The President Trump Immigration Thread

[mmpsteve]

Are you planning a Walk-away Vid ? There's an INGO thread for that.

Mebbe I've just had enough of the happy horsepucky from millennial democrat metrosexual hipsters that I'm over it.

Doesn't mean I'd ever be a republican though...

 

[Cygnus]

https://nypost.com/2017/08/03/dmv-workers-made-fake-ids-for-illegal-immigrants-feds/
DMV workers made fake IDs for illegal immigrants: feds

Four employees with the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) have been accused of producing fake IDs for illegal immigrants in exchange for cash.

Interesting, haven't heard about it on the local news. Seems it's getting less coverage than our governor's gropey son (Airplane, Logan, etc.)

 

[T.Lex]

So, there's a situation developing that includes several layers of bad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a1991f075d5_story.html?utm_term=.d9fb687b4c61

Basically, some fraudsters back in the day were reporting births in Texas along the border for families who were not actually in Texas at the time of the births. But, the official birth certificates said the kid was born in Texas. That means, officially, the kid was a US citizen. Meanwhile, kids were actually being born in Texas and getting the same kind of official documents.

That's bad.

But then, it was impossible to tell which ones were factual and which ones were frauds. They were literally the same kinds of documents. It is a couple generations of people from those areas that we just don't know for sure where they were born, but the birth certificates say Texas.

Over the years, there were different strategies for taking care of it, but it now appears that some people are presumptively being denied rights available to US citizens because they happen to have these kinds of suspect documents. There does not appear to be any sort of due process, because... well... we don't have a time machine.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Dem rep warns immigration officers following 'illegal' Trump orders: 'You will not be safe' | Fox News

In a statement to Fox News on Thursday, a State Department spokesman blasted the Washington Post report, saying passport denials in these cases have actually declined under this administration. Both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations reportedly denied passports to people delivered by midwives in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley, though the practice was hindered by a court challenge years ago.

“The facts don’t back up the Washington Post’s reporting. This is an irresponsible attempt to create division and stoke fear among American citizens while attempting to inflame tensions over immigration,” said Heather Nauert, a State Department spokeswoman. “Under the Trump Administration, domestic passport denials for so called ‘midwife cases’ are at a 6-year low. The reporting is a political cheap shot.”

Looks like the facts of the WaPo story are in dispute.

 

[Shadow01]

If the news is going to vilify any attempt to fix immigration, why not bring it to a complete hault until the wall is built and listen to the same fake news cry and whine? At least we get some results for the crying we have to listen too. Besides, nonAmericans have zero right to immigrate here. They only have our graciousness when we see fit.

 

[T.Lex]

Dem rep warns immigration officers following 'illegal' Trump orders: 'You will not be safe' | Fox News



Looks like the facts of the WaPo story are in dispute.

Could be, but the passport denial numbers aren't even really the biggest problem, IMHO. The original story included revocations and non-renewals and just plain jerking people around (without due process). That is, the answer "passport denials are at a low" is the answer to a different question.

Now, what I find REALLY disgusting about that article is the Dems - once again - overplaying their hand. "Watch out for when the worm turns" and "following orders won't be a defense"? That's COMPLETE BS. Literally, the people doing the implementation DON'T have a choice. These are lawful (for now) actions, directed by their bosses (up the chain to POTUS).

I'm not a fan of the ACLU, but they need to step in and get a lawsuit going. Probably should have before. (The earlier one appears to not have fixed anything.)

 

[T.Lex]

Besides, nonAmericans have zero right to immigrate here. They only have our graciousness when we see fit.

So, I know I float in and out of this thread, but I think the above point has been covered. I only address it to say that there appears to be a shift, in the name of Immigration Reform, to taking away rights of Americans who happen to be Hispanic and born along the border.

I guess that could go in a different thread, but the federal power to contest facially valid birth documents should give all of us pause.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

T, I think it's terrible that innocents are getting caught up in this, but let's put the blame where it belongs, the DOCTORS AND MIDWIVES who illegally sold fraudulent birth certificates to non-citizens, making all of the certificates they swore out as worthless as their signature on that piece of paper.

