1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Immigration & Trumps Wall

Discussion in 'Politics Forum (Local/National/World)' started by searcher, Jan 6, 2017.



  1. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We don't need a wall. Bring our troops home and put them on the border. Once they are on the border, every vehicle that comes in from Mexico gets searched for drugs and humans.
    An announcement is made that there is a one time amnesty for all illegals. They have 14 days to get on a bus back to Mx. Busses will be provided. Anyone caught after the amnesty period does 10 years in prison on a work release programs where they will be required to work everyday rebuilding the infrastructure in America. After the 10 years is up they will get a free bus ride back to Mx.
    Any employer caught hiring an illegal gets a 10k fine and 6 months in jail. Any politician declaring sanctuary city is immediately jailed in club fed for 10 years and joins the crew rebuilding infrastructure.
     
    Po'boy likes this.
  2. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump faces legal challenge on border wall with Mexico

    [​IMG]
    Associated Press
    By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press
    3 hrs ago



    SAN DIEGO — An Indiana-born federal judge, whose Mexican heritage Donald Trump used to paint him as biased against him in a 2016 court case because of his immigration stance, will hear arguments in a lawsuit that could block construction of a border wall with Mexico.

    Judge Gonzalo Curiel will hear arguments Friday on a lawsuit from the state of California and advocacy groups that a border wall with Mexico must go through normal environmental reviews, which could cause major delays.

    The Trump administration wants Curiel to dismiss the challenges, and wall opponents want him to immediately rule in their favor.

    Trump repeatedly criticized Curiel in 2016 as lawsuits against Trump University neared trial, suggesting that the judge's Mexican heritage meant he could not be impartial in the fraud cases. Trump settled for $25 million shortly after winning the election, without admitting wrongdoing.

    Curiel, who was forced out of his home and needed around-the-clock protection when he prosecuted Mexican drug kingpins in the 1990s, was unfazed by Trump's criticism during the campaign, said Gregory Vega, a former U.S. attorney in San Diego and longtime friend.

    "He's had a credible threat made on his life. I don't think when he was called names, I don't think that really bothered him," said Vega.

    The Center for Biological Diversity was first to sue over the wall, with three other groups — Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Animal Legal Defense Fund — later filing a lawsuit. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, was close behind, and Curiel consolidated all three cases into one.

    At issue is a 2005 law that gave the Homeland Security secretary broad powers to waive dozens of laws requiring environmental and other reviews, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act. The reviews are time-consuming and subject to prolonged legal challenges.

    The Trump administration has issued three waivers since August, two to build barriers in parts of California and one in part of New Mexico. President George W. Bush's administration issued the previous five waivers.

    California and the advocacy groups contend the administration's authority to waive environmental reviews expired. The Center for Biological Diversity argues in its lawsuit that the 2005 law "cannot reasonably be interpreted to exempt compliance with the waived laws in perpetuity."

    California argues that the powers expired in 2008, a deadline set by Congress to have barriers on at least 700 miles (1,120 kilometers). Barriers now blanket 654 miles (1,046 kilometers), but additional layers bring the total above the congressional requirement.

    The Trump administration argues that the powers are still in effect and that Curiel, or any judge, can't overrule Congress.

    Trump has insisted on $25 billion for border security measures as part of an immigration deal that would include a path to citizenship for 1.8 million people. A proposal by Customs and Border Protection calls for spending $18 billion over 10 years to extend barriers to nearly half the 2,054-mile (3,286-kilometer) border.

    One of the administration's environmental waivers is for San Diego, where private contractors recently built eight imposing prototypes to guide designs for future construction.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...border-wall-with-mexico/ar-BBITZex?li=BBnb7Kz
     
  4. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,338
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So great an idea that it would work.

    That being said I know no one in office has the balls to do it.
     
