Trump's good graces.
He looks like he is having a minty explosion inside his mouth.
Don't think I'd call Trump "minty".....
The order rescinding Obama's established illegal executive order comes with a 6 month waiting period to allow congress to get off their collective asses and do something about the problem.
Yes T-Rump is throwing it back at congress, cause it was their failure to get it done which caused Obama to issue the illegal order in the first place.
I would say it's an extremely smart political move....
Let congress put the political noose back around their necks.
The idea is to get the political quagmire of Congress functioning again.
Which was also a campaign promise.
To kids and adults who were brought here as innocent kids, Trump's actions are the equivalent of a motion to deport Americans who are left handed. You see this as a good way to get congress to do their job - they see it (rightly) as playing with their lives.
they see it (rightly) as playing with their lives.
They should see it as a way to stay for at least two more years.
They now have a chance. If the court enjoins enforcement as they did DAPA then ICE has all of those registration forms dreamers filled out. Won't take long to find them. What Trump did is much better than a negative court ruling.
Now there is a chance to pass a dream act. Without Trump's action it could be immediate deportation.
Don't punish kids for their parent's crime!
They should see it as a way to stay for at least two more years.
Tell that to Donald Trump. He's telling them to get their affairs in order.
If congress doesn't act in six months they should have their affairs in order.
Trump isn't cancelling deferments that have already been issued. Dreamers also will have until March to renew. That means another two years.
This isn't going to be a knock on the door this afternoon situation.
If congress doesn't act in six months they should have their affairs in order.
You say that so casually. Are you as casual about this statement of yours?
Don't punish kids for their parent's crime!
How can you tell tone of voice from text? How do you know I was casual about anything?
As to the six months. Any dreamer who has been here following politics knows there is a chance that the doofuses in congress won't act. Now would be a good time to prepare for the worst.
I am not casual about not punishing kids for the crimes of their parents. If I say it then I mean it.
To kids and adults who were brought here as innocent kids, Trump's actions are the equivalent of a motion to deport America...
To me, it's like having people removed from my house after they climbed in through the kitchen window while I was sleeping. I don't care why they climbed in or how old they are; I want them all removed.
In the Constitutional thing to do.
Nice change to have a President that respects the separation of powers
"Nice change to have a President that respects the separation of powers" You're kidding, right?
You are kidding, right?
He isn't kidding. It is nice to have a president who respects the separation of power. DACA is going to congress where it should have been all along until it passed. Obama said the program was temporary. He also said he didn't have the power to do what he did. That's why the court enjoined DAPA. The court is nearing rulings on DACA. It won't stand a chance in court.
Time for the congress to do what they should have done long ago and pass a dream act.
pass a dream act.
Let's see .... it was gridlocked there already (thanks to Republicans), and now there's more Republicans in congress. Hmmm.
Sad isn't it? For what it costs to have those suckers in DC we should demand more from them. I am getting sick of the scoring political points instead of doing their jobs.
I wasn't talking to you.
I agree with NWM that throwing this into Congress's lap is smart. DACA was an executive overreach by Obama and ending it in 6 months gives congress a chance to legislate without abruptly ending the program. That's better than going to their address of record and kicking them out of the country (DACA is, after all, a list of illegal aliens).
Illegal aliens deliberately brought their children here, knowing that they could be deported at any time. Although deporting children is harsh, illegal immigration will never stop if you reward bad behavior by letting illegal aliens stay simply because their parents brought them here. That rationale will encourage more illegal aliens to bring their children in the hopes that can stay and the problem will continue. This needs to stop. If I were a republican, I wouldn't bother negotiating a deal with democrats because their support for sanctuary cities clearly demonstrates that they have no intention whatsoever of curbing illegal immigration.
It is not so tough to do. Go to USCIS web page.....get application and apply.
"Bad facts make bad law"
Sometimes there are situations — “bad facts” — that are so unusual or so horrifying or both — that they force jurists to make legal decisions in line with what any normal person would consider to be just but with unintended side effects that make “bad law,” that is, bad legal precedent.
An example is a Texas case where a drunk driver hit a car carrying a pregnant woman whose fetus was seriously damaged, was delivered alive by C-section but then died.
He was charged with manslaughter in the death of the fetus, but the law required there be the death of “another,” and “another” was defined by law to be “a person” and a person was defined to be “an individual,” and an “individual” was defined by law as “a human being who has been born and is alive”.
