AuthorTopic: The Official Refugee Thread  (Read 123623 times)

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33249
    • View Profile
🚢 Why the U.S. Is Stuck With a Fight Over Immigration: A Debate
« Reply #795 on: July 26, 2018, 04:24:54 AM »
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-25/why-the-u-s-is-stuck-with-a-fight-over-immigration

Politics & Policy
Why the U.S. Is Stuck With a Fight Over Immigration: A Debate


The U.S. needs more foreign residents, but public sentiment makes that unlikely.
By Tyler Cowen
and Noah Smith
July 25, 2018, 8:00 AM AKDT

Part of what made America great. Source: Bettmann/Getty Images
Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include “The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream.”
Read more opinion
Follow @tylercowen on Twitter
Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.
Read more opinion
Follow @Noahpinion on Twitter
COMMENTS
13
LISTEN TO ARTICLE
6:22
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

No issue these days draws as much attention, and heated rhetoric, in the U.S. as immigration. Indeed, immigration has jumped to the top of polls as the most important problem facing the nation, ahead of dissatisfaction with America’s political leadership. Bloomberg Opinion columnists Tyler Cowen and Noah Smith recently met online to debate the role immigration plays in the nation’s economic and political life.

Noah Smith: Tyler, in a recent article, you predicted that President Donald Trump might shift the U.S. toward a more closed immigration policy in the long term. Though polls show increasing support for immigrants and immigration, you noted a paper showing that thinking about immigrants makes Americans tend to support redistribution less. Your conclusion was that although most Americans might have warm feelings toward immigrants in the abstract, the minority who are intensely anti-immigrant will prevail.

I think there are reasons to doubt this conclusion. The first reason is that illegal immigration and low-skilled immigration — the types that people tend to feel most negatively about — are both way down from a decade ago. Because these unpopular inflows are simply less of an issue, the pressure for restriction might abate quickly. Meanwhile, with U.S. fertility rates low, the U.S. needs skilled immigrants to come in and pay taxes to support the comfortable retirements of the elderly native-born. We might be seeing a situation similar to the mid-1800s, in which the needs of the U.S. economy override a brief bout of nativism.

Tyler Cowen: I still don’t see a renewed dose of immigration increases in America’s immediate or even midterm future. Immigration has become a major issue all around Europe, and pretty uniformly it is helping right-wing parties, not the left. Democrats fear this scenario for the U.S., even if immigration is polling pretty well at the moment. And so Democrats will keep some distance from the issue, more than one might have thought a few years ago.

Democrats also have begun to rethink the demographic-dividend strategy, based on the premise that immigrants will continue to vote for the Democrats in disproportionate numbers. According to one estimate, in 2016 perhaps as many as 28 percent of Latinos voted Republican, more than many observers had been expecting. The very successes of assimilation mean that many immigrants will end up voting Republican. Furthermore, a lot of recent legal arrivals are among the strongest opponents of illegal immigration into this country. I increasingly doubt that Democrats will be willing to bet the farm on a political strategy to boost immigration.

NS: I agree with you that the idea of importing Democratic voters is both a bad idea and a wrong idea. Texas, where Republican candidates often win more than 40 percent of the Latino vote, seems like the most plausible future.

I also think that the age of mass Latino immigration is now over. It was mostly over even before Trump, and a combination of Trump’s harsh treatment of migrants and improving conditions in Central America seem likely to halt even the trickle that remains.

But that doesn’t mean America’s need for immigrants will go away. With an aging population and falling fertility, the country needs the tax dollars that skilled immigrants provide, in order to support pensions and local government budgets. U.S. companies also need skilled immigrants in order to maintain technological dominance. And shrinking, declining cities need immigrants to keep them from becoming ghost towns. Those needs aren’t going to go away any time soon. So I think that there will be demand for continued inflows of immigrants, unlike during the mid-20th-century baby boom when fertility was high.

TC: I fully agree that we should increase immigration into the U.S. I just don’t think we will. And surely you would admit we follow all kinds of other policies that don’t make sense in economic terms. Right now people just feel too nervous and too polarized about the cultural issues, and I think that will prevent further progress on immigration.

We agree that Latino immigration has peaked. Where then should the next wave of immigrants come from? Perhaps South Asia and Africa are the logical choices, but I don’t think those are the easiest regions to sell to the voters, including Democrats. That both regions have significant Muslim populations doesn’t make this any easier, even though Muslim immigration to the U.S. has in general gone quite well.