    Cigarlover likes this.
  5. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Defense secretary promises military DREAMers will be 'protected' from deportation even if DACA ends
    • Secretary James Mattis says military members and veterans enrolled in DACA won't be deported even if the program isn't extended past March 5
    • President Trump is set to sunset DACA unless Congress writes it into law as part of a larger immigration overhaul including a border wall
    • Active duty, reserves, veterans and enlistees waiting to go to boot camp will all be covered, Mattis says


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5373931/Mattis-military-DREAMers-protected-DACA-ends.html#ixzz56f4pdUov
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  6. andial

    andial Sir Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    10,157
    Likes Received:
    10,266
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    quality control
    Shemitah books for sale cheap!
     
    searcher likes this.
  7. nickndfl

    nickndfl Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    11,973
    Likes Received:
    9,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Florida
    Just about everybody in Congress was for heavy border security depending on who was in power. It's disgusting that both sides will argue for or against just to make a political talking point instead of taking care of business for the American people.

    Right now it is so toxic that if Trump gave a speech in favor of the sun rising in the morning the democrats would protest that it caused global warming. If Trump came out in favor of oxygen for breathing the democrats would turn blue.
     
    searcher likes this.
  8. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    US Judge who President Trump repeatedly attacked as 'Mexican' and 'biased' during 2016 election says he inclined to asserts right to rule on border wall
    • U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said during 2½ hours of arguments Friday in San Diego that he was leaning towards presiding over the case
    • Curiel asked the administration and wall opponents to file additional briefings by the end of Tuesday
    • The state of California and advocacy groups want Judge Curiel to rule that a border wall with Mexico must go through normal environmental reviews
    • Trump repeatedly criticized Curiel in 2016 as lawsuits against Trump University neared trial
    • Trump suggested that the judge's Mexican heritage meant he could not be impartial
    • At issue is a 2005 law that gave the Homeland Security secretary broad powers to waive dozens of laws requiring environmental and other reviews


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5375009/Judge-inclined-assert-right-rule-border-wall.html#ixzz56i8Tubn6
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  9. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The butterfly effect: Trump's border wall could be BLOCKED because it threatens endangered insects
    • Butterflies, Riverside fairy shrimp and Pacific pocket mouse will be disrupted if wall is built
    • A case filed by environmental groups along with the State of California is claiming Homeland Security is trying to get around laws
    • Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who Trump famously accused of being biased because of his Mexican heritage, will hear case


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5376207/Lawsuit-says-Trumps-wall-threatens-endangered-species.html#ixzz56kjKyAbt
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  10. nickndfl

    nickndfl Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    11,973
    Likes Received:
    9,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Florida
    Those insects will get torched by Elon Musk's new flamethrower. I am sure there will be plenty of volunteers to clear a path for the wall.
     
    Glasgow likes this.
  11. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Immigration to Get Freewheeling Debate in the Senate
    Border wall, ‘Dreamers’ protection are among the issues in play as lawmakers will fill empty bill


    By
    Laura Meckler and Siobhan Hughes
    The Wall Street Journal
    Updated Feb. 11, 2018 7:32 p.m. ET



    WASHINGTON—The immigration debate that begins Monday in the Senate promises to be the rarest of things in Washington: a freewheeling, open-ended battle over one of the thorniest subjects, with the expected outcome completely unclear.

    Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) will begin debate on a shell bill that has no immigration provisions, to be filled in with senators’ amendments. The process could take days or weeks, depending on the number of amendments offered and the amount of time Mr. McConnell wishes to devote to a single policy area.

    It is rare these days for a bill to come to the floor that doesn’t have built-in support from the majority party; even rarer still one that is essentially an empty vessel—to be filled with the ideas of whichever group of senators can come up with the needed votes.

    The primary goal for many senators is to protect young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children, who will soon lose Obama-era protections. But the lawmakers will consider a wide range of other ideas aimed at combating illegal immigration and overhauling the system of legal immigration.

    “It’s real debate on an issue where we really don’t know what the outcome is going to be,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) told NBC on Sunday. “We haven’t done that in a while.”

    On one end of the spectrum will be an amendment reflecting President Donald Trump’s framework, to be introduced by seven conservative senators. It combines a path to citizenship for 1.8 million young undocumented immigrants with $25 billion for a border wall and other security measures, and new limits that would ultimately reduce legal immigration by about a third.