Since the initial injury was not to something that had not yet been born, this became the basis for the defense’s contention the driver could not be charged with intoxication manslaughter. This was not an abortion case but the circumstances instantly made what was a just decision — that the drunk driver should be punished for the loss of this pregnancy and the damage it did to the family — into one with vast consequences, once the verdict was upheld and became “settled law.”
An ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IS a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.
No argument from me on the law … it's clear and unambiguous …
UP TO A POINT, THAT IS …
But what about the child who was brought into the U.S. by an illegal immigrant parent … A CHILD WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OR CONCEPT REGARDING HIS OR HER BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT UNDER THE LAW?
And what about if that child and hundreds of thousands of others grow up as "Americans" in every other way …
… And are productive, working, in the U.S. Military, paying taxes, paying into social security, are law-abiding citizens, speak english …
What about that?
Sessions lied his ass off today … and reasonable people should be outraged that he'd deceive them to appease a xenophobic element in the U.S. who KNOW NOTHING OF THE REALITIES OF DACA INDIVIDUALS …
So, let me give you some facts and you decide if a law deporting DACA people is going to ignore the GOOD FACTS AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICA.
Here are six points to consider:
Undocumented youth who are enrolled in or eligible for DACA pay roughly $2 billion each year in state and local taxes.
Young people eligible for DACA pay 8.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes—nearly the same as the 9.4 percent paid by the middle 20 percent of taxpayers (and higher than the 5.4 percent paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers).
Continuing DACA and ensuring all who are eligible for the program are enrolled would increase estimated state and local revenue by $425 million, bringing the total contribution to $2.45 billion.
Creating a path to citizenship for DACA-eligible youth would increase their state and local tax payments by $505 million—for a total of $2.53 billion a year.
Not surprisingly, DACA yields the most tax revenue in the five largest immigrant-receiving states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois. However, every state would lose a significant amount of tax revenue if DACA were rescinded.
Ending DACA would decrease state and local revenue by roughly $800 million per year.
DACA deportations could cost US economy more than $400 billion
Close the barn door starting now … BEFORE THE THOROUGNBREDS ARE ALLOWED TO "ESCAPE" … and let us not cut off our economic and humanistic noses to spite our faces.
IT AIN'T PERFECT …
Reality never is.
And please, let's avoid the xenophobic "stand on principles" and reason intelligently.
But what about the child who was brought into the U.S. by an illegal immigrant parent … A CHILD WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OR CONCEPT REGARDING HIS OR HER BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT UNDER THE LAW?
Nobody has a right to be here illegally. Period. Parents are responsible for bringing children here illegally, not the United States government, and the parents should work out the consequences of their actions with their children when they all return home.
Nobody has a right to be here illegally. Period. Parents are responsible for bringing children here illegally, not the United States government, and the parents should work out the consequences of their actions with their children when they all return home.
I have acknowledged the illegality … no dispute …
Forgive my silly, sentimental, humanistic and economically-viable reasons to consider win-win exceptions that hurt no one.
Going forward, by all means, I am more-or-less in agreement with you.
Even the Constitution includes a process to amend itself, and, whether frequently amended or not, an intelligent government doesn't lock itself into principle that fucks it!
. . . To consider win win exceptions that hurt no one.
It hurts the system by encouraging people to jump the fence and, conversely, by discouraging others from following the law. Why waste time and money trying to comply with the law when you can jump the fence for free right now with a slap on the wrist (assuming you ever get caught)?
I clearly stated that going forward we pretty much agree ... But you have ignored all the substantive positives that I posted ... As if there were no upsides to DACA as it currently stands, and also ignored the extreme downsides.
I clearly stated that going forward we pretty much agree ... But you have ignored all the substantive positives that I posted ... As if there were no upsides to DACA as it currently stands, and also ignored the extreme downsides.
All I see is a constant erosion of the law. If you give relief on the basis that children aren't responsible, then what in your plan going forward stops DACA participants from doubling, tripping, and quadrupling? The children of the future will be no more responsible for being here than the children of the past.
All I see is a constant erosion of the law
Yeah … that's why you won't look at the common sense that begs to deal with what is … with a huge upside.
Sometimes we "step in it" and we get lucky … while not an intelligent "strategy," what xenophobic-panderer idiocy throws out the baby, etc.?
Shit happened … we found a pony under it … not likely to happen again, so, make sure as a nation, we impose more intelligent immigration laws … but don't be blind to what you got serendipitously!
Yeah … that's why you won't look at the common sense that begs to deal with what is … with a huge upside.