Are so many Europeans keen to come here? I don’t quite see it. Eastern Europeans would be a logical choice, but it’s also well understood that Polish and Romanian immigration turned out to be one motivating factor behind Brexit. These days, I just see too much political risk aversion.

NS: The next wave of immigration would — and probably should — come from China and India, and to some extent the Philippines. Those have been among the largest source countries in recent years, and immigration tends to follow on itself. Both countries have environmental and political downsides that make the U.S. an attractive option for skilled workers, and I think this will continue to be true. Politically, Asian immigrants are viewed as positively as European immigrants. Even Republicans might view Chinese immigration favorably, given the existence of a strong conservative current within the Chinese-American community.

As for the political sensitivity of immigration, I wonder if the issue isn’t simply a stalking horse for divisions between groups of native-born Americans — religious versus nonreligious, black versus white, urban versus rural, etc. The parallel I’m thinking of is the period before the Civil War, when the anti-immigration Know-Nothing movement suddenly flared up in the North. After the war, anti-immigrant sentiment essentially vanished.

I now see the U.S. as being in a cold civil war. We may not fight with guns — in fact, I’ll be surprised if we do — but one way or another, the contest between two competing visions of America is now going to the finish line. Afterward, perhaps in a decade or so, I wouldn’t be surprised if the winning side starts bringing in immigrants again, for economic reasons.

TC: If we really are in a cold civil war, as you suggest, that does not bode well for more immigration. As for Chinese migrants, I think, like Australia and New Zealand, we are due for some scandals concerning how well Chinese immigrant-spies have penetrated core American institutions. That won’t help the cause of Chinese immigration.

You yourself note that last time, in the 19th century, it took a massive Civil War to shift the coalitions back toward favoring more immigration. These days, our ideological conflicts don’t seem to have finish lines, and the American system of government is strongly set up to favor blocks and veto powers. On immigration, I think we’ll be lucky to maintain the status quo.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15448
    • View Profile
Re: 🚢 Why the U.S. Is Stuck With a Fight Over Immigration: A Debate
« Reply #796 on: July 26, 2018, 05:17:15 AM »
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-25/why-the-u-s-is-stuck-with-a-fight-over-immigration

Politics & Policy
Why the U.S. Is Stuck With a Fight Over Immigration: A Debate


The U.S. needs more foreign residents, but public sentiment makes that unlikely.
By Tyler Cowen
and Noah Smith
July 25, 2018, 8:00 AM AKDT

Part of what made America great. Source: Bettmann/Getty Images
Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include “The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream.”
Read more opinion
Follow @tylercowen on Twitter
Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.
Read more opinion
Follow @Noahpinion on Twitter
COMMENTS
13
LISTEN TO ARTICLE
6:22
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

No issue these days draws as much attention, and heated rhetoric, in the U.S. as immigration. Indeed, immigration has jumped to the top of polls as the most important problem facing the nation, ahead of dissatisfaction with America’s political leadership. Bloomberg Opinion columnists Tyler Cowen and Noah Smith recently met online to debate the role immigration plays in the nation’s economic and political life.

Noah Smith: Tyler, in a recent article, you predicted that President Donald Trump might shift the U.S. toward a more closed immigration policy in the long term. Though polls show increasing support for immigrants and immigration, you noted a paper showing that thinking about immigrants makes Americans tend to support redistribution less. Your conclusion was that although most Americans might have warm feelings toward immigrants in the abstract, the minority who are intensely anti-immigrant will prevail.

I think there are reasons to doubt this conclusion. The first reason is that illegal immigration and low-skilled immigration — the types that people tend to feel most negatively about — are both way down from a decade ago. Because these unpopular inflows are simply less of an issue, the pressure for restriction might abate quickly. Meanwhile, with U.S. fertility rates low, the U.S. needs skilled immigrants to come in and pay taxes to support the comfortable retirements of the elderly native-born. We might be seeing a situation similar to the mid-1800s, in which the needs of the U.S. economy override a brief bout of nativism.

Tyler Cowen: I still don’t see a renewed dose of immigration increases in America’s immediate or even midterm future. Immigration has become a major issue all around Europe, and pretty uniformly it is helping right-wing parties, not the left. Democrats fear this scenario for the U.S., even if immigration is polling pretty well at the moment. And so Democrats will keep some distance from the issue, more than one might have thought a few years ago.