There are myriad reasons why someone might not have a birth certificate (parent's fault) or the lost their copy and cannot replace it (county records building burned down). Point is, many times it is not the individual's fault that they don't have or cannot get their birth certificate. In all of those cases, if you want a passport, all have to follow the same rules that are spelled out here to provide alternate evidence of citizenship:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/requirements/citizenship-evidence.html

And, if you refuse? Guess what, no passport.

And, if you leave then try to re-enter the country without a passport... or with an expired one, guess what... same list to provide evidence of citizenship to enter as a citizen.

 

[T.Lex]

T, I think it's terrible that innocents are getting caught up in this, but let's put the blame where it belongs, the DOCTORS AND MIDWIVES who illegally sold fraudulent birth certificates to non-citizens, making all of the certificates they swore out as worthless as their signature on that piece of paper.

Agreed. But THOSE people (to the extent they've been prosecuted) have been punished.

Like it or not, all of those BCs that were signed ARE legitimate (unless they specified which ones aren't, in which case you just void those).

So there's a few hundred or maybe thousand people who are considered US citizens who really aren't. That's an insignificant rounding error in the overall issue. But, when that generalized fraud is used to deprive ACTUAL US citizens of their rights, that a fo-real constitutional deprivation.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Agreed. But THOSE people (to the extent they've been prosecuted) have been punished.

Like it or not, all of those BCs that were signed ARE legitimate (unless they specified which ones aren't, in which case you just void those).

So there's a few hundred or maybe thousand people who are considered US citizens who really aren't. That's an insignificant rounding error in the overall issue. But, when that generalized fraud is used to deprive ACTUAL US citizens of their rights, that a fo-real constitutional deprivation.

I think that's the point, they are not if they solely rely upon the signature of a known fraudster. I.e. a home birth vs a hospital birth where there would be more to go upon than solely the certifying signature of a proven liar.

Isn't this similar to a bad cop that gets caught planting evidence? All of the evidence he previously swore in all of the cases in his career becomes garbage.

That's the way it works... once you show that your sworn oath is worthless... then it's worthless, as is anything that depends upon it.

 

[T.Lex]

I think that's the point, they are not if they solely rely upon the signature of a known fraudster. I.e. a home birth vs a hospital birth where there would be more to go upon than solely the certifying signature of a proven liar.

Isn't this similar to a bad cop that gets caught planting evidence? All of the evidence he previously swore in all of the cases in his career becomes garbage.

That's the way it works... once you show that your sworn oath is worthless... then it's worthless, as is anything that depends upon it.

Well, first, with BCs and other official documents, that's not really how it works. There's a presumption (prima facie) that they are legitimate. If anything, in this situation, it is the reverse. If .gov wants to deprive someone of US citizenship, the burden is on them to show the fraudulent nature of THIS specific document. Not that the person was a liar generally, but that the specific document at issue was a fraud. That could be done by proving the person signing it was someplace else, or whatever. That can be achieved by maintaining our collective commitment to due process, IMHO.

But, second, you aren't at all concerned that US citizens would then be effectively deprived of citizenship by the judgment of a bureaucracy?

This seems to me an even more compelling version of "better that 9 guilty men go free" kinda thing. Better that 9 illegal babies get US citizenship than 1 US citizen be deprived.

Granted, that is probably an unpopular opinion here.

 

[Fargo]

I think that's the point, they are not if they solely rely upon the signature of a known fraudster. I.e. a home birth vs a hospital birth where there would be more to go upon than solely the certifying signature of a proven liar.

Isn't this similar to a bad cop that gets caught planting evidence? All of the evidence he previously swore in all of the cases in his career becomes garbage.

That's the way it works... once you show that your sworn oath is worthless... then it's worthless, as is anything that depends upon it.

So, if it turns out that the doctor that delivered you has forged other documents, should we catapult your butt over the border?

 

[Trigger Time]

This seems to me an even more compelling version of "better that 9 guilty men go free" kinda thing. Better that 9 illegal babies get US citizenship than 1 US citizen be deprived.