Common sense tells me that something must change to get a different result. What will you change?
Already addressed going forward ... Once in a while I wish you would do something other than dismiss out-of-hand, the efficacy of parties on opposite sides of a sticky issue, working towards a realistic, pragmatic middle ground.
Reality rarely is comprised of either-or solutions.
By the way, Trump just blinked!
Of course he blinked . He'll blink again tomorrow in the other direction. He is making it up as he goes along.
Already addressed going forward ... Once in a while I wish you would do something other than dismiss out-of-hand, the efficacy of parties on opposite sides of a sticky issue, working towards a realistic, pragmatic middle ground.
I didn't see your plan going forward so I'll ask the question again. Would you cut DACA off in the future for new enrollment and, if so, how are the kids of the future more responsible for being here than the kids of the past?
I would restructure immigration so that there'd be no legal scenario leading to a DACA.
Understanding that no enforcement protocol is without holes, nevertheless, standards for legal immigration must include education/skill levels, language proficiency ...
But ... Legal Exceptions must also be established for refugees with well-defined parameters.
Obviously this is a summary overview, but I attempted to give a reasonable response.
I would restructure immigration so that there'd be no legal scenario leading to a DACA.
I assume that the restructuring will be preceded by something other than you waving your hands and muttering an incantation. As long as crossing the border is illegal and illegal aliens jump the fence with their children, how would your rationale for DACA ever end? Specifically, what would you restructure?
At any point during their illegal stay in the U.S. a process could have taken place whereby the children could be here legally. No, that was not their guardian's choice.
Imagine the consequences if this was in any other part of this world.
800.000 is mind boggling! We have children who are U.S. citizens who can't afford to go to college. We have U.S. citizens who sleep on the streets. we have U.S. c itizens who make minimum wage and are destitute. We have U.S. citizens who can't afford health care.
Sometimes, you have to put your heart aside and realize that you owe your best to the ones who brung you.
At any point during their illegal stay in the U.S. a process could have taken place whereby the children could be here legally. No, that was not their guardian's choice.
The guardians had nothing to do with the failure of Congress to address the issue … FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING THE XENOPHOBIC VOTER!
Imagine the consequences if this was in any other part of this world.
Huh?
800.000 is mind boggling! We have children who are U.S. citizens who can't afford to go to college. We have U.S. citizens who sleep on the streets. we have U.S. c itizens who make minimum wage and are destitute. We have U.S. citizens who can't afford health care.
Again, the same failures of a Congress that fails to pass reasonable wage laws, that allows corporations to pay little or now business taxes while taking subsidies and making record profits, TO PASS A LAW LIKE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE … you cannot put any of that on DACA!
And WHY DO YOU AND SOME OTHERS FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE REALITIES?
Here Are Six Points To Consider:
Undocumented Youth Who Are Enrolled In Or Eligible For DACA Pay Roughly $2 Billion Each Year In State And Local Taxes.
Young People Eligible For DACA Pay 8.9 Percent Of Their Income In State And Local Taxes—Nearly The Same As The 9.4 Percent Paid By The Middle 20 Percent Of Taxpayers (And Higher Than The 5.4 Percent Paid By The Top 1 Percent Of Taxpayers).
Continuing DACA And Ensuring All Who Are Eligible For The Program Are Enrolled Would Increase Estimated State And Local Revenue By $425 Million, Bringing The Total Contribution To $2.45 Billion.
Creating A Path To Citizenship For DACA-Eligible Youth Would Increase Their State And Local Tax Payments By $505 Million—For A Total Of $2.53 Billion A Year.
Not Surprisingly, DACA Yields The Most Tax Revenue In The Five Largest Immigrant-Receiving States: California, Texas, Florida, New York, And Illinois. However, Every State Would Lose A Significant Amount Of Tax Revenue If DACA Were Rescinded.
Ending DACA Would Decrease State And Local Revenue By Roughly $800 Million Per Year.
DACA Deportations Could Cost US Economy More Than $400 Billion
Sometimes, you have to put your heart aside and realize that you owe your best to the ones who brung you.
And other times, you have to avoid deluding yourself by "thinking" in such platitudes … THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS A HEART AND A MIND … please do not pretend that there is no HUGE ECONOMIC UPSIDE TO DACA AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS …
A POTUS that panders to xenophobes could cost the U.S. hundreds of billions that might mitigate some of your laments …
The guardians had nothing to do with the failure of Congress to address the issue … FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING THE XENOPHOBIC VOTER
Congress didn't force anybody over the fence. The guardians jumped the fence on their own and with their children knowing it was illegal and that they could be deported when caught. They should be thankful for getting away with it for as long as they did.