Democrats also have begun to rethink the demographic-dividend strategy, based on the premise that immigrants will continue to vote for the Democrats in disproportionate numbers. According to one estimate, in 2016 perhaps as many as 28 percent of Latinos voted Republican, more than many observers had been expecting. The very successes of assimilation mean that many immigrants will end up voting Republican. Furthermore, a lot of recent legal arrivals are among the strongest opponents of illegal immigration into this country. I increasingly doubt that Democrats will be willing to bet the farm on a political strategy to boost immigration.

NS: I agree with you that the idea of importing Democratic voters is both a bad idea and a wrong idea. Texas, where Republican candidates often win more than 40 percent of the Latino vote, seems like the most plausible future.

I also think that the age of mass Latino immigration is now over. It was mostly over even before Trump, and a combination of Trump’s harsh treatment of migrants and improving conditions in Central America seem likely to halt even the trickle that remains.

But that doesn’t mean America’s need for immigrants will go away. With an aging population and falling fertility, the country needs the tax dollars that skilled immigrants provide, in order to support pensions and local government budgets. U.S. companies also need skilled immigrants in order to maintain technological dominance. And shrinking, declining cities need immigrants to keep them from becoming ghost towns. Those needs aren’t going to go away any time soon. So I think that there will be demand for continued inflows of immigrants, unlike during the mid-20th-century baby boom when fertility was high.

TC: I fully agree that we should increase immigration into the U.S. I just don’t think we will. And surely you would admit we follow all kinds of other policies that don’t make sense in economic terms. Right now people just feel too nervous and too polarized about the cultural issues, and I think that will prevent further progress on immigration.

We agree that Latino immigration has peaked. Where then should the next wave of immigrants come from? Perhaps South Asia and Africa are the logical choices, but I don’t think those are the easiest regions to sell to the voters, including Democrats. That both regions have significant Muslim populations doesn’t make this any easier, even though Muslim immigration to the U.S. has in general gone quite well.

Are so many Europeans keen to come here? I don’t quite see it. Eastern Europeans would be a logical choice, but it’s also well understood that Polish and Romanian immigration turned out to be one motivating factor behind Brexit. These days, I just see too much political risk aversion.

NS: The next wave of immigration would — and probably should — come from China and India, and to some extent the Philippines. Those have been among the largest source countries in recent years, and immigration tends to follow on itself. Both countries have environmental and political downsides that make the U.S. an attractive option for skilled workers, and I think this will continue to be true. Politically, Asian immigrants are viewed as positively as European immigrants. Even Republicans might view Chinese immigration favorably, given the existence of a strong conservative current within the Chinese-American community.

As for the political sensitivity of immigration, I wonder if the issue isn’t simply a stalking horse for divisions between groups of native-born Americans — religious versus nonreligious, black versus white, urban versus rural, etc. The parallel I’m thinking of is the period before the Civil War, when the anti-immigration Know-Nothing movement suddenly flared up in the North. After the war, anti-immigrant sentiment essentially vanished.

I now see the U.S. as being in a cold civil war. We may not fight with guns — in fact, I’ll be surprised if we do — but one way or another, the contest between two competing visions of America is now going to the finish line. Afterward, perhaps in a decade or so, I wouldn’t be surprised if the winning side starts bringing in immigrants again, for economic reasons.

TC: If we really are in a cold civil war, as you suggest, that does not bode well for more immigration. As for Chinese migrants, I think, like Australia and New Zealand, we are due for some scandals concerning how well Chinese immigrant-spies have penetrated core American institutions. That won’t help the cause of Chinese immigration.

You yourself note that last time, in the 19th century, it took a massive Civil War to shift the coalitions back toward favoring more immigration. These days, our ideological conflicts don’t seem to have finish lines, and the American system of government is strongly set up to favor blocks and veto powers. On immigration, I think we’ll be lucky to maintain the status quo.


Democrats also have begun to rethink the demographic-dividend strategy, based on the premise that immigrants will continue to vote for the Democrats in disproportionate numbers. According to one estimate, in 2016 perhaps as many as 28 percent of Latinos voted Republican, more than many observers had been expecting. The very successes of assimilation mean that many immigrants will end up voting Republican. Furthermore, a lot of recent legal arrivals are among the strongest opponents of illegal immigration into this country. I increasingly doubt that Democrats will be willing to bet the farm on a political strategy to boost immigration.