Granted, that is probably an unpopular opinion here.

No actualy you are right and this is how our law is written and needs to work and a lot of times doesnt. There is not presumption of innocence anymore by the .Gov, everyone is always guilty and to hell with how much time and money they spend to sway the jury to make it so.
Well **** that. Better 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person be unjustly prosecuted . Our founders said it, I've said it here before and you've said it and now shown case law to back it up.
This is justice.
It's really ****ty that illegals got a sacred gift of citizenship they didnt deserve but the republic will survive. Let's make sure it doesnt happen again and prosecute fully anyone who betrays the public trust.

I want equal justice under the law. I want government agents and representatives who dont act like thugs and gangsters in court or on the street. No ego, no bravado, no political opinions within the law. Just law enforcing. I want the laws to be equally enforced and levied. It's really so simple

 

[Fargo]

No actualy you are right and this is how our law is written and needs to work and a lot of times doesnt. There is not presumption of innocence anymore by the .Gov, everyone is always guilty and to hell with how much time and money they spend to sway the jury to make it so.
Well **** that. Better 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person be unjustly prosecuted . Our founders said it, I've said it here before and you've said it and now shown case law to back it up.
This is justice.
It's really ****ty that illegals got a sacred gift of citizenship they didnt deserve but the republic will survive. Let's make sure it doesnt happen again and prosecute fully anyone who betrays the public trust.

I want equal justice under the law. I want government agents and representatives who dont act like thugs and gangsters in court or on the street. No ego, no bravado, no political opinions within the law. Just law enforcing. I want the laws to be equally enforced and levied. It's really so simple

I would so totally rep this post if the rep gods would let me.

 

[Trigger Time]

I would so totally rep this post if the rep gods would let me.

Thank you.
The law enforcing and especialy judicial branch is supposed to be pure.
The dirty is in the pits of law making. This is where our opinions and debates can rage and all sides of arguements can be heard. Many times the nitty gritty discussed here on ingo. Extreme opinions that some find offensive and others some agree with. But they are opinions and not law.

But, once something is law then it should be equally enforced. We have means to challenge laws in courts but they only work when judges apply the law equally and non biased. Interpreting the constitution and not legislating from the bench.

I am a average man and I can understand this. Sure there are so many paths one could take me through the legal mumbo jumbo that would overwhelm my mind and confuse me, but the basic platform of our republic I get and understand and our founders meant it to be understood by other simple men like me. It's the beauty of it.
This trickery and intentional misleading I see going on and some intentional criminality within our system is disgusting and it should be disgusting to ALL Americans. Not one side or the other, all AMERICANS. Because if they undermine the core principles of our republic then I promise you we are ALL in danger.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Well, first, with BCs and other official documents, that's not really how it works. There's a presumption (prima facie) that they are legitimate. If anything, in this situation, it is the reverse. If .gov wants to deprive someone of US citizenship, the burden is on them to show the fraudulent nature of THIS specific document. Not that the person was a liar generally, but that the specific document at issue was a fraud. That could be done by proving the person signing it was someplace else, or whatever. That can be achieved by maintaining our collective commitment to due process, IMHO.

But, second, you aren't at all concerned that US citizens would then be effectively deprived of citizenship by the judgment of a bureaucracy?

This seems to me an even more compelling version of "better that 9 guilty men go free" kinda thing. Better that 9 illegal babies get US citizenship than 1 US citizen be deprived.

Granted, that is probably an unpopular opinion here.

T, IANAL, but I'm going to disagree with you based upon Castelano, et al. v. Clinton, et al. This has been settled since 2009.

This is not a "new" problem, but one that Hillary's State Department was sued over in US District Court. It is settled, and persons with BC's issued by an SBA (either convicted or suspected birth attendent issuing fraudulent BCs) CAN BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROOF OF BIRTH.

Here the pertinent part:

34.A Class Member who submits a birth certificate that otherwise complies with 22 C.F.R. § 51.42(a) will not be denied a passport solely on the basis that the birth certificate was executed by a birth attendant whose name appears on the SBA List. However, the Class Member will be required to provide additional evidence of birth in the United States. The Parties acknowledge that such requests for evidence, as set forth herein, are reasonable and not unduly burdensome.