More and more I find that this President and his supporters are a danger to my health. I didn't think I could get any more sad but I can.
I don't understand how some people can enjoy hurting others. I am at a loss.
I read an article today that called this decision a response to the blood lust of the trump supporter.
That conclusion also meshes with the idea that "he may be an asshole but he's our asshole" that Trumpsters are so proud of.
I guess. All I know is that he disappoints me day after day.
I don't understand how some people can enjoy hurting others. I am at a loss.
It's easy. Tell them to stop jumping the damn fence and then we can all be happy.
Are you trying to pick a fight tonight 1ofmany? I just want to warn you that I'm on a roll this week. Just yesterday I bested Bruce. He cried and whined and said I didn't best him - but let me be clear - I sunk his battleship. hahahahaha
Oh please . . . any excuse to play with my sword.
Let me piss away a few minutes by trying to appeal to reason.
A man and his family lived in a house, and, over time, came to learn that the builder of that house had used materials he acquired in a manner contrary to law.
The home owner, upon discovering this reality, called in a number of experts to determine the viability of his house, its current market value, and, to get projections as to how the value might appreciate.
The reports were all positive beyond expectations ...
The homeowner, being a person of principle, had the house demolished.
_____________________________________________________
I just can't wait to see how this very clear analogy will be twisted, evaded and its point intentionally avoided.
Surprise me.
Obama said his EO was temporary and probably beyond his authority to do.
Now is a good time to enact DACA as law and not an EO. The dysfunctional Reps probably can't unless enough Dems get on board to pass it.
My only requirement is that the kids get to apply for citizenship and their parents never get citizenship.
Now is a good time to enact DACA as law and not an EO. The dysfunctional Reps probably can't unless enough Dems get on board to pass it.
Obama left this pile of crap. Trump shoveled it into congress where it belongs. Congress will throw it back and forth as republicans increasingly panic about being unseated by an immigration hawk. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan will hedge on passing immigration legislation with mostly votes from democrats and DACA will die.
I am on the "half full" side. It's one thing to jack up appointments By Trump but another to jack up innocent people's lives.
I am an immigration hawk. Build the wall! I also won't punish the child for the illegal action of their parents. I would want the law to not be a reward or incentive for more so the law will have a date that would exclude children who were brought in less than a year prior to the enactment.
Given the approval rating of congress is lower than the president's, while being optimistic there is still a chance they will botch it.
I am an immigration hawk. Build the wall! I also won't punish the child for the illegal action of their parents. I would want the law to not be a reward or incentive for more so the law will have a date that would exclude children who were brought in less than a year prior to the enactment.
Your solution doesn't punish the children already here but punishes them going forward. As long as we have democrat run sanctuary cities, illegal aliens wil continue to enter the country and they will bring their children. Once here, democrats will again say that kicking the children out punishes the children for the actions of their parents. In the future, will you say let them stay or kick them out? If it's let them stay, then there was no point in setting your date in the law. If it's kick them out, then your rationale of not punishing children just fell apart.
Personally, I don't look at it as punishing children. If a parent broke into a vacant house and moved in with their children, they will all be evicted by the police when discovered. The children are not being punished but rather removed because they have no right to be in the house. The children can't stay just because they're not accountable for their parents' actions. Same goes if the parent jumped the fence so he and his children could see a ball game for free. . . they are all put out. Send one clear message to illegal aliens . . . none of you can stay and, once discovered, you will all be deported.
Disagree with your analogies; the dependent children of felons are not tried and convicted and incarcerated as if they were co-perpetrators or accessories to the crimes committed by their parents!
Imprisoning children under certain circumstances is a crime against humanity …
"Crimes against humanity are criminal acts that target a group of people based on their religion, ethnicity, or some other trait, which is not a direct result of something that group has done."
And while I agree that DACA children ARE, IN FACT, HERE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF SOMETHING THEIR PARENTS DID ILLEGALLY, IMO, when "justice" is blind to the point of being inhuman, entirely dispassionate and brutally objective … we lose all rights to the claim of being a (so-called) "Christian Nation" … and any other attribute that allegedly makes America "GREAT" …
NO! We do not visit the sins of the father on their innocent children! And the Evangelical hypocrites who are so delusional as to think they can, in any sane manner, simultaneously love God, Trump and Sessions …
… a pox on all their houses!