They better rethink it. But I don't see much sign of that, myself. I see a very stubborn attachment to a whole laundry basket full of very questionable assumptions, and a party that sold out its base of poor white people and won't ever get them back.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33249
    • View Profile
🚢 Trump threatens shutdown over wall, immigration
« Reply #797 on: July 30, 2018, 01:10:04 AM »
MOAR Goobermint Shutdown threats!  ::)

RE

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/29/politics/donald-trump-shutdown-wall/index.html

Trump threatens shutdown over wall, immigration

By Eli Watkins, CNN

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/glAcWe1NNq4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/glAcWe1NNq4</a>

Updated 10:58 AM ET, Sun July 29, 2018
Trump close country wall immigration sot_00000000

Current Time 1:31
/
Duration Time 1:32
 
Rep. Marsha Blackburn newday
GOP lawmaker on border wall: It will get done
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel and President Donnald Trump
Judge taunted by Trump to hear border wall case
GOP Sen.: Trump border wall a metaphor
trump border wall explainer animation orig nws_00003622.jpg
What it would take to build Trump's border wall
Mexican Secretary of Finance and Public Credit Luis Videgaray walks to the IMFC Plenary Session during the IMF and World Bank Group 2016 Spring Meetings on April 16, 2016 in Washington, DC. / AFP / MOLLY RILEY (Photo credit should read MOLLY RILEY/AFP/Getty Images)
Mexico's top diplomat responds to Trump's tweet
Border Series Arizona
Rare view of immigrants trying to enter US
Mitch McConnell Paul Ryan border wall_00000000.jpg
Ryan: $12-15 billion for border wall
Enrique Peńa Nieto
Mexico's president: We will not pay for wall
Trump close country wall immigration sot_00000000.jpg
Trump threatens to close country over wall
us mexico border fence jpm orig_00004913.jpg
What the US-Mexico border really looks like
Trump orders National Guard troops to border
US President Donald Trump (C) is shown border wall prototypes in San Diego, California on March 13, 2018. / AFP PHOTO / MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Now Playing
Trump's military guard may face legal hurdles
trump border wall cali
Trump posts misleading tweet on border wall
A group of Central Americans crossed into Mexico in March as part of a migrant &quot;caravan&quot; heading to the United States border.
What the caravan crossing Mexico really wants
Trump touts wall prototypes in San Diego
Paul Ryan defends border wall_00000000.jpg
Paul Ryan defends $14 billion border wall
Rep. Marsha Blackburn newday
GOP lawmaker on border wall: It will get done
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel and President Donnald Trump
Judge taunted by Trump to hear border wall case
GOP Sen.: Trump border wall a metaphor
trump border wall explainer animation orig nws_00003622.jpg
What it would take to build Trump's border wall
Mexican Secretary of Finance and Public Credit Luis Videgaray walks to the IMFC Plenary Session during the IMF and World Bank Group 2016 Spring Meetings on April 16, 2016 in Washington, DC. / AFP / MOLLY RILEY (Photo credit should read MOLLY RILEY/AFP/Getty Images)
Mexico's top diplomat responds to Trump's tweet
Border Series Arizona
Rare view of immigrants trying to enter US
Mitch McConnell Paul Ryan border wall_00000000.jpg
Ryan: $12-15 billion for border wall
Enrique Peńa Nieto
Mexico's president: We will not pay for wall
Trump close country wall immigration sot_00000000.jpg
Trump threatens to close country over wall
us mexico border fence jpm orig_00004913.jpg
What the US-Mexico border really looks like
Trump orders National Guard troops to border
US President Donald Trump (C) is shown border wall prototypes in San Diego, California on March 13, 2018. / AFP PHOTO / MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Trump's military guard may face legal hurdles
trump border wall cali
Trump posts misleading tweet on border wall
A group of Central Americans crossed into Mexico in March as part of a migrant &quot;caravan&quot; heading to the United States border.
What the caravan crossing Mexico really wants
Trump touts wall prototypes in San Diego
Paul Ryan defends border wall_00000000.jpg
Paul Ryan defends $14 billion border wall

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump threatened to push the government into shutdown ahead of the coming appropriations deadline in September if Congress does not fund his border wall and change the nation's immigration laws.

"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!" Trump tweeted Sunday.
Trump has previously floated the possibility of a government shutdown over border security and immigration, and on Sunday he made his threat explicit, saying he would do so unless Congress funds his proposed wall, which he promised Mexico would pay for, and puts in place his preferred immigration policies.
In May, Trump suggested "closing up the country for a while" if he did not get his wall.

