The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Fargo]

It isn't clear to me why "due process" requires allowing someone who entered illegally to remain in the US while their often bogus asylum claims are adjudicated. Those applying for refugee/asylum status BEFORE entering the US aren't allowed in until after their claim is found valid.

And, as a point of reference, some countries (looking at you Australia) invalidate all future asylum claims if the applicant enters the country illegally.

Somewhere, there needs to be a point of balance between a humanitarian refugee policy and the current ploy of simply making the claim being a "get out of jail free" card for border crashers.

I don't believe that "due process" is what requires that, rather than is what the current federal statutes on the matter provide for so as that those legitimately seeking asylum don't get slaughtered back home. What due process requires is that cases and controversies be heard by a neutral and detached judicial officer as laid out in Article III.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

SCOTUS has upheld Trump's travel ban, 5-4.

The majority opinion holds that the travel ban falls squarely within discretion granted to POTUS under §1182(f) to suspend entry of aliens into the United States.

Also finds Trump's anti-Muslim tweets and other officials' statements do not overcome independent justifications.

The travel ban case goes back to the lower courts because this was a decision on the preliminary injunction.

Maj. op. declines to address nationwide scope of the injunction.

J. Kennedy's short concurring decision likely holds the key to getting his vote: reaffirming Romer v. Evans' "rational basis plus" standard aka the "animus" standard.

J. Thomas, concurring, writes that nationwide injunctions (which he calls universal injunctions) are legally and historically dubious because they exceed the scope of courts' traditional equitable authority.

J. Breyer's dissent, joined by J. Kagan, rests entirely on the premise that the travel ban might be currently implemented as a Muslim ban even though it is facially religion-neutral.

For that reason, he would hold the injunction in place pending further litigation.

J. Sotomayor's dissent, joined by J. Ginsburg, starts and ends with Trump's anti-Muslim claims, which she finds demonstrate that the travel ban likely violates the Establishment Clause.

"A reasonable observer would conclude that the [ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus."

 

[bwframe]

'Bout time.

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations | Fox News

 

[indiucky]

 

[hoosierdoc]

How about we make a permant alien class with no conversion to citizenship for these people. At the same time we end birthright citizenship. No social welfare. You can work and you can avoid your war torn area. Or you can get your charity care. Or you can be sponsored by someone here.

i would be much less concerned about the immigration issue if there was no hope for our voting base to be permently altered due to it

 

[Twangbanger]

How about we make a permant alien class with no conversion to citizenship for these people. At the same time we end birthright citizenship. No social welfare. You can work and you can avoid your war torn area. Or you can get your charity care. Or you can be sponsored by someone here.

i would be much less concerned about the immigration issue if there was no hope for our voting base to be permently altered due to it

Does "social welfare" include a free education? Or do we keep them both poor AND ignorant? (Meaning the children, and the childrens' children, and the childrens' childrens' children? Seriously?) Will these people be allowed access to the US courts, to sue for their "rights?" I ask, because we have to remember, most of the "Urban Service Class" wants these people here. The Teachers want to Teach them. The Lawyers want to represent them. You've just created a gold mine of possible future benefit for these people. Much of the GOP is already prepared to bend themselves into a pretzel for 800~900,000 "DACA Dreamers." What would they be prepared to do, for a group conservatively estimated at 12 Million that gets bigger with each passing generation?

The practical problem with this approach is that it creates an apartheid state. Such a system - meaning a substantial and ever-increasing class of Residents without Rights - will never hold. Israel is headed there, and it will eventually be their undoing. They are knowingly allowing a cohort of foreigners to stay inside their country, but without voting rights. I think the basic unsustainability of this arrangement is the reason why the Palestinians don't want a two-state solution. They know if they wait long enough, there will be a "reconciliation" and they will effectively be awarded ownership of a country they never could have created on their own.

It would be somewhat the same in America, just on a smaller level. Once you knowingly allow a group to stay, you're done. Do you count them for the Census? Do you have a new "Three Fifths Compromise?" Do you want to supercharge the Civil Rights Industry, and really put it on steroids? Just you wait. It would set the stage for a future legislative "solution" that would make Angela Merkel blush.

...Nah. I prefer to make the other side continue to defend illegality. ​

 

[Libertarian01]

While I strongly disagree with many of the things President Trump said (and says) through a variety of outlets, the fact remains that he IS the Commander in Chief. He is also the top dog of the executive branch of the United States. I didn't like hearing of many of the people pardoned at the 11th hour by President Clinton, or President George HW Bush, but I fully acknowledge their legal authority to do so.

I believe that the President does have the legal authority to do many things, including imposing a travel ban against certain countries. Should he have this authority? Perhaps...? Perhaps not...? However, that is another debate. If he were truly off his rocker on some of this Congress has the power and legal authority to act. That it has not does say something and not just partisan politics.

I hope this ruling causes some of his political opponents to pause and reconsider trying to tie up the judicial system to superimpose their ideology over his. The best way that I would respect for them to do that is to run against him in the 2020 election. Then they can try to do what they want - IF they win.

Regards,

Doug

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I don't believe that "due process" is what requires that, rather than is what the current federal statutes on the matter provide for so as that those legitimately seeking asylum don't get slaughtered back home. What due process requires is that cases and controversies be heard by a neutral and detached judicial officer as laid out in Article III.

Um, no, it isn't statutes that require it, it is the policy created by the Obama administration ("credible fear" is an initial interview when the alien claims refugee/asylum status):

In 2009, according to Attorney General Sessions, the Obama administration began releasing aliens found to have credible fear.17 As a likely result, the number of credible fear reviews increased significantly, from 5,000 in 2009, to 94,000 in 2016.

https://cis.org/Report/Catch-and-Release-Escape-Hatches

Prior to that, those who passed the credible fear interview were detained while their asylum claim went through the courts, resulting in either asylum status or deportation. The change to catch-and-release resulted in a 1,900% increase in claims. Who-da-thunk-it!