    It also seeks to speed deportations for children who cross the border alone and family units, both of whom get special treatment under current law. For instance, children from Central America would have their deportation cases quickly decided, as is the case for children from Mexico. The legislation would also allow family units to be kept in immigration jails while they wait for rulings.

    On the other end, Democrats are expected to seek a vote on the Dream Act, the legislation that gave “Dreamers” their nickname, which provides a path to citizenship for a larger group of young undocumented immigrants without including border security or other more conservative provisions.

    Neither the Trump framework nor the Dream Act are expected to pass. The question is whether anything in between can.

    Even if an immigration bill is passed by the Senate, there’s no guarantee it will go anywhere in the House. Speaker Paul Ryan has said he would only bring legislation to the House floor that Mr. Trump supports, and Mr. Trump has insisted his plan be the one the Senate advances.But even if no bill makes it out of Congress, getting lawmakers on the record about such a touchy issue could have wide implications for this year’s midterm elections.

    In 2013, the last time the Senate debate immigration, senators approved a sweeping, bipartisan bill, backed by then-President Barack Obama, only to see it die in the GOP-controlled House.

    It’s possible that a solution will emerge from a bipartisan group that forced this week’s Senate debate as a way to end last month’s brief government shutdown.

    Members of the group, which meets in the offices of Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), say they are getting closer to releasing one or perhaps multiple amendments, with the aim of pulling enough support from both Republicans and Democrats to pass the Senate.

    “The question is, Will we be in a position to be able to bring everyone together around this proposal at the right moment?” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.).

    Lawmakers are working against a March 5 deadline, when the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program expires. Mr. Trump ended DACA in September and gave Congress six months to legislate a replacement. A federal court has mandated that the administration continue to accept renewals for now, but it could be overturned.

    The debate centers on four areas of immigration, each with its own complications.

    Protections for the young undocumented immigrants may be the easiest piece of the puzzle. Mr. Trump has agreed to go along with a path to citizenship for about 1.8 million people who were eligible for DACA. Border security, the second element, has become less contentious since Senate Democrats made clear they would go along with a substantial amount of money to expand an existing border wall.

    One wrinkle involves some Democrats’ push to also include protections for parents of Dreamers. Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), a longtime sponsor of the Dream Act, is pushing for that as a way to keep families together, but many Republicans balk.

    Still, there is little consensus on Trump-backed policy changes aimed at making it harder for certain illegal migrants to put off deportation and win protections in the U.S.

    A number of senators have argued that the best approach is to keep the legislation focused on DACA and border security. They say it would be too difficult to find agreement on anything more given that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to advance any bill.

    “If we stay focused on those two, I think we can get to 60,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.). “The challenge is, there’s lots of other proposals that both the White House and other members want addressed.”

    One involves family migration policy. Under current law, U.S. citizens can sponsor spouses, children, parents and siblings for green cards. Mr. Trump, deriding the system as “chain migration,” wants to limit that to just spouses and minor children.

    Senate Democrats agreed to limits on family-based migration as part of a 2013 immigration bill. But that was a comprehensive bill that included, among other things, a path to citizenship for some 11 million undocumented immigrants, well over the 1.8 million young people covered by the Trump plan.

    Finally, there is the diversity visa lottery, which each year makes eligible for green cards 50,000 people from countries that are underrepresented in the immigration system, many in Africa.

    In the past, Democrats have been willing to reallocate these visas, and last week, administration officials sought to clarify that they aren’t seeking to cut the total number of green cards issued. Some senators said there was consensus building around the idea of overhauling the visa program without ending it.

    For all the positive vibes, many are pessimistic about Congress coming to agreement. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said last week that a short-term extension of Dreamers’ temporary status combined with some sort of border-security provision may be the most Congress and the White House can agree to.

    “If I were a betting man, I would always bet on the punt, that Congress will punt,” he said. “I just hope we don’t punt on first down. We at least go to the fourth down.”

    Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com and Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@wsj.com

    Appeared in the February 12, 2018, print edition as 'Immigration to Get Freewheeling Debate.'

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/immigration-to-get-freewheeling-debate-in-the-senate-1518383048
     
  12. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump sets his terms as Senate begins open-ended immigration debate: 'There's a good chance of getting DACA done if the Democrats are serious'
    • A free-flowing debate on reforms to the immigration system will begin on the Senate floor today
    • Trump reminded lawmakers on his oft-stated desire to end chain migration and the diversity lottery with compromise legislation beforehand
    • Trump's opening salvo was a legislative framework that offered 1.8 million Dreamers a pathway to citizenship over 10-12 years
    • He also requested $25 billion for his border wall and border security
    • Legislaton has to get to 60 votes in the Senate in order to be viable


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5382533/Trump-sets-terms-Senate-begins-immigration-debate.html#ixzz56vO8U3VY
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  13. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,338
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Senate rejects bipartisan immigration plan and Trump's, too

    [​IMG]
    Associated Press
    ALAN FRAM and KEVIN FREKING
    2 hrs ago

    Frustration as Congress Unable to Pass Even Modest Gun Measures


    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate rejected both a bipartisan immigration plan and a more restrictive proposal by President Donald Trump on Thursday, suggesting the latest election-year debate on an issue that fires up both parties' voters will produce a familiar outcome: stalemate.

    Facing a White House veto threat and opposition from the Senate's GOP leaders, the chamber derailed a plan by bipartisan senators that would have helped 1.8 million young immigrant "Dreamers" achieve citizenship. It also would have doled out $25 billion for Trump's coveted wall with Mexico and for other border security measures, but it didn't go as far as Trump wanted in curbing legal immigration.

    It lost 54-45, six short of the 60 votes that were needed for passage. That scuttled what had seemed the likeliest chance for sweeping immigration legislation to make it through the Senate this year.

    Trump's own plan fared even worse as 60 senators voted no and just 39 voted for it — 21 shy of the 60 needed. The embarrassing outcome for the president underscored the feelings of Republicans concerned about election damage in swing states with high numbers of Hispanic voters.

    Top Democrats had held out faint hopes that the bipartisan package would prevail, or at least force Trump to negotiate further. But he proved unwilling to fold on his demands for a tougher bill, reflecting the hard-line immigration stance that was a cornerstone of his 2016 presidential run.

    In a written statement earlier Thursday, the White House labeled the bipartisan proposal "dangerous policy that will harm the nation." It singled out a provision that directed the government to prioritize enforcement efforts against immigrants who arrive illegally beginning in July. Trump and GOP leaders said he'd already shown flexibility by offering a 10- to 12-year path to citizenship for so many Dreamers, a key demand for Democrats and some Republicans.

    Minutes later, the chamber voted against Trump's proposal. Besides helping Dreamers achieve citizenship, the president's measure would have provided wall funding in one burst, rather than doling it out over 10 years as the bipartisan plan proposed.

    In addition, Trump's bill would have prevented legal immigrants from sponsoring parents and siblings for citizenship and would have ended a visa lottery aimed at allowing more diverse immigrants into the U.S. The compromise bill would have left that lottery intact but barred Dreamers who obtain citizenship from sponsoring their parents.

    "Dreamers" are immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children who risk deportation because they lack permanent authorization to stay.

    Trump annulled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, that President Barack Obama created that's protected the Dreamers. He's given Congress until March 5 to restore the program, though federal courts have blocked him temporarily from dismantling it.

    Senate leaders opened the day's debate by trading blame. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., assailed Democrats for failing to offer "a single proposal that gives us a realistic chance to make law." Instead, he said, Democrats should back Trump's "extremely generous" proposal.

    Instead, Democratic leaders rallied behind the bipartisan plan. Eight Republicans joined most Democrats in backing that compromise, while three Democrats joined most GOP senators in opposing it.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Trump has "stood in the way of every single proposal that has had a chance of becoming law." He added, "The American people will blame President Trump and no one else for the failure to protect Dreamers."