"They don't want the wall," Trump said. "But we're going to get the wall, even if we have to think about closing up the country for a while."
Sunday's shutdown threat from Trump also echoed a remark he made in February when he said "I'd love to see a shutdown" if the government did not agree to address immigration.
Congress ultimately passed a spending bill in March that funded the government through September. Trump threatened at the time to veto the spending agreement, but eventually signed the bill while expressing his displeasure with Congress.

"I said to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again," Trump said in March.

A shutdown over Trump's wall at the September deadline would mark the third lapse in appropriations this year, following a shutdown in January as Democrats battled with the Trump administration and congressional Republicans on protections for "Dreamers" as well as a brief shutdown when Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky blocked a spending vote.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced in June that he was canceling much of the Senate's August recess, saying the chamber needed the additional time to make progress on Trump's nominees and pass appropriations bills. And with the House out on August recess, there's not much time left before the deadline that both chambers will be in session.
Both Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and McConnell met with Trump last week to discuss funding the government.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2514
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: The Official Refugee Thread
« Reply #798 on: July 30, 2018, 08:31:46 AM »
There is only one party immigrants can be counted on voting for.  The party of doom.



326,955,688 is our current number.  Climate is going to smash food production and we are fucked.  The population has more than doubled since WWII and we still let people who can't do math make decisions.

THIS MUST STOP
« Last Edit: July 30, 2018, 08:35:30 AM by K-Dog »
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 13886
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🚢 Trump threatens shutdown over wall, immigration
« Reply #799 on: July 30, 2018, 04:32:05 PM »
MOAR Goobermint Shutdown threats!  ::)

RE

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/29/politics/donald-trump-shutdown-wall/index.html

Trump threatens shutdown over wall, immigration

Oh please, Jesus, please. Shut the government down, you vile orange fuck. Pretty fucking please.
And try to pin it on the Ds.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Online Agent Graves

  • Rookie
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Refugee Thread
« Reply #800 on: July 30, 2018, 10:28:58 PM »
who patrols the border during the shutdown? Another own goal.
Junior  Operative, FBI Counter-Doomsdaycult Taskforce

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33249
    • View Profile
🚢 Judge Orders Trump Administration To Fully Restore DACA
« Reply #801 on: August 04, 2018, 05:23:39 AM »



Law
Judge Orders Trump Administration To Fully Restore DACA

August 3, 201810:52 PM ET

Vanessa Romo


President Trump in January 2018. On Friday, a federal judge ruled the administration has not provided adequate justification for ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Evan Vucci/AP

A Washington, D.C.-based federal judge ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must fully restore the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, saying the government's rationale for dropping it is inadequate.

The order by U.S. District Judge John Bates barring the administration from ending DACA is the third such mandate by a district court, and the latest blow to the administration's efforts to eliminate DACA.

President Trump announced plans to shutter the program, which protects young immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from deportation, in September 2017. Since then the Department of Homeland Security has stopped accepting new applications and processing renewals.

In the 25-page opinion, Bates also denied a motion by the Department of Homeland Security to vacate a previous decision in which he determined the administration's explanations for phasing out the Obama-era program were "arbitrary and capricious."
Federal Judge Upholds DACA, Calling White House Decision To Rescind It 'Capricious'
The Two-Way
Federal Judge Upholds DACA, Calling White House Decision To Rescind It 'Capricious'

Bates had stayed his April ruling to restart DACA within 90 days, giving Homeland Security attorneys an opportunity "to better explain its view that DACA is unlawful." But on Friday, he concluded the government's legal judgments remained "inadequately explained."

The judge's conclusion says:

    "The Court has already once given DHS the opportunity to remedy these deficiencies—either by providing a coherent explanation of its legal opinion or by reissuing its decision for bona fide policy reasons that would preclude judicial review—so it will not do so again."

Article continues after sponsorship
2nd Federal Court Blocks Trump From Rescinding DACA
The Two-Way
2nd Federal Court Blocks Trump From Rescinding DACA

California and New York district court judges have also ruled against the Trump administration, finding that the manner in which it concluded DACA was unlawful and violated the Administrative Procedures Act. DHS is appealing those judgments.

Bates did grant Homeland Security's request for time to consider an appeal. The government has 20 days to submit its petition. If that effort is unsuccessful, DACA will have to be fully implemented on Aug. 23.

In closing, Bates wrote that Friday's ruling does not imply that the government cannot revoke DACA but that it simply has not provided a sound legal justification for doing so.

