The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Fargo]

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.

Who are the non-parties being bound? Even if the class was certified, by my read it's scope was limited to those who had pending claims back in 2008.

 

[fnpfan]

Democrats are that plus, destroy our republic and turn it into a communist state. **** rule of law and spread your money to others who dont work. No thanks. I'll take the palm greasers till I get a better option, which is why I supported Trump. He was the true outsider and hes done a better job and kept more promises than any president in my lifetime.

100% agreed, and he will get my vote in 2020 once again. I pray that we as a country wake up and start enforcing laws.

 

[fnpfan]

you bring up a very valid point.. and I agree, it has done nothing but ruin this country..

 

[T.Lex]

Who are the non-parties being bound? Even if the class was certified, by my read it's scope was limited to those who had pending claims back in 2008.

Class definition includes applicants up to the "Effective Date" of the Settlement Agreement, which looks to be 2009 at some point.

I should've said "non-named parties" instead of "non-parties" since the Class might've been certified. Either way, it is messed up.

Including the fact that the ACLU attorneys made $150k on the deal.

 

[Fargo]

Class definition includes applicants up to the "Effective Date" of the Settlement Agreement, which looks to be 2009 at some point.

I should've said "non-named parties" instead of "non-parties" since the Class might've been certified. Either way, it is messed up.

Including the fact that the ACLU attorneys made $150k on the deal.

The class definition is weird, it says effective date but later says only those that have applied for a passport by September 2008. The State Department website says that the ability to apply for class membership ended in 2010. By my read, those who had applied for passports by 2008 were eligible for membership, but had to apply for membership by 2010.

I agree it is messed up, my point is simply that that settlement in no way controls the rights of applicants today, except in so far as the government agreed to implement ongoing remedial procedures.

The ACLU stipulation that it thought certain procedures to be reasonable is meaningless as regards anyone not in that class.

 

[T.Lex]

@Fargo

Look at Section E again, paras. 48-52. It actually does say that parts of it will be applied to applicants "not otherwise part of the Class."

That's messed up.

They really are allowing this consent judgment to create (arguably) law, or at least CFR rules.

 

[fnpfan]

Not sure why the purple. I probably did.

In fact, it may have been in this thread that I pointed out if the feds don't like the non-cooperation from local authorities, they can bring more agents. The locals should have VERY little to do with immigration enforcement. Or, to put it another way, they should have as much of a role as they want to have.

yes, because why would local LAW ENFORCEMENT be interested in ENFORCING LAWS... its easier to not care if your being invaded and say...,.its not my job to deal with law enforcement.. that "not my problem" attitude, is part of the problem that has brought us to this point of millions of invaders in our country. Law is law and if your job title is law enforcement you should d##n well be enforcing the laws, not just the ones you pick and choose to acknowledge are your problem.

 

[Fargo]

@Fargo

Look at Section E again, paras. 48-52. It actually does say that parts of it will be applied to applicants "not otherwise part of the Class."

That's messed up.

They really are allowing this consent judgment to create (arguably) law, or at least CFR rules.

48 to 52 appear to be remedial obligations of the government, i.e. that they will give future applicants the benefits of what was negotiated in the settlement. I don't see any how it impairs the rights of non-parties. Anyone who is not a class member can still assert that those procedures are unlawful.

 

[T.Lex]

yes, because why would local LAW ENFORCEMENT be interested in ENFORCING LAWS... Law is law and if your job title is law enforcement you should d##n well be enforcing the laws, not just the ones you pick and choose to acknowledge are your problem.

Mueller? Is that you?

 

[T.Lex]

48 to 52 appear to be remedial obligations of the government, i.e. that they will give future applicants the benefits of what was negotiated in the settlement. I don't see any how it impairs the rights of non-parties. Anyone who is not a class member can still assert that those procedures are unlawful.

Yeah, but .gov can shrug and say, "But we have to do it this way."

It SHOULDN'T change the due process part. Or, if anything, it should operate to favor those who do have BCs that show USian citizenship. But this is a terrible way to make rules.

 

[Fargo]

Yeah, but .gov can shrug and say, "But we have to do it this way."

It SHOULDN'T change the due process part. Or, if anything, it should operate to favor those who do have BCs that show USian citizenship. But this is a terrible way to make rules.

