The President Trump Immigration Thread

[KLB]

Ok, trying to catch up, and if I miss something, please bring my attention to it.

Third party standing: the Order addresses this. Caselaw has developed since 1923. Plus, the universities are arguing direct harm because of actions taken toward specific individuals. It is not limited to an abstract "We might want someone someday" (like the employers appear to be arguing). Rather, it is specific, concrete harm that they are alleging. Also, developments in the 1960s allowed universities to have standing on behalf of their students.

Word count/en banc: in big cases it is common to request, and receive, permission to exceed the limits. I think I only had to do that one time, and it was a REALLY big case. Similarly, big cases will usually get en banc (the entire court would review) rehearing. It is unusual for a member of the panel to ask for it (which is what "sua sponte" means), but it makes sense in something like this that involves other branches of government.

Section 1182 discretion: again, this is nuanced. The issue isn't whether the executive has discretion to take the action. The issue is better framed in terms of whether the discretion was executed consistent with the constitution and other laws. The POTUS is still subject to legal requirements, even in areas that he otherwise has discretion. About the only place this doesn't apply is pardons/commutations. Even then, he does have to do certain things, like put them in writing. Otherwise, his execution of laws has to be consistent with laws and constitutional principles.

How many INGOers who are complaining about the 9th circuit opinion have read it?

Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to us. I appreciate the effort to clear the waters.

 

[Leadeye]

While it's ancient history in the media frenzy around this I would be curious about the connections the guy in Washington state has that got this ball rolling. Who's paying him, microsoft maybe?

Always follow the money

 

[bwframe]

Hogsett vows to immigrants that Indy welcomes all - 13 WTHR Indianapolis


...Indy CAN issued a call to action to local lawmakers.

"Mayor Hogsett and our city-county council can pass a resolution for a city of inclusion to ensure that no city or county resources will be used to enforce federal immigration laws, Muslim registry or stop and frisk," said an Indy-CAN organizer.

When asked for his support, Mayor Hogsett told the crowd,"Let our answer be that as a city we are committed with all stake holders to ensure that not one dime of city resources fund anything that a court has determined to be discriminatory or unconstitutional."...

 

[KMaC]

Hogsett vows to immigrants that Indy welcomes all - 13 WTHR Indianapolis


...Indy CAN issued a call to action to local lawmakers.

"Mayor Hogsett and our city-county council can pass a resolution for a city of inclusion to ensure that no city or county resources will be used to enforce federal immigration laws, Muslim registry or stop and frisk," said an Indy-CAN organizer.

When asked for his support, Mayor Hogsett told the crowd,"Let our answer be that as a city we are committed with all stake holders to ensure that not one dime of city resources fund anything that a court has determined to be discriminatory or unconstitutional."...

Now that is a great non-committal answer. The illegal alien community hears support (especially in the tenor of his voice in the video) but it leaves Mayor Joe wiggle room since any executive order that a court rules is unconstitutional wouldn't be enforced anyway. Slow clap in admiration of the art of double speak.

 

[T.Lex]

Re: the Hogsett thing, I saw that on the news tonight and was heartened to observe that the mayor hasn't forgotten his roots as a lawyer. That "not until a court decides" is a great way to make sure he keeps his promise.

Re: the Washington state AG appears to be handling the litigation, so it is on the public dime. Numerous groups of well-healed tech companies have hired their own groups of attorneys to file amicus briefs, but the actual litigation is by state employees (from what I can tell). Now, I've known attorneys - good attorneys - who've gone through the Washington AG office. That's an office I hold in high esteem, professionally. Their political leanings tend to be left, but they can go toe-to-toe with the DOJ attorneys any day of the week, and most private attorneys.

 

[lonehoosier]

Does anyone have a better source on this?

https://www.worthynews.com/25183-report-72-convicted-terrorism-trump-7-mostly-muslim-countries

 

[T.Lex]

Does anyone have a better source on this?

https://www.worthynews.com/25183-report-72-convicted-terrorism-trump-7-mostly-muslim-countries

I don't think the DOJ has made that argument. Someone should tell them.

 

[lonehoosier]

I don't think the DOJ has made that argument. Someone should tell them.

And that's why I don't think it's legitimate

 

[T.Lex]

And that's why I don't think it's legitimate

I think you're overestimating the DOJ.