If a child who has landed in limbo through no fault of his own can be booted from America, that child is twice cursed … once by an irresponsible parent, and once again by a nation fouled with hypocrites who suck up dog whistle platitudes like "Make America Great Again" while actually MEANING … "Make America W.A.S.P. Again!"
In law, a ward is someone placed under the protection of a legal guardian. ... A court may take responsibility for the legal protection of an individual, usually either a child or incapacitated person, in which case the ward is known as a ward of the court or award of the state.
A DACA "child" is typically working, paying taxes, paying into social security, law-abiding AND AN ECONOMIC ASSET TO AMERICA!
Let us not be a nation without a soul with a "leader" who lied his way into the White House with pie-in-the-sky bullshit promises and words of comfort for haters.
Disagree with your analogies; the dependent children of felons are not tried and convicted as if they were co-perpetrators or accessories!
I disagree with your analogy because the children aren't on trial. They have no right to be in the country illegally so they are simply being removed.
Imprisoning children is a crime against humanity.
I'll remember that if it ever becomes relevant. In this case, however, the children are as free on the other side of the border as they are on this side.
There's a path to citizenship, point them towards the military and let them serve the country they live in to get the citizenship they want. You can't come here and take and be welcomed here. Not sure why it's acceptable for us to harbor illegals and their children, when it's illegal in the lands they came from, like virtually every other in the world.
There's a pathway to citizenship . . . stand in line like everybody else and wait your turn instead of jumping the fence.
I guess I am an optimist. I keep thinking immigration reform will happen and there won't be anymore dreamers.
If Democrats undermine immigration enforcement, then immigration reform is a sham. They made the same arguments and promises under Reagan's amnesty plan when we had 3 million illegal aliens. Now we have over 10 million of them. The same arguments will lead to the same result and we'll have twice as many illegal aliens in the future. This needs to end. Just deport them, as they are discovered, like they do everywhere else.
If Democrats undermine immigration enforcement,
Now you are showing optimism. The sentence should read When Democrats undermine................
Let Congress get off their butts and do something. Also, I am not for breaking up families. I know that statement seems like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. Family is most important to me, but what do we do?
Also, I am not for breaking up families.
Me either. They should all be free to leave together.
Since DACA had to do with "TEMPORARY", I guess the "TEMPORARY" is up now.
Yes, it is temporary and it is Obama's fault for using this tactic as an "in your face" measure against Congress. And. I read where he wasn't going to sit by idly seeing DACA destroyed. I wonder what in the heck can he do about anything except shoot his mouth off.
Yes, it is temporary and it is Obama's fault for using this tactic as an "in your face" measure against Congress.
Exactly !
Funny thing.....Mr. Obama was willing to go out on a limb to get what he wanted, circumventing OUR LAW, but if Mr. Trump does that EXACT same thing to preserve OUR LAWS LAWFULLY, Mr. Trump is the fascist.
Following OUR LAWS isn't being Fascist !
Kind of like Trump using the Muslim Bans as an IN YOUR FACE Executive Order tactic, right? Except THE COURTS ruled Trump was wrrong. But other than Obama being correct about DACA and Trump being wrong about his MUSLIM BANS it's the same kind of thing, right? RIGHT!
It was a Country ban....not a Muslim ban. Those countries who notoriously harbored ISIS members.
Dang Mag! Bringing up facts like that!
Which 'facts' would those be?
Which 'facts' would those be?
Did you read Mag's post?
If one is going to be on a forum discussing politics it is a good idea to follow politics.
I read 'mags' post and it's nonsense. See Hal-A-Lujah's post.
Those countries who notoriously harbored ISIS members
... and did not harbor Trump property. Countries who have notorious terrorist history towards the US and harbor Trump properties are off the hook.
It was a Muslim ban which did not ban Christians, Jews and other religions ... It nevertheless excluded one country where Trump is doing business.
It was a Muslim ban which did not ban Christians, Jews and other religions
I must have missed that in the text of the EO. I did find an exemption for persecuted religious minorities. Is that what you mean? If so then persecuted minority Muslim sects would be eligible as well.
Candidate Trump loudly proposed a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Trump adviser Rudolph Giuliani has proudly boasted that the new president asked him to come up with a way of implementing a “Muslim ban” that would be “legal.”
The order states as a reason for its restrictions a desire to exclude “those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own).” Though “honor killings” is not linked to any religion, its inclusion here is a dog whistle, because the term has been used by Islamophobes who claim (falsely) that it characterizes Muslim society generally.