I absolutely agree with you about this being a terrible way to do business. Even more so if it is true that the government was just file 13ing every application they thought they might need to adjudicate. I absolutely hate people who dishonor their oaths by denying due process to non-sophisticated parties because they know they lack the means or ability to do anything about it.

Something something something, cries out to heaven for vengeance.

 

[T.Lex]

I absolutely agree with you about this being a terrible way to do business. Even more so if it is true that the government was just file 13ing every application they thought they might need to adjudicate. I absolutely hate people who dishonor their oaths by denying due process to non-sophisticated parties because they know they lack the means or ability to do anything about it.

Something something something, cries out to heaven for vengeance.

That kind cuts both ways.

Do-gooder bureaucratic vigilantes were producing fraudulent documents (sometimes for personal gain) to legitimize illegal aliens. That's what created this specific, narrow-but-deep, mess.

Both sides could cry out with righteous indignation to justify NOT doing things correctly. Well, the greed thing kinda kills righteousness on the one side, but I think there was an aspect of justifying it because they believed the immigrants shouldn't have to be illegal.

 

[Fargo]

That kind cuts both ways.

Do-gooder bureaucratic vigilantes were producing fraudulent documents (sometimes for personal gain) to legitimize illegal aliens. That's what created this specific, narrow-but-deep, mess.

Both sides could cry out with righteous indignation to justify NOT doing things correctly. Well, the greed thing kinda kills righteousness on the one side, but I think there was an aspect of justifying it because they believed the immigrants shouldn't have to be illegal.

You are correct that there were multiple groups doing wrong on this, but I am much more fearful of those who act with the power of the state (ICE) than those who act with the permission of the state (Those permitted to sign BCs).

 

[T.Lex]

You are correct that there were multiple groups doing wrong on this, but I am much more fearful of those who act with the power of the state (ICE) than those who act with the permission of the state (Those permitted to sign BCs).

I'm not sure whether to be comforted or a bit weirded out, that you feel that way.

 

[Fargo]

I'm not sure whether to be comforted or a bit weirded out, that you feel that way.

I think the correct answer is “yes”...

 

[T.Lex]

I think the correct answer is “yes”...

This is INGO, so I'm going to go with, "No. And not only that, all of the sources that support your position are suspect. And communist."

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I absolutely agree with you about this being a terrible way to do business. Even more so if it is true that the government was just file 13ing every application they thought they might need to adjudicate. I absolutely hate people who dishonor their oaths by denying due process to non-sophisticated parties because they know they lack the means or ability to do anything about it.

Something something something, cries out to heaven for vengeance.

I agree, here, Fargo. My general read of the "big" issue was that the State Department was putting some applications into a "pending/closed/some-other-jargon-for-limbo" state that was not "denied", which prevented the applicant from filing a denial appeal. In other words, forever "stuck" without a passport and not being able to appeal or re-apply.

Also, earlier I was "loose" with my words, by settled I meant a settlement was reached.

And, as far as the courts applying a consent decree beyond the original class and circumstances, think about a decree specifically applying to unaccompanied minors magically (by the wand of the 9th) applies to accompanied minors. Who knew?

That s**t cray!
<repeat twice more>

 

[Fargo]

This is INGO, so I'm going to go with, "No. And not only that, all of the sources that support your position are suspect. And communist."

Wait, I thought it was INGOstablished (it’s a new word I made up) that you are a communist?

 

[Fargo]

I agree, here, Fargo. My general read of the "big" issue was that the State Department was putting some applications into a "pending/closed/some-other-jargon-for-limbo" state that was not "denied", which prevented the applicant from filing a denial appeal. In other words, forever "stuck" without a passport and not being able to appeal or re-apply.

Also, earlier I was "loose" with my words, by settled I meant a settlement was reached.

And, as far as the courts applying a consent decree beyond the original class and circumstances, think about a decree specifically applying to unaccompanied minors magically (by the wand of the 9th) applies to accompanied minors. Who knew?

That s**t cray!
<repeat twice more>

Well, They aren’t known as a circus for nothing!

 

[T.Lex]

Wait, I thought it was INGOstablished (it’s a new word I made up) that you are a communist?

First, love "INGOstablished." I will also start using that, completely devoid of attribution to you.

Second, it is INGOstablished that I am a statist. Which isn't necessarily communist. Its a venn diagram thing.

Most communists are statists, but not all statists are communists.