They believe, or have decided to argue, that the Executive Discretion line of reasoning should prevail. They appear to be staking out that territory without a fallback position, which can be effective over a long haul. They don't need to argue rational basis, because it shouldn't be necessary - that's basically their argument.

It hasn't worked yet, but if they could get SCOTUS to go along with it (which, with only 8 on the court right now, seems a long shot), that'd be a great victory for the executive branch. Well, history decide whether it'd be a victory for the republic, but POTUSs would enjoy it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Does anyone have a better source on this?

https://www.worthynews.com/25183-report-72-convicted-terrorism-trump-7-mostly-muslim-countries

Here is a slightly better source and a link to the report. Examining the spreadsheet showing the names and the crimes committed, they range from terrorist network support, money laundering and a large group of identity theft. The id theft charges closely followed 9/11 and might, I repeat might, have been caught in terrorism investigations.

So, terrorists, terrorism supporters and potential terrorist support networks would be more accurate.

Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries | Washington Examiner

Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order | Center for Immigration Studies

Edited to add: It's amazing to me how we went, from shortly after 9/11, that it was incompetence not to have connected the dots, to now, that there are no dots, no discretion to the President, unless there are dead Americans on American soil (Americans have been killed overseas). Only then can we act.

It is indeed a mental disease to go through those mental gymnastics.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Re: the Hogsett thing, I saw that on the news tonight and was heartened to observe that the mayor hasn't forgotten his roots as a lawyer. That "not until a court decides" is a great way to make sure he keeps his promise.

Re: the Washington state AG appears to be handling the litigation, so it is on the public dime. Numerous groups of well-healed tech companies have hired their own groups of attorneys to file amicus briefs, but the actual litigation is by state employees (from what I can tell). Now, I've known attorneys - good attorneys - who've gone through the Washington AG office. That's an office I hold in high esteem, professionally. Their political leanings tend to be left, but they can go toe-to-toe with the DOJ attorneys any day of the week, and most private attorneys.

T, the suits that Hogsett is referring are lawsuits that two individuals brought, and either won or were allowed to proceed based upon being detained under the ICE detainer program. One was a US Citizen, the other was a legal permanent resident (green card holder) - - - so they were indeed wrongly held. I'm not aware of any suits brought by illegal aliens.

Do you have more info? Thoughts? Also, how is this different than anyone else who is suspected of a crime or wanted for questioning about a crime elsewhere?

 

[T.Lex]

T, the suits that Hogsett is referring are lawsuits that two individuals brought, and either won or were allowed to proceed based upon being detained under the ICE detainer program. One was a US Citizen, the other was a legal permanent resident (green card holder) - - - so they were indeed wrongly held. I'm not aware of any suits brought by illegal aliens.

Do you have more info? Thoughts? Also, how is this different than anyone else who is suspected of a crime or wanted for questioning about a crime elsewhere?

Interesting.

I wasn't aware of any particular lawsuits in Indy along these lines. I know that many illegal/non-valid-visa-holders have been able to go to court to prevent ICE deportation. Partly because there's such a backlog, ICE was only trying to deport the people that we can all agree need to go - like violent criminals.

I just thought Hogsett's response was typical lawyer-turned politician-speak. Makes for a decent soundbite, but doesn't really promise anything more than what he was going to do anyway. And really, it was kinda transparent even for that.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Interesting.

I wasn't aware of any particular lawsuits in Indy along these lines. I know that many illegal/non-valid-visa-holders have been able to go to court to prevent ICE deportation. Partly because there's such a backlog, ICE was only trying to deport the people that we can all agree need to go - like violent criminals.

I just thought Hogsett's response was typical lawyer-turned politician-speak. Makes for a decent soundbite, but doesn't really promise anything more than what he was going to do anyway. And really, it was kinda transparent even for that.

Here is one where the feds settled for $20,000 for a man held for a week who was a citizen/LPR. My guess is that for an actual illegal alien, "short" detentions are for cause and not a legal liability. Just to be clear, IMO, detaining an illegal for a week to initial proceedings is ok, detaining a lawful resident is not.

https://www.law360.com/articles/791992/feds-settle-with-us-citizen-held-in-immigration-detention

On the politician double-speak side, I tend to agree with you.

Obama only deported "violent criminals"... they said it was "prioritizing" but it really wasn't, they actively released non-violent felons, non-felon criminals, those previously deported and those who were "just" here illegally.