"The order also allows immigration officials to continue to admit refugees--including refugees from the seven predominantly Muslim countries otherwise banned––on a “case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest—including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.” * In case that last clause was unclear, Trump then announced that it was intended to give priority to Middle Eastern Christians , because they have been “horribly treated,” and so “we are going to help them.”
Well there is campaign rhetoric and there is written law. There was nothing wrong with the written law and judges who use their own political bias to include campaign rhetoric have damaged their credibility and damaged the courts.
A pol can say anything they want and usually do but those words are meaningless to the text of the law the court must rule on. The courts rule on the law and not opinions of pols catering to a base.
SCOTUS sided with Trump on key points of the EO.
We are venturing far off topic but I will be happy to hear your last word to me on the subject.
SCOTUS sided with Trump on key points of the EO.
I'm not sure that they "sided," as opposed to creating an implementation delay so configured as to expire.
I will check that if you disagree.
Sided was probably the wrong word. I should have used upheld. The ruling ignored the rhetoric and ruled on the text.
Sided was probably the wrong word. I should have used upheld. The ruling ignored the rhetoric and ruled on the text
Technically, it hasn't heard the case so even "ruling" has an asterisk implied.
Can you cite the language in the executive order banning Muslims and Muslims only?
Since you specifically claimed it was only a "Muslim ban" that should be an easy request.
Since you specifically claimed it was only a "Muslim ban" that should be an easy request.
If it's so damned easy, NEXT TIME DO YOUR OWN F'N RESEARCH RATHER THAN PLAY THE DOUBTING THOMAS BY INNUENDO!
b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
I fully expect you to tell us that the language does not mean "Muslim Ban," but my 32+ year of writing, negotiating and enforcing contract language, comprehends precisely how the language exempts, in this case, all religions other than Islam (MUSLIMS). That is why the courts found it discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The language does not mean "Muslim Ban."
The language does not mean "Muslim Ban."
I have decided once-and-for-all to ignore you.
Any damned know-nothing can sit on the sidelines and take shots without adding any substantive contribution.
"...substantive contribution."
Like artificial bans?
Our choices are:
(1) that The Supreme Court somehow unanimously missed the whole Muslim ban thing when reviewing the order, yet Amac found secret language that means Muslim ban, even if the plain language of the travel ban order says opposite.
Or
There was no Muslim ban hidden in the order.
I know which option I'm picking.
Thank you for your substantive contribution.
The court’s opinion sets up a historic legal clash in which the justices will weigh the president’s power to set national security priorities against the need to protect individuals from discrimination based on their religious beliefs or national origin.
In saying they would take the case, the justices partly endorsed the administration’s view that the president has vast authority to control who crosses the border. They said the president’s powers to limit immigration “are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.”
But the opinion also signaled that some of the justices might believe that Mr. Trump exceeded even that broad authority when he twice sought to impose a blanket ban on entry to the United States from certain predominantly Muslim countries. With the limits imposed on Monday by the court, the travel ban will be far narrower than the one he proposed in his first week in office and a later, revised version .
___________________________________________________________________
This STILL ONLY APPLIES TO MUSLIMS since the language I cited EXEMPTED ALL MINORITY RELIGIONS FROM THE SIX MUSLIM COUNTRIES … The MAJORITY RELIGION BEING ISLAM IN EACH COUNTRY.
Since that language, in fact, stipulates that the ban does not restrict NON-MUSLIM entries, it is not part of what is being litigated. The litigation addresses those banned by the EO, not those religions comprising the exempted "minority" religions …
Since That Language, In Fact, Stipulates That The Ban Does Not Restrict NON-MUSLIM Entries,
Your own link doesn't even say that. Read the plain language, that's obviously not what it says and there is no way to interpret it that way while if you claim to be operating within the constraints of the English language.
If you don't believe me, does it give you even the slightest pause that not one liberal justice on the Supreme Court made that argument? I mean, I know when I offer a Conservative legal opinion and Scalia didn't bother to make it, I assume I'm wrong and not Scalia.
Maybe you understand the travel ban better than every liberal judge though.
Maybe the ultra liberal Ninth Circuit which restricted the ban, didn't understand the Constitution when it stopped the ban on STATUTORY grounds and not Constitutional ones.
Seriously, do you have second thoughts about making arguments that liberal justices refuse to put their name to?
Since That Language, In Fact, Stipulates That The Ban Does Not Restrict NON-MUSLIM Entries,
Your own link doesn't even say that. If you don't believe me, does it give you even the slightest pause that not one liberal justice on the Supreme Court made that argument?