"A conclusory assertion that a prior policy is illegal, accompanied by a hodgepodge of illogical or post hoc policy assertions, simply will not do," Bates wrote.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33249
    • View Profile
🚢 Judge tells Trump administration to clean up the immigration mess it made
« Reply #802 on: August 05, 2018, 04:01:39 AM »
https://thinkprogress.org/judge-slams-trump-administrations-unacceptable-efforts-to-reunite-immigrant-families-dad6d184e1e7/

Judge tells Trump administration to clean up the immigration mess it made
The government is told it can't expect the ACLU to clean up the mess it's made of immigration policy.
Stephanie Griffith
Aug 4, 2018, 8:29 am   


EL PASO, TX - JULY 26: A woman, identified only as Heydi and her daughter Mishel,6, look at a map of the United States as they figure out where their sponsor lives after being reunited in El Paso, Texas last month after being separated for about two months. CREDIT: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A federal judge slammed the Trump administration’s foot-dragging in reuniting parents and young children separated under the government’s harsh immigration policies, calling the slow progress in reunifying families “unacceptable.”

Judge Dana Sabraw rejected the administration’s efforts to pass the task of reuniting immigrant parents and children to the American Civil Liberties Union, saying in a hearing conducted by telephone late Friday that the government is “100 percent” responsible for bringing back together the families that it ripped apart with its “zero tolerance” policy.

Sabraw ordered the administration to name a dedicated official who would be responsible for overseeing the effort going forward. The judge rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to pass responsibility to the ACLU for tracking down some 500 parents removed from the country without their children, CNN reported.

Sabraw said that if the government doesn’t track down the parents, the children risk being “permanently orphaned.” The judge called the government’s foot-dragging “unacceptable.”
Advertisement

“Many of these parents were removed from the country without their child, all of this is the result of the government’s separation and then inability and failure to track and reunite,” Sabraw said.

“In reviewing the status report it appears that only 12 or 13 of close to 500 parents have been located, which is just unacceptable at this point,” Sabraw said.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen speaks during the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity Summit on July 31, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Kevin Hagen/Getty Images)
Trump administration says it isn’t responsible for reuniting deported parents and children

CNN reported that Sabraw has order the administration to name one or two officials who will be the point persons leading the effort to reunite families, and to provide a detailed action plan for reuniting children with their parents, who in many cases have already been deported.

As ThinkProgress reported on Thursday, the government wants the ACLU, which has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the separated families, to take the lead in fixing a mess that the Trump administration created with its zero tolerance policy that forced families to be torn asunder.
Advertisement

The U.S. Department of Justice suggested that the ACLU could use its “network of law firms, volunteers and others” to help reunite the families.

Speaking to MSNBC Friday night, Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s immigrants’ rights project, said the government bears the responsibility for reuniting families, although the organization is doing what it can to help. He accused the Trump administration, however, of withholding vital information that the organization needs to help reunite families.

“The government is sitting on information that could help us, and they haven’t given it to us,” Gelernt told the All In with Chris Hayes program.

“They have phone numbers of parents, they haven’t given it to us. We got addresses from them — sometimes it’s just a city with 700,000 people. That was the address they gave us. They’re telling us to get us the phone numbers, they need eight more days. I mean, that’s terrible,” Gelernt said.

He added that the situation for these young children is getting more dire as weeks drag on since being wrested away from their parents.
Advertisement

“I think without this judge’s ruling, we may have been looking at 5,000 kids separated by now. Now we’re down to 500, but those 500, as the judge said, are critical. We’re talking about them being orphaned if we don’t find these parents.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who has been one of the most proactive U.S. lawmakers on the family separation issue, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 late Friday that a big part of the problem was that officials did a sloppy, incomplete job of gathering data that could later be used to reunite families.

“The situation is, that the government has so botched the connection between the parents and the children that they’d like to shed that responsibility and put it off onto someone else,” he said.

“In terms of street addresses, many of their files just say things like ‘sin calle’ which means ‘without a street,’ or maybe lists a city and no other details and they’re finding it difficult to find the parents since they didn’t track the information. They’d like to say, well, we messed it up, but let’s make sure someone else has to clean this up.”
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2514
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: The Official Refugee Thread
« Reply #803 on: August 05, 2018, 01:08:42 PM »
Quote
The government is told it can't expect the ACLU to clean up the mess it's made of immigration policy.

The Judge should put the Trump lawyer in the kink for contempt of court for for even suggesting the ACLU should clean up the mess.