Trump has expanded the priority to all felons, those with multiple misdemeanors, those with deportation orders (meaning they lost the deportation court case, then disappeared) and those who had previously been deported and illegally re-entered. IANAL, but I would think that for all of the classes that Trump added to actively pursue, there are already existing court papers that could and should accompany the detainer request... so, local officials saying they won't honor the detainer without a "court order" is a pretty meaningless promise.

And, though they are not a PRIORITY for the Trump administration, now, it appears, when ICE catches someone "merely" in the country illegally, they initiate deportation proceedings... the "priority" just means they aren't out beating the bushes for any and all illegals, but they aren't going to just let them go if they come across them.

 

[T.Lex]

And, though they are not a PRIORITY for the Trump administration, now, it appears, when ICE catches someone "merely" in the country illegally, they initiate deportation proceedings... the "priority" just means they aren't out beating the bushes for any and all illegals, but they aren't going to just let them go if they come across them.

This gray area is problematic at several levels.

Institutionally, we can't hold all these people in places like jails and prisons. There's no room. So, we release them back to their homes and families. But, they can't get (legal) jobs, etc. Those are the people that under GHWB and Bill Clinton had a "path to citizenship" that required them to pay a fine of a couple thousand dollars for the "crime" of being here illegally, but they could get citizenship with a few more hurdles jumped. That has morphed into the dreaded "amnesty."

I would support something like that for people who've put down roots here and have been otherwise law abiding. Its like a diversion program for immigration.

I know INGO will mostly disagree and I'm ok with that.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This gray area is problematic at several levels.

Institutionally, we can't hold all these people in places like jails and prisons. There's no room. So, we release them back to their homes and families. But, they can't get (legal) jobs, etc. Those are the people that under GHWB and Bill Clinton had a "path to citizenship" that required them to pay a fine of a couple thousand dollars for the "crime" of being here illegally, but they could get citizenship with a few more hurdles jumped. That has morphed into the dreaded "amnesty."

I would support something like that for people who've put down roots here and have been otherwise law abiding. Its like a diversion program for immigration.

I know INGO will mostly disagree and I'm ok with that.

I'm old enough to remember this, just barely. It was a "deal" under Reagan to allow a path to citizenship for those who had "put down roots" IN EXCHANGE for closing the door to illegal immigration, border enforcement, workplace enforcement and deportation of any "new comers". It didn't happen, or more accurately, was blocked from happening... the deportation part... by Democrats. New immigrants vote overwhelming D, and once they got their part of the bargain, they reneged. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice...

So, I think gaining control of illegal immigration is important from a pure sovereignty perspective... from a security perspective... and from a "humanity" perspective. The first two are self-explanatory... so to the third item... I agree with you that illegals are EXPLOITED because of their lack of status.

I think the RIGHT answer is enforcing immigration laws, expanding guest worker programs for those who just want work but not citizenship and expanded legal immigration for those who seek citizenship. If those who enter illegally get to be first in line, the illegal entry magnet remains, so those programs should only be open to those who enter the country legally, not those here illegally. Leave and get in line.

To me, the border, the wall and ICE deportation enforcement is only part of the solution, heavily penalizing and jailing those who exploit undocumented workers is a big part of it. I'm willing to pay more for my produce if it means it stops people from transporting "migrant workers" around the country in HORSE TRAILERS.

 

[T.Lex]

First, I don't really disagree, but we all have to accept that this will be a complicated problem. There are people - and I'm not sure we even know the percentage - who are part of the "rooted" group. 'Murica is entrepreneurial. Maybe these people started their own companies and flown under the radar, while making a good living and putting their kids through school, etc. I do think it unfair to "deport" those people to places that haven't been their homes for a LONG time.

The definitions can be stringent: been here for 10 years, no convictions, pay a fine, whatever. I think the policy answer will require some accommodation for them.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

First, I don't really disagree, but we all have to accept that this will be a complicated problem. There are people - and I'm not sure we even know the percentage - who are part of the "rooted" group. 'Murica is entrepreneurial. Maybe these people started their own companies and flown under the radar, while making a good living and putting their kids through school, etc. I do think it unfair to "deport" those people to places that haven't been their homes for a LONG time.

The definitions can be stringent: been here for 10 years, no convictions, pay a fine, whatever. I think the policy answer will require some accommodation for them.

Just a nit, but if they've been working here for 10 years, they are likely tax evaders... I 'member Leona Helmsley going to prison for that.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating illegally taking their money or property without due process. They can register it all under foreign ownership while they apply for entry from their home country and work through the tax courts to pay evaded taxes and penalties.