There was no argument to be made since the language of the EO did not ban Christians, etc. …
Arguments dealt only with the the entities banned by the EO.
I see you believe that because the EO discriminated on the basis of religion, the courts couldn't get involved. It's only when executive orders don't discriminate on the basis of religion that courts address can issues of religion discrimination.
You can contort logic and rationality all you want, but ultimately you should come to grips with the the fact the travel ban clearly bans Christians as well.
No, you don't see.
By virtue of the EO language I cited, since no adverse action was directed at non-Muslims, a kind of proviso separating Muslims from non-Muslims, ironically, that called attention to the very disparity to be heard in October. I believe that very exceptionality will be central to arguments calling the ban discriminatory and thus, the earlier decisions against the ban will stand.
I won't go around on this with you any further; we can pick this up when a court decision is made. I can almost guarantee you that the disparity I cite will be key in arguments against the ban.
One further comment, Sean.
It would be fascinating were we to hold a mock trial ... I being the prosecution with you the defense for the ban.
I believe that upon posing my first question to the Trump administration, I could establish, by virtue of any response or non-response to that question, "discriminatory animus" as basis for the ban.
Wish we could do that in a live setting.
Obama admitted he didn't have the power to do what he did. He also called it temporary. So who has overstepped their authority? Obama! Who has shirked their responsibility? Congress.
Obama admitted he didn't have the power to do what he did.
Is that garbage your original work or do you use some outside rightwing garbage lie factory and just serve as a distributor.
In his own words.
March 2011: Remarks by the President Univision Townhall
Kinda like Mr. Obama NOT using the word Muslim so he can sound executive like, while doing the same thing as Mr. Trump was doing.
Of course we all know, the countries Mr. Obama put a temp. ban on, were all MUSLIM countries. hmmmmm, interesting.....don't use the word, and everything is just AOK huh !
Kinda like Mr. Obama NOT using the word Muslim so he can sound executive like, while doing the same thing as Mr. Trump was doing.
I'll say this....the lies are getting sloppier and yet even more hilarious.
He is a fascist. No doubt about it. As I believe most of his supporters are also.
He is a fascist. No doubt about it. As I believe most of his supporters are also.
ANTIFA ?
Well duh! Anti-fa means anti-fascist. Anti-fa are not fascist. Duh.
Well duh! Anti-fa means anti-fascist. Anti-fa are not fascist. Duh.
So ANTIFA like. Are you a SNL cast member, or just vying for a job ?
Antifa uses violence for political purposes. Fascists do that as well. Why do we need more violence? Both need to be treated as terrorist organizations and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
We can't stop the violence by supporting violence.
No they don't ausmith
Since you didn't know about DHS and can't prove NC EC vote changes I'll give you a lesson on antifa violence. Here is just one of many.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.5e0a991f35e4
The antifa ones have the shields and clubs
"Since you didn't know about DHS" Just because I didn't know what DHS meant right away, you can get off your high horse now and spare me the lesson. I will not look at your link. When I find the link about the rump person overturning electoral votes in the rump's favor, I will post it. Not that you will believe it anyway.
I will not look at your link. When I find the link about the rump person overturning electoral votes in the rump's favor, I will post it. Not that you will believe it anyway.
Don't you trust the main stream media? Can't watch the video that shows your antifa thugs in action? Do you think someone made up the footage of their violence?
BTW thanks for admitting you made up your claim about overturning electoral votes.
"BTW thanks for admitting you made up your claim about overturning electoral votes." Citation please. Again, delusional.
I mis-spoke - the person was overturning electoral votes that WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE RUMP.
When I find the link about the rump person overturning electoral votes in the rump's favor, I will post it.
Trump couldn't possibly overturn anything before he took power and he had no reason to do it after he won. You'd have better luck locating the Klingon empire.
"When I find the link about the rump person overturning electoral votes in the rump's favor, I will post it.
Trump couldn't possibly overturn anything before he took power and he had no reason to do it after he won. You'd have better luck locating the Klingon empire."
You lack reading comprehension. An operative - or whoever - or whatever - in North Carolina, I believe it was, BEFORE THE ELECTION, was overturning electoral votes that were not in the rump's favor.
You lack reading comprehension. An operative - or whoever - or whatever - in North Carolina, I believe it was, BEFORE THE ELECTION, was overturning electoral votes that were not in the rump's favor.
And you lack a link.