Then when the lawyer gets out he can die from a poisoned doorknob for revealing the ACLU is actually now an NGO.  I was pretty sure of it since the Seattle offices are in the same damn building Homeland Security hides out in.  Nine floors above the ACLU the elevators won't even stop for without a badge.  Everyone going in and out is recorded.  Not that it is really a big deal, considering all of 4th avenue for blocks around is now being videoed.

Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33249
    • View Profile
🚢 Judge halts deportation, threatens to hold Sessions in contempt
« Reply #804 on: August 10, 2018, 12:56:23 AM »
https://www.nola.com/national_politics/2018/08/judge_halts_mother-daughter_de.html

    National Politics & Government

Judge halts mother-daughter deportation, threatens to hold AG Sessions in contempt
Updated 4:41 PM; Posted 4:33 PM

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is pictured delivering remarks on efforts to combat violent crime in America during an appearance at the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Georgia on Thursday August 9, 2018, in Macon, Ga. (AP Photo/John Amis)


By The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Washington halted a deportation in progress Thursday and threatened to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt after learning that the Trump administration started to remove a woman and her daughter while a court hearing appealing their deportations was underway.

"This is pretty outrageous," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan said after being told about the removal. "That someone seeking justice in U.S. court is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her?"

"I'm not happy about this at all," the judge continued. "This is not acceptable."

The woman, known in court papers as Carmen, is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union. It challenges a recent policy change by the Department of Justice that aims to expedite the removal of asylum seekers who fail to prove their cases and excludes domestic and gang violence as justifications for granting asylum in the United States.

Attorneys for the civil rights organization and the Department of Justice had agreed to delay removal proceedings for Carmen and her child until 11:59 p.m. Thursday so they could argue the matter in court.

But lead ACLU attorney Jennifer Chang Newell, who was participating in the court hearing via phone from her office in California, received an email during the hearing that said the mother and daughter were being deported.

Trump playing the blame game on immigration

Trump playing the blame game on immigration

Blaming the migrants for their plight – demonizing them – serves only to normalize the xenophobia the president is fomenting.

During a brief recess, she told her colleagues the pair had been taken from a family detention center in Dilley, Texas, and were headed to the airport in San Antonio for an 8:15 a.m. flight.

After granting the ACLU's request to delay deportations for Carmen and the other plaintiffs until the lawsuit is decided, Sullivan ordered the government to "turn the plane around."

Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni said he had not been told the deportation was happening that morning, and could not confirm the whereabouts of Carmen and her daughter.

The ACLU said later that government attorneys informed them after the hearing that the pair was on a flight to El Salvador. The Justice Department said they would be flown back to Texas and returned to the detention center after landing, the ACLU said.

"It must have been absolutely terrifying for them to think they would be returning to a country where they raised very credible claims of persecution and death," said Eunice Lee, who is co-counsel in the case and is co-legal director at the University of California-Hastings Center for Gender and Refugee Studies. "It's outrageous to me that while we were working around-the-clock filing briefings for this case's early morning hearing that people in the government were actively arranging for Carmen's deportation."

The Justice Department declined a request for comment.

To qualify for asylum, migrants must show that they have a fear of persecution in their native country based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a "particular social group," a category that in the past has included victims of domestic violence and other abuse.

Carmen fled El Salvador with her daughter in June, according to court records, fearing they would be killed by gang members who had demanded she pay them money each month or suffer consequences. Several coworkers at the factory where Carmen worked had been murdered, and her husband is also abusive, the records state.

Miller pushing hardline legal immigrant policy

Miller pushing hardline legal immigrant policy

Miller is backing a policy that would make it harder for legal immigrants to be granted citizenship if they receive certain forms of government assistance.

Under the fast-track removal system, created in 1996, asylum seekers are interviewed to determine whether they have a "credible fear" of returning home. Those who pass get a full hearing in immigration court.

In June, Sessions vacated a 2016 Board of Immigration Appeals court case that granted asylum to an abused woman from El Salvador. As part of that decision, Sessions said gang and domestic violence in most cases would no longer be grounds for receiving asylum.

"The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes - such as domestic violence or gang violence - or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim," Sessions wrote at the time.

The ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of 12 migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala - three of them children - all of whom failed their initial "credible fear" interviews.

Two of the children and their mothers were deported before the suit was filed. None of the adults had been separated from their children as part of President Trump's "zero-tolerance" policy.

The lawsuit says Sessions's ruling, and updated guidelines for asylum officers that the Department of Homeland Security issued a month later, subject migrants in expedited removal proceedings to an "unlawful screening standard" that deprives them of their rights under federal law.