 

[T.Lex]

Just a nit, but if they've been working here for 10 years, they are likely tax evaders... I 'member Leona Helmsley going to prison for that.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating illegally taking their money or property without due process. They can register it all under foreign ownership while they apply for entry from their home country and work through the tax courts to pay evaded taxes and penalties.

It isn't always that simple.

Over the years, I have experienced situations where people have received valid SSNs, paid taxes, but overstayed visas (for instance) and thought they were legal. Not permanent residents, but still paying taxes, and not even investigated by INS/ICE/DHS/LGBTQ. There are so many strange scenarios that it is mystifying.

That's not even counting people who've adopted from abroad and if the ages or deadlines aren't quite right, the kid can get a SSN based on the adoption, but for immigration purposes they aren't a citizen, even though the family thought they were.

I am absolutely NOT a fan of creating rules based on exceptions and exceptional situations. With immigration, though, the situation is fraught with bad administration, incompetence, and lack of resources.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

It isn't always that simple.

Over the years, I have experienced situations where people have received valid SSNs, paid taxes, but overstayed visas (for instance) and thought they were legal. Not permanent residents, but still paying taxes, and not even investigated by INS/ICE/DHS/LGBTQ. There are so many strange scenarios that it is mystifying.

That's not even counting people who've adopted from abroad and if the ages or deadlines aren't quite right, the kid can get a SSN based on the adoption, but for immigration purposes they aren't a citizen, even though the family thought they were.

I am absolutely NOT a fan of creating rules based on exceptions and exceptional situations. With immigration, though, the situation is fraught with bad administration, incompetence, and lack of resources.

I agree and appreciate you noting that you aren't trying to base immigration policy on exceptional situations. I'm not a fan of deporting someone solely because they got lost in the overly complicated paperwork. I say give them a repreive to get their paperwork in order. With something like 25 million non-citizens in the country, I'm sure there are all kinds of one-off situations.

However, that still detracts from the real problem... the vast numbers of people who knowingly enter illegally or knowingly, and purposefully, overstay Visas to remain illegally. Just an anecdote, but there was a recent story about a hispanic/latin restaurant. Normally crowded. After the stories of ICE detentions, it's a ghost town and the owner fears going out of business if it lasts much longer. Just an anecdote, but indicates the vast majority of illegal aliens are well aware of their status.

 

[T.Lex]

I agree and appreciate you noting that you aren't trying to base immigration policy on exceptional situations. I'm not a fan of deporting someone solely because they got lost in the overly complicated paperwork. I say give them a repreive to get their paperwork in order. With something like 25 million non-citizens in the country, I'm sure there are all kinds of one-off situations.

However, that still detracts from the real problem... the vast numbers of people who knowingly enter illegally or knowingly, and purposefully, overstay Visas to remain illegally. Just an anecdote, but there was a recent story about a hispanic/latin restaurant. Normally crowded. After the stories of ICE detentions, it's a ghost town and the owner fears going out of business if it lasts much longer. Just an anecdote, but indicates the vast majority of illegal aliens are well aware of their status.

Here's why a solution that accounts for these situations does not detract from the problem, but really is the problem.

1) We can all agree on the easy cases. Violent felons, people who serially cross without really contributing anything. That makes up the vast majority of cases upon which there isn't any real disagreement (I don't think). The policy has to account for the exceptions, in this case, because if we treated everyone as if they were "easy" then we get....
2) Headline risk. The sympathetic cases, if treated like thugs, get the MSM coverage and everything grinds to a halt. Like it or not, this is the reality.
3) Numbers. As you note, the numbers are overwhelming. Let's give the gov't the benefit of the doubt and say only 1% have semi-valid reasons (or better). That's still 250k (approx). If we take gov't error at more like 10%, then we're talking millions of people with acceptably legitimate reasons to stay.

So, any immigration policy needs to account for this. GWB campaigned on compassionate immigration reform, then 9/11, then things got strange in his second term and he couldn't get it done. He, and his torch bearers, were crucified by the far right for "amnesty." That's got to stop, or we'll just get more of the same.

I agree that the answer needs to be comprehensive - including making it harder to get here illegally. (It'll never really stop, but that doesn't mean we stop trying.)

Personally, I have a radical idea that INGO would totally hate. And yes, it includes amnesty. It would also create more Republican voters, if a Republican party remains.