There are many things you lack . . . I don't have the time to list them.
There are many things you lack . . . I don't have the time to list them.
Start listing the things wrong with you and you won't live long enough to get to me.
This back-and-forth has gone on beyond any useful point, and, it is becoming more-and-more personal,
Consequently, I am asking that it stop now.
I will close the seed. Articles here that get this many comments invariably have this problem anyway.
There are no electoral votes before the election. The EC doesn't vote until after the election
Google is your friend!
trump is trying to force congress to work. Unfortunately he is using humans as pawns to do it.
I personally dont think congress will do what trump wants. They dont do much anyway and haven't for years they are too involved with fighting each other for power and control to care much about the problems facing this country.
Then Congress will have to chow down on that enormous shitburger that Trump served up to them. Either way, he is forcing their hand.
We can blame many people and organizations along with politicians for this predicament we find ourselves in today.
When Reagan allowed amnesty it was under the condition the lawmakers at that time and future lawmakers would prevent the problem from continuing into the future. Well, they didn't do anything that I can see to stop illegal immigration.
We can blame the greedy people from the farmers right up to the CEOs of corporations for participating in the continued illegal immigration. The businesses who prospered from cheap wages and the political parties who benefited from the new found voters are two entities who are mostly responsible for this calamity we face today.
When I sit behind two school buses full of children and wait for both of them to empty, I wonder how much money is being spent on these children by our government. Although they are lovely children, appearing to be no more than 9 or 10 years old meeting their mothers who are standing by a baby carriage with their bellies poking out, I see what their objective is in the scheme of things and I see the future as we descend into a country of totalitarian rule.
This country has made plenty of mistakes and the biggest ones have been because of the people we have elected to represent us have lacked foresight and have benefited at the country's expense.
One of the curses on this country was when they decided on slave labor and another was when they closed their eyes to illegal immigration, not having the foresight to see the problems that would arise someday in the future. It's the same with the National Debt. Ignoring the future for the sake of today when the future in inevitable.
One of the curses on this country was when they decided on slave labor and another was when they closed their eyes to illegal immigration, not having the foresight to see the problems that would arise someday in the future.
I look at it in a weird way, but maybe it isn't as weird as I think.
Wouldn't most of the ILLEGALS be considered LEGAL Slaves, since their income is at poverty level, as most media reports ?
If that IS the case, seems to me, the LEFT is still for Slavery, and NEEDS Slavery for relevancy !
" as we descend into a country of totalitarian rule."
More people. more problems, more laws , more government. Want less government, stop producing more people.
And educating the masses in my opinion is a good thing. Children in schools is much better than children doing hard labor.
I don't get it.
The president tells congress to get off their asses and turn governmental policy into law, (which is their job) cause they refused to do it earlier. Cause the governmental policy cannot continue under the law as it currently exists and the previous president for whatever reason decided to abrogate the law.
And your side squeals like you being bent over a rock.
You want to continue in a position where the law is going to overturn the order, permanently, without recovery? once the courts do their thing)
I'll never understand you guys reasoning.
And ...
I'll never understand you guys reasoning.
There are at least TWO ways to do something.
The Republican way: REPEAL & REPLACE (Maybe replace, who knows, who cares! Maybe NEVER Replace, because they never had any intention to replace anything anyway, like DACA or ObamaCare.)
or
The LOGICAL WAY: Replace, then Repeal. Find a replacement FIRST before taking away something being that is really honestly ans truly bineg replaced.
I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND REPUBLICAN REASONING, because it is NOT reasoniong at all. Republicans simply act on hate and vendetta much of the time, and that is NOT reasonable.
p.s. As YOU know, I do not have a political 'side'. I have LOGIC on my side.
And it's BULLSHIT!
Your making a biased political argument that ignores the law.
With NO logic or logical thinking at all.
Typical leftist. Idealogical purity tests are the best they can do.
p.s. As YOU know, I do not have a political 'side'. I have LOGIC on my side.
Logic doesn't pick sides.
"I don't get it. That's for sure.
"I'll never understand you guys reasoning." I'll never understand the 'right's' lack of reason, and compassion and empathy.
Giddy-Looking Jeff Sessions Calls Deporting Children The “Compassionate Thing To Do”
Well, that's a proud oral tradition among racial purists. Slavery was a "blessing" to those "inferior" African blacks. Those weren't concentration camps. They were "refuges" to protect the "safety" of those poor Jews (and other minorities under threat).
This is racist to you?
"It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. "