    Overnight, the Department of Homeland Security said in an emailed statement that the bipartisan proposal would be "the end of immigration enforcement in America."

    That drew fire from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of eight GOP co-sponsors of the bipartisan plan. "Instead of offering thoughts and advice — or even constructive criticism — they are acting more like a political organization intent on poisoning the well," Graham said in a statement.

    The bipartisan compromise was announced Wednesday by 16 senators with centrist views on the issue and was winning support from many Democrats, but it faced an uncertain fate.

    Besides opposition by the administration and leading Republicans, the bipartisan plan prompted qualms among Democrats. The party's No. 2 Senate leader, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said some Democrats had "serious issues" with parts of the plan. Those concerns focused on its spending for Trump's wall and its prohibition against Dreamers sponsoring their parents for legal residency.

    The bipartisan measure's sponsors included eight GOP senators. It was produced by a group led by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., that spent weeks seeking middle ground.

    The moderates' measure would not have altered a lottery that distributes about 55,000 visas annually to people from diverse countries. Trump has proposed ending it and redistributing visas to other immigrants, including some who are admitted based on job skills, not family ties.

    Also rejected was a more modest plan by McCain and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. It would have let many Dreamers qualify for permanent residency and directed federal agencies to more effectively control the border by 2020. But it didn't offer a special citizenship pathway for Dreamers, raise border security funds or make sweeping changes in legal immigration rules.

    A proposal by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was killed that would have added language blocking federal grants to "sanctuary cities," communities that don't cooperate with federal efforts to enforce immigration laws.

    Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...e-immigration-compromise/ar-BBJ9utJ?ocid=iehp
     
  17. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DACA recipients are STILL in limbo after immigration deal falls apart in Congress with just 17 days before program expires
    • Senate considered bipartisan move to give Trump the $25 billion in border security money he's asking for
    • Would have provided a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million DACA recipients
    • Proposal did not take Trump's approach to a 'merit-based' immigration system and postponed deportations of new illegal immigrants
    • White House and Homeland Security Department aggressively campaigned against the bill and the Senate froze
    • DACA is set to expire on March 5


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5399587/Senate-rejects-immigration-bills-young-immigrants-limbo.html#ixzz57HuXvbcn
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  18. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,090
    Likes Received:
    4,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    ICE arrests 212 illegals, targets 122 businesses in LA sweep


    Federal deportation officers staged one of the biggest enforcement actions in years against businesses in Los Angeles this week, arresting 212 people and serving audit notices to 122 businesses who will have to prove they aren’t hiring illegal immigrants.

    Nearly all of those arrested were convicted criminals, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    ICE said it targeted Los Angeles because it’s a sanctuary city, meaning it refuses to fully cooperate with federal authorities on deportations from within its jails.

    That means agents and officers have to go out into the community, said Thomas D. Homan, the agency’s deputy director.

    “Fewer jail arrests mean more arrests on the street, and that also requires more resources, which is why we are forced to send additional resources to those areas to meet operational needs and officer safety,” Mr. Homan said. “Consistent with our public safety mission, 88 percent of those arrested during this operation were convicted criminals.”

    The actions and notices came even as Congress was debating — and failing to pass — legislation that would have legalized about a sixth of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S.

    ICE said some of those nabbed will be prosecuted for illegal entry or re-entry after a previous deportation, while others whose cases aren’t prosecuted will face deportation.

    Perhaps more striking that the arrests, however, is the renewed focus on business that employ illegal immigrants.

    The 122 notices come on top of 77 notices served on businesses in northern California earlier this year.

    ICE said California’s sanctuary city status notwithstanding, businesses are still required to follow federal law, which demands they conduct verification checks before hiring employees.

    Democrats in Congress had objected to ICE’s attempts to enforce immigration laws at businesses.

    In a Jan. 31 letter, 17 of the chamber’s more liberal lawmakers said they were “troubled” by the justifications ICE had cited for the previous round of business enforcement.