Here is the link to it on the ACLU site:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/castelano-v-clinton-agreement

IMO, this is a case of nothing new here, but, but, but TRUMP!

Keep in mind that the parties that agreed that the requests for additional evidence were reasonable were the ACLU and the Obama DOJ Civil Division.

 

[Fargo]

T, IANAL, but I'm going to disagree with you based upon Castelano, et al. v. Clinton, et al. This has been settled since 2009.

This is not a "new" problem, but one that Hillary's State Department was sued over in US District Court. It is settled, and persons with BC's issued by an SBA (either convicted or suspected birth attendent issuing fraudulent BCs) CAN BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROOF OF BIRTH.

Here the pertinent part:



Here is the link to it on the ACLU site:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/castelano-v-clinton-agreement

IMO, this is a case of nothing new here, but, but, but TRUMP!

Keep in mind that the parties that agreed that the requests for additional evidence were reasonable were the ACLU and the Obama DOJ Civil Division.

Settlement agreements are at most the “law of the case”, they aren’t precedent or binding on anyone else in anyway.



They do not establish or preclude any rights or obligations except among the parties agreeing to them within that particular case.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Settlement agreements are at most the “law of the case”, they aren’t precedent or binding on anyone else in anyway.



They do not establish or preclude any rights or obligations except among the parties agreeing to them within that particular case.

Fargo, I disagreed with T Lex assertion that birth certificates signed by suspect birth attendants should stand upon their own unless individually disproven as fraudulent documents, that requiring additional proof of birth in these circumstances was tantamount to "effectively denying their citizenship" without due process.

On my side of the argument, no less than the ACLU and the Obama DOJ that "acknowledge that such requests for evidence, as set forth herein, are reasonable and not unduly burdensome."

So, you are correct, that just because the ACLU says the it's hunky-dory doesn't necessarily make it so, but it is rather facetious for the ACLU to go 180 the opposite direction just because... Trump.

 

[Fargo]

T, IANAL, but I'm going to disagree with you based upon Castelano, et al. v. Clinton, et al. This has been settled since 2009.

This is not a "new" problem, but one that Hillary's State Department was sued over in US District Court. It is settled, and persons with BC's issued by an SBA (either convicted or suspected birth attendent issuing fraudulent BCs) CAN BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROOF OF BIRTH

No, you’re above quote says that the issue was settled by the case and that those with a birth certificate by an SBA now have some sort of burden of proof.

That is manifestly untrue based on the document you posted, that agreement only applies to those who were parties to that case.

I have no doubt that the Obama administration did this just as much or more than Trump, that isn’t my point.

If a person is prima facia a citizen, then the government bears the burden of demonstrating they are not. The solution to a problem is very seldom to increase the governments authority, and decrease “we the people’s” rights as regards that authority.

 

[T.Lex]

First SD4L, that's pretty messed up. Not your post, but the ACLU "class action" that then binds non-parties. Fargo, I'm kinda seeing where he's coming from on this. These kinds of policy consent decrees are used to set policy, whether we like it or not.

Going back to SD4L, though, there's a bunch messed up about that. For one thing, the "class" definition omits a ton of people who now appear to have been caught up in this, including those who already have passports, or those who filed for passports after 2008. Large class actions like that get very complicated, and complications make bad policy. Plus, it isn't clear if the class was actually certified, which means that - as Fargo notes - it would only apply to those people.

Now, I kinda suspect the DOJ might've been acting like it applied to everyone, because it made for an easy explanation. "We don't want to do it this way, but there was a consent decree...."

Which also means, Trump has some liberty to change how they do things, and create a new set of lawsuits.

Ultimately, the problem arises in the "preponderance of the evidence" (POTE) standard. That's why I mentioned "prima facie." A legitimate BC is "prima facie" evidence of birth within the US, which satisfies the POTE standard. The government can rebut that, but it needs to be individualized. That's my only point on this.

Without that, the risk is significant that a US citizen will be denied proper status.