Asylum seekers previously had to show that the government in their native country was "unable or unwilling" to protect them. But now they have to show that the government "condones" the violence or "is completely helpless" to protect them, the lawsuit says.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post. Written by Arelis R. Hernandez.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33249
    • View Profile
🚢 Showdown — and potential shutdown — loom over border funding
« Reply #805 on: September 01, 2018, 05:44:38 AM »
Another Goobermint shutdown threat!  ::)

RE

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/showdown--and-potential-shutdown--loom-over-border-funding.html

Showdown — and potential shutdown — loom over border funding 

    The White House has floated a potential strategy to partially shutdown specific government agencies if Congress does not pass spending legislation that includes funding for a border wall, according to sources.
    Lawmakers have 11 work days to fund government after returning from recess.
    A senior administration official said the current preference is not a shutdown but a Homeland Security bill that includes $5 billion in funding set aside for a wall along the southern border.

Kayla Tausche   | @kaylatausche
Published 17 Hours Ago Updated 17 Hours Ago CNBC.com
      
   
President Donald Trump
Cheriss May | NurPhoto | Getty Images


When Congress returns from recess after Labor Day weekend, lawmakers will have just 11 legislative days before an Oct. 1 deadline to pass new spending legislation or a stopgap funding bill to keep the government open, or risk the third government shutdown in 2018.

But the White House is considering at least one alternative option, according to three people who have discussed the idea with West Wing officials: A "partial shutdown," in which President Donald Trump would sign stand-alone bills to fund the majority of the government, while reserving the right to veto others if they don't include funding for the border wall.

"It hasn't been ruled out," said a senior administration official, who said there are multiple scenarios being discussed with GOP leaders. "But it hasn't been ruled in, either."
Sen. Shelley More Capito: I think Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed
Sen. Shelley More Capito: I think Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed 
8:59 AM ET Thu, 16 Aug 2018 | 01:46

The strategy, said to be supported internally by senior policy advisor Stephen Miller and, to a lesser extent, budget director Mick Mulvaney, would eliminate traditional shutdown vignettes of withheld paychecks and closed national parks and veterans affairs facilities. It would allow the White House to exact leverage over a specific campaign issue before a potential party reorg in Congress — and prevent a forced signature on a wide-ranging and opaque spending bill that excludes his top priority.

"The president won't sign another bill like the omnibus," said one person who's discussed the strategy with the White House, referring to the February $1.3 trillion bipartisan spending package on which Trump threatened a last-minute veto.

A second senior administration official said the current preference is not a shutdown but a Homeland Security bill that includes $5 billion in funding set aside for a wall along the southern border, a dollar amount Trump has signaled publicly he'd support.

Marc Short, former White House director of legislative affairs, said the president encouraged Republican leadership to stay in town in August to finish the piecemeal government funding bills.

"That [progress] benefits the president to isolate a national security or border security issue in any funding battle," Short tells CNBC.

A senior GOP aide said Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress are aligned in wanting to make as much progress as possible on the 12 appropriations bills required to fund the government. So far, roughly three-quarters of the spending has been bundled into three "minibus" packages being negotiated — or set for future negotiation — between the House and Senate.

But it's up to the White House, according to the aide, to decide how far it will push to fund the Department of Homeland Security and, within that, the border wall, which are not in the packages being considered. Neither is funding for the departments of Justice or Transportation, which also could become lightning rods in the debate because of money set aside for the Russia investigation or the Gateway tunnel between New York and New Jersey.

In late July, Trump tweeted he'd be willing to "shut down" the government if Democrats didn't vote for his border package — despite the fact that he agreed privately with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell weeks earlier not to shut down the government ahead of midterms.

"The president wants to get border security done – whether it's this month, next month, or December," the first senior administration official said.

Spokespersons for both Ryan and McConnell told CNBC that they plan to address any government funding gaps through a continuing resolution, a short-term measure that would likely fund the government until late November.

"Congress doesn't want a shutdown or an individual agency shutdown," said Stan Collender, professor of public policy at Georgetown University. "They want to go home; they want to fundraise; they want to campaign."
WATCH: Trump says border security a national security problem
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
12658 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 01:24:08 AM
by RE
0 Replies
463 Views
Last post September 24, 2015, 01:15:08 PM
by Eddie
0 Replies
496 Views
Last post May 04, 2016, 02:09:57 PM
by Surly1