With the Obama-initiated catch-and-release, less than half even bother filling out the asylum form, the next step in the asylum process. IMO, many are gaming the system to the detriment of the true asylum-seekers.

 

[Leadeye]

Considering all the groups making money from the present system, I'll be really surprise if it changes much.

Always follow the money

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Always follow the money

HE SAID THE SECRET WORD, HE SAID THE SECRET WORD

 

[Fargo]

Um, no, it isn't statutes that require it, it is the policy created by the Obama administration ("credible fear" is an initial interview when the alien claims refugee/asylum status):



https://cis.org/Report/Catch-and-Release-Escape-Hatches

Prior to that, those who passed the credible fear interview were detained while their asylum claim went through the courts, resulting in either asylum status or deportation. The change to catch-and-release resulted in a 1,900% increase in claims. Who-da-thunk-it!

With the Obama-initiated catch-and-release, less than half even bother filling out the asylum form, the next step in the asylum process. IMO, many are gaming the system to the detriment of the true asylum-seekers.

Sigh... No one said due process required release. It just requires that if there is a legally cognizable case/controversy they get a hearing by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer.

 

[mmpsteve]

Sigh... No one said due process required release. It just requires that if there is a legally cognizable case/controversy they get a hearing by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer.

If they show up to said 'judicial' hearing. And if they have kids with them, well .... what else can you do but release them! Pretty good tactics by those who want to maintain their power thru open borders.

 

[Fargo]

If they show up to said 'judicial' hearing. And if they have kids with them, well .... what else can you do but release them! Pretty good tactics by those who want to maintain their power thru open borders.

I don't disagree, but that is a fundamentally different question.

 

[Leadeye]

This is better than rep!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

If they show up to said 'judicial' hearing. And if they have kids with them, well .... what else can you do but release them! Pretty good tactics by those who want to maintain their power thru open borders.

I don't disagree, but that is a fundamentally different question.

In theory, you are correct. In practice, it's one in the same.

After making the asylum claim, the individual has 10 days to obtain representation. In practice, the "open borders" organizations appear on the 10th day and ask for a stay so that they can develop their case, which is ALWAYS more than the remaining 10 days (of the Flores 20 day limit) for detaining their [STRIKE]human shields[/STRIKE] children.

Presto, chango, the choice is either detain them, as they would adults unaccompanied by children, until their court date, which means separating the family, or release them with their child/children into the US interior for a future hearing date, to which the vast majority do not return.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

 

[Libertarian01]

All of this goes to show why we need an entire overhaul of the immigration laws of our country.

Since our creation the colonies were formed and grown by immigration from elsewhere. When our nation was created and all through the following centuries we have been a nation of immigrants.

What we were not was a welfare state. We have become a welfare state, thus necessitating core changes to our immigration. Not a cessation of immigration, but a serious review and paradigm shift in the laws.

Very few want to keep everyone out. Very few want unlimited immigration. The idiots in office could accomplish serious, meaningful reform if they would only meet and try. That this is highly unlikely is pathetic.

Regards,

Doug

 

[SheepDog4Life]

All of this goes to show why we need an entire overhaul of the immigration laws of our country.

Since our creation the colonies were formed and grown by immigration from elsewhere. When our nation was created and all through the following centuries we have been a nation of immigrants.

What we were not was a welfare state. We have become a welfare state, thus necessitating core changes to our immigration. Not a cessation of immigration, but a serious review and paradigm shift in the laws.

Very few want to keep everyone out. Very few want unlimited immigration. The idiots in office could accomplish serious, meaningful reform if they would only meet and try. That this is highly unlikely is pathetic.

Regards,

Doug

Doug, I agree with everything that you said, doubly so the highlighted part, though the extremists on both ends of that spectrum are highly vocal.

One other point I would add is that for much of our history, we were "population poor" versus the size of our country. We needed large amounts of immigration to succeed as a country. That is no longer the case, so IMO our policy should have more focus on attracting the immigrants who would "improve" and "benefit" our country. Many other countries (for example Canada) focus a large slice of their immigration quota in such a manner using a points-based system... not all, but most of the quota.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

If they show up to said 'judicial' hearing. And if they have kids with them, well .... what else can you do but release them! Pretty good tactics by those who want to maintain their power thru open borders.

I don't disagree, but that is a fundamentally different question.

In theory, you are correct. In practice, it's one in the same.

After making the asylum claim, the individual has 10 days to obtain representation. In practice, the "open borders" organizations appear on the 10th day and ask for a stay so that they can develop their case, which is ALWAYS more than the remaining 10 days (of the Flores 20 day limit) for detaining their [STRIKE]human shields[/STRIKE] children.

Presto, chango, the choice is either detain them, as they would adults unaccompanied by children, until their court date, which means separating the family, or release them with their child/children into the US interior for a future hearing date, to which the vast majority do not return.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

And, just to be clear, my problem is NOT with the original 1997 Flores decision/consent decree that UNACCOMPANIED MINORS could only be detained for 20 days.

My issue is with the more recent (2015 IIRC) appeals court decision that applied the Flores 20 day detention limit to ACCOMPANIED MINORS, detained as a family unit. THAT is what made only two bad choices available.

 

[Route 45]

'Abolish ICE' goes mainstream as Gillibrand, de Blasio back calls | Fox News

 

[Twangbanger]

'Abolish ICE' goes mainstream as Gillibrand, de Blasio back calls | Fox News

So, I'm confused...one week, they want to "protect" Law Enforcement Agencies...the next, abolish them?