    “ICE officers have a mission to promote homeland security and public safety, not to act as an arm of the government designed to intimidate and harass business owners, their employees or their patrons, and certainly not to use raids as a threat of ‘what’s to come,’” said the Democrats, led by Rep. Karen Bass, California Democrat.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/16/ice-arrests-212-illegals-la-sweep/
     
    searcher likes this.
  19. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    U.S. top court mulls whether to take up 'Dreamers' dispute
    By Lawrence Hurley
    Reuters
    February 16, 2018

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday discussed in private how to handle President Donald Trump's appeal of a judge's decision blocking his plan to end protections for young illegal immigrants dubbed "Dreamers," and the nine justices could announce as early as Tuesday whether they will take up the case.

    Trump's administration is appealing San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup's Jan. 9 ruling that halted the president's order to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects from deportation young adults who came into country illegally as children and gives them work permits.

    U.S. lawmakers have been working to resolve the fate of the hundreds of thousands of young adults, mostly Hispanics, protected by the program, but legislation that would have done so failed in the Senate on Thursday. DACA was implemented in 2012 by Democratic former President Barack Obama.

    If the justices agree to hear the appeal by the Republican president, they likely would not rule on the case until late June.

    If they turn away the appeal, Alsup's nationwide injunction blocking Trump's plan to rescind DACA would remain in effect while legal challenges to the president's action proceed. Alsup's injunction was issued in a lawsuit led by California's Democratic attorney general.

    Under Trump's order, DACA would begin phasing out on March 5. If Alsup's decision remains in place, DACA beneficiaries would be able to reapply for protections past that deadline, although the administration is not processing new applications.

    On Tuesday, a second U.S. judge issued a similar injunction ordering the Trump administration to keep DACA in place.

    Protecting the Dreamers is of paramount importance to Democrats and some Republicans. Trump himself has backed legislation that would give them a path to citizenship but also would curtail legal immigration.

    In a Twitter post on Friday, Trump sought to blame Democrats for the problems created by his order, writing, "Cannot believe how BADLY DACA recipients have been treated by the Democrats...totally abandoned! Republicans are still working hard."

    Under DACA, about 700,000 young adults receive protections for two-year periods, after which they must reapply. An estimated 1.8 million people are eligible for the program.

    Trump's move to rescind DACA prompted legal challenges by Democratic state attorneys general and various organizations and individuals in multiple federal courts. His administration argued that Obama exceeded his powers under the Constitution when he bypassed Congress and created DACA.

    (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-weighs-intervening-dreamers-problem-154648952.html
     
  20. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For The Dreamers: No Deportation, No Citizenship
    [​IMG]
    by Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/16/2018 - 17:45


    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    The current wrangling on Capitol Hill over the so-called Dreamers has come down to the usual political deal-making. Trump has signaled he's willing to compromise on deportations - that is, initiate fewer of them - if he can get funding for his border wall.

    Also at issue is whether or not Dreamers already in the US ought to be able to sponsor their parents for legal residency or for citizenship.

    Dreamers are current illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

    Opposition to deportation of the Dreamers - especially those who are still minors - has been significant, with much of the opposition geared around the idea that some minors are being deported to foreign countries where they don't even know the language or local culture after having been in the US for most of their lives.

    On the other hand, support for deportations has centered on fears that allowing the Dreamers to stay in the US will encourage a new influx of immigrants who will in turn become citizens quickly and unduly influence the political system. Also at play is the concern that some immigrants are a net drain on social welfare benefits and on other government-provided amenities such as public schools.

    Is There a Laissez-Faire Approach to the Dreamers?
    For many Americans who are concerned with freedom and free markets, the solution to this situation has sometimes not necessarily been clear. Is there a way to address immigration issues without doubling down on more government power and more government spending?

    On the issue of welfare, of course, the issue is not complicated, and has already been summed up by Ron Paul:

    How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.

    No deportations are required to enforce this measure. In practice, all that is needed is for governments to take no action. That is, they don't offer services to non-citizens.

