• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Immigration & Trumps Wall

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,354
Likes
5,210
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.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Trump faces legal challenge on border wall with Mexico


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
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,275
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.
So great an idea that it would work.

That being said I know no one in office has the balls to do it.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
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
 

andial

use default title
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
10,485
Likes
10,768
Shemitah books for sale cheap!
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,363
Likes
10,486
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

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
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
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
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
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,363
Likes
10,486
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.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
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
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
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
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Senate rejects bipartisan immigration plan and Trump's, too


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
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
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
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
2,526
Likes
7,311
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

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
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
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
For The Dreamers: No Deportation, No Citizenship

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
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,275
For The Dreamers: No Deportation, No Citizenship

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
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.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Immigrants' cases put on a fast track

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
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
'We're gonna stay on it': Vice President Mike Pence says Trump is 'absolutely committed' to finding a way to build his border wall and fix DACA
  • A week of open debate in the U.S. Senate failed to produce an immigration bill that a majority of lawmakers were willing to support
  • White House says it's not giving up on its fight for border wall funding and a list of other changes to legal and illegal immigration practices, including DACA
  • Pence says Trump and administration - which has been accused of sabotaging legislative efforts - remain 'absolutely committed' to getting their reforms
  • 'President Trump made a commitment to the American people that we’re going to build a wall. That means we’re going to have a physical barrier,' the VP said
  • Trump has been blaming Democrats in tweets for the standstill in the Senate


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408943/Pence-Trump-absolutely-committed-wall-DACA-fix.html#ixzz57eBJvAZf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Deportations Are Up Among Boston’s Undocumented Irish
VOA News



Published on Feb 23, 2018
While U.S. deportations overall were down in 2017, they were up for a vast majority of countries, including Ireland. The total number of removals — 34 — pales in comparison to other countries, but it represents a 31 percent increase from 2016, enough to cause panic in a community that, in recent years, has not been used to such scrutiny. VOA’s Ramon Taylor reports from Boston.
Originally published at - https://www.voanews.com/a/boston-comm...
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
After testy call with Trump over border wall, Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House


The Washington Post
Philip Rucker, Josh Partlow, Nick Miroff
2 hrs ago


Tentative plans for Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to make his first visit to the White House to meet with President Trump were scuttled this week after a testy call between the two leaders ended in an impasse over Trump’s promised border wall, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.

Peña Nieto was eyeing an official trip to Washington this month or in March, but both countries agreed to call off the plan after Trump would not agree to publicly affirm Mexico’s position that it would not fund construction of a border wall that the Mexican people widely consider offensive, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a confidential conversation.

Speaking by phone on Tuesday, Peña Nieto and Trump devoted a considerable portion of their roughly 50 minute conversation to the wall, and neither man would compromise his position.

One Mexican official said Trump “lost his temper.” But U.S. officials described him instead as being frustrated and exasperated, saying Trump believed it was unreasonable for Peña Nieto to expect him to back off his crowd-pleasing campaign promise of forcing Mexico to pay for the wall.

Both accounts confirm it was Peña Nieto’s desire to avoid public embarrassment — and Trump’s unwillingness to provide that assurance — that proved to be the dealbreaker.

A physically slight man, Peña Nieto has been loath to put himself in an environment in which the more imposing Trump could play the bully. Peña Nieto’s style is exceedingly formal, and he is averse to verbal combat, making his carefully scripted public events the opposite of Trump’s often freewheeling appearances.

With Mexico heading into a July presidential election, any action by Peña Nieto that could be seen as kowtowing to Trump or buckling under U.S. pressure risks damaging the prospects for his Institutional Revolutionary Party.

The two presidents’ public posturing over the wall — Trump demands that Mexico pay for it; Peña Nieto insists that it will not — has harmed their personal relationship and jeopardized the alliance between their neighboring countries.

“The problem is that President Trump has painted himself, President Peña Nieto and the bilateral relationship into a corner,” said Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States. “Even from the get-go, the idea of Mexico paying for the wall was never going to fly. His relationship with Mexico isn’t strategically driven. It’s not even business; it’s personal, driven by motivations and triggers, and that’s a huge problem. It could end up with the U.S. asking itself, ‘Who lost Mexico?’ ”

Still, negotiations between their respective administrations continue apace on the North American Free Trade Agreement and other issues. And both governments have strived to portray their ties as strong and the exchanges between their leaders as smooth.

“We enjoy a great relationship with Mexico and the two administrations have been working for a year to deepen our cooperation across a range of issues including security, immigration, trade and economics,” Michael Anton, the top spokesman for Trump’s National Security Council, said in a statement.

Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray called the U.S.-Mexico relationship closer under Trump than in previous administrations.

“I think in many ways the relationship today is more fluid,” Videgaray said earlier this month in Mexico City alongside Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. “It’s closer than it was with previous administrations, which might be surprising to some people, but that’s a fact of life.”

Traditionally, U.S. presidents have prioritized visits with their Mexican counterparts soon after taking office, considering the close ties between the neighboring countries.

But in January 2017, just days into Trump’s presidency, Peña Nieto called off a planned trip to meet Trump in Washington amid an escalating war of words between the two leaders over Trump’s border wall proposal.

In a Jan. 28, 2017, phone call, a transcript of which was published last year by The Washington Post, Trump suggested to Peña Nieto that they both try to gloss over their respective wall positions by saying “we will work it out” whenever asked whether Mexico would pay for the wall.

“The fact is, we are both in a little bit of a political bind because I have to have Mexico pay for the wall,” Trump told Peña Nieto. “I have to. I have been talking about it for a two-year period. . . . If you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that.”

Since that call, Trump has not visited Mexico City and Peña Nieto has not been to Washington, although the two presidents have spoken by phone and met in person in July at the Group of 20 summit in Germany. The two also met in summer 2016, when Trump traveled to Mexico City as a candidate.

Earlier this month, a delegation of Mexican officials led by Videgaray met at the White House with senior adviser Jared Kushner — the president’s son-in-law, who is charged among other things with managing the U.S.-Mexico relationship — national security adviser H.R. McMaster and other Trump administration officials to work out the parameters for a Peña Nieto visit, officials said.

The Mexican officials left the Feb. 14 meeting believing they had an agreement with the U.S. side that Trump would not embarrass Peña Nieto by bringing up his desire for Mexico to fund the wall — a proposition Peña Nieto’s government considers humiliating.

One Mexican official describing his country’s position said, “You cannot talk about the bloody wall.” This official said Videgaray left Washington believing Trump would not broach the wall during Peña Nieto’s visit.

Trump and Peña Nieto made plans to speak by phone Feb. 20, and, assuming the call went well, their staffs would finalize an itinerary for the Mexican president’s White House visit.

But the call did not go smoothly, according to officials from both governments. Trump said he would not be bound by any such agreement and could not commit himself to not talking about the wall.

“That was a dealbreaker for us,” the Mexican official said, adding that Peña Nieto and his administration were concerned in particular about a reporter asking a question about funding for the wall at a news conference and Trump answering it.

Instead of announcing a date for a meeting in Washington, the statements issued by both governments summarizing the call were vague and said only that they had discussed their bilateral agenda on trade, security and migration issues. The statements also said the two presidents exchanged condolences for the high school gun massacre in Parkland, Fla., and the military helicopter accident in Jamiltepec, Oaxaca.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, whose department is responsible for border issues, has canceled an upcoming visit to Mexico. A Department of Homeland Security official denied Saturday that Nielsen’s trip was scratched because of Trump