    But even if immigrants were denied all social benefits and had their own privately-funded schools and hospitals, we'd likely still hear opposition to immigrants on the grounds that immigrants will use their numbers and the ballot box to force their own preferences on the rest of the population.

    The issue of migrating minorities overwhelming a majority in a host country is a real issue, and there's a reason it was discussed by Ludwig von Mises in his book Liberalism 90 years ago.

    In North America, however, this scenario is by no means guaranteed since immigrants of past migrant waves — most of whom were from authoritarian states — showed little interest in imposing the sorts of regimes they were used to. Indeed, in the late nineteenth century, immigrants tended to affiliate with the Democratic party which, at the time, was the party of decentralization and greater laissez-faire.

    But, even if the fear of cultural imperialism via the ballot box were well-placed, mitigation of the problem would not require the violation of property rights via measures such as deportation or regulation of the labor force.

    Separating the Issue of Property Rights and Citizenship
    Since non-citizens cannot vote, the use the ballot box to overwhelm the current cultural status quo requires citizenship. The issue can be addressed by simply declining to expand citizenship in certain cases.

    Moreover, there is no property-rights principle which dictates that residents of a place must also be granted citizenship by the local civil government. Citizenship is, after all, essentially just a permit to engage in certain political activities, and — properly understood — is separate from the ability to be secure in one's own property. While the current interpretation of the US Constitution is that all native-born persons are citizens, a civil government does not violate the property rights of migrants by declining to offer citizenship. The government is simply taking no action.

    Deportation, on the other hand, is a violation of property rights and is a type of government intervention. It often voids contracts between landlords and tenants, employers and employees, and cuts off persons from access to their own property. Deportation in practical terms often has the same effect as confiscating a person's legally-obtained property.

    Worst of all, the enforcement of laws designed to regulate the migration of persons often leads to what Lew Rockwell has called the tragedy of immigration enforcement which occurs when native Americans are punished for the "crime" of doing business with migrants who have not been granted the arbitrary status of "legal" by federal bureaucrats.

    Conduct No Deportations, Offer No Citizenship
    Much of the fear behind a migrant-voter connection in the US stems from the fact that many Americans realize it is exceptionally easy for residents of the US to obtain citizenship. For most legal immigrations, five years of residency is all that is required. In some cases, such as for immigrants married to citizens, only three years of residency is required.

    We could contrast this with Switzerland where new regulations require that potential new citizens not receive social benefits, be proficient in a Swiss language, and have been legal residents for ten years. Additionally, there are local mandates on top of these federal mandates, and citizenship may be even more stringent at the cantonal level.

    All of this citizenship business, however, is separate from the matter of legal residency. In both the US and Switzerland, people may become permanent residents without ever obtaining citizenship. These people are free to continue to open businesses, earn a living, raise a family, and travel. They enjoy legal constitutional protections, since, as Judge Andrew Napolitano has pointed out, lawful residents have "the same rights, except for voting and running for office, as the rest of us." Due process is guaranteed to all persons under the US constitution, not just citizens. This is a good thing.

    On the matter of the Dreamers, the "moderates" ought to be staking out a position in which the government does virtually nothing at all. Under this scheme, the federal government doesn't round up the Dreamers and deport them. It also avoids the issue of breaking up families and violating property right with deportations. But at the same time, the federal government does not extend citizenship to the people in question.

    In other words, do nothing - and nothing has always been a good thing for the federal government to do.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/dreamers-no-deportation-no-citizenship
     
  21. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,338
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is they are voting, stealing identities and sucking off the public tit bankrupting hospitals and social services many never paid into.

    The constitution was written for a moral and just people

    Border jumping is moral.
     
  22. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,338
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So when does operation wetback commence?

     
  23. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    142,559
    Likes Received:
    39,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Immigrants' cases put on a fast track
    [​IMG]
    Tribune News Service

    By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
    4 hrs ago

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court met Friday to discuss a pair of unusually aggressive appeals from Trump administration lawyers who are trying to leapfrog lower courts by urging justices to rule quickly on the fate of "Dreamers" and on an abortion dispute involving young migrants.

    In the one case, they derided the federal judge in San Francisco who temporarily blocked the administration's plan to end the Obama-era policy that shielded young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally when they were children. They urged the high court, for the first time in nearly 30 years, to review and reverse the district judge's decision before an appeals court could weigh in.

    "The court's immediate review is warranted," said Solicitor General Noel Francisco. "The district court's unprecedented order requires the government to sanction indefinitely an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by nearly 700,000 aliens."

    He was referring to a Jan. 8 decision by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who said the government did not have proper legal basis for ending the program. A second judge in New York handed down a similar ruling Tuesday.

    In response to the solicitor general's appeal, lawyers for the California plaintiffs noted that President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to preserve protections for the so-called Dreamers. They argued that the court should not intervene now when Congress is debating proposals to extend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

    In the other case, administration lawyers are asking the justices to consider "disciplinary action" against lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union who helped a 17-year-old migrant girl obtain an abortion early one morning in October after a federal judge had cleared the way. The young woman had crossed the border illegally and was held in a detention center in Texas. Early last year, Trump officials at the Office of Refugee Resettlement decided they would not "facilitate" abortions by allowing pregnant young women like her to see a doctor who could perform an abortion.

    But they lost before a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which ruled that government officials could not prevent the 17-year-old, dubbed Jane Doe, from obtaining an abortion paid for with private funds.

    Administration lawyers said they had intended to rush to the Supreme Court seeking an emergency order to stop the abortion but said they were "misled about the timing" of the procedure. They thought the abortion would not take place until the next day.

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he was "disturbed" by what happened. "This was a total surprise," he told a Fox News program.

    A week later, Francisco filed an appeal asking the Supreme Court to review the matter. "Given the extraordinary circumstances," the court should consider discipline or sanctions against the ACLU lawyers "for what appear to be material misrepresentations and omissions to government counsel," he said. He also said the court should "vacate" or wipe away the lower court rulings in the case.

    In their response to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the ACLU said the government was misleading the court. They said lawyers working on the case "made a series of accurate statements" to government lawyers about the young woman's appointment with the doctor. They said government officials wrongly assumed the doctor would not perform the abortion early on the morning after the judge's ruling.

    In an interview, the ACLU's legal director, David Cole, called the solicitor general's request for disciplinary action "a low blow. There is no basis for sanctions. I haven't seen anything like this in many years of practice. They did not point to any false statement or misrepresentation by anyone. I'm disappointed they went to such lengths to impugn attorneys who were doing their job to protect an undisputed constitutional right."

    The justices considered the appeal in the abortion case, Hargan vs. Garza, three times in January and rescheduled it for the private conference on Feb. 16. This suggests they may be divided on how to proceed, or the dissenters are writing a response. If the court has reached a decision, it may appear in an order issued Tuesday.

    In the DACA dispute, the court did not announce its plans Friday afternoon on whether it intends to hear the case in the spring and issue a ruling by late June.

    In his appeal, Francisco cited past instances when the Supreme Court had taken up a case directly from a district judge, including President Truman's seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War and President Richard Nixon's bid to protect the Watergate tapes in 1974.

    Lawyers representing the Dreamers said those examples show why the current case does not rise to a similar level of importance.

    Los Angeles lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr. said the court has reached out to take early cases "only in truly extraordinary circumstances where there was an urgent issue of national importance - like the cases concerning a wartime labor strike, the Iran hostage crisis and Watergate. The government should not be able to evade normal judicial review when it reverses a long-standing policy and abruptly decides to uproot 800,000 people from the United States."

    If the high court refuses to hear the DACA case now, government lawyers said a final decision will not come until next year, following a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But lawyers for the Dreamers said Congress and Trump should have resolved the issue long before then.

    Visit Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/immigrants-cases-put-on-a-fast-track/ar-BBJePMG?li=BBnbfcL
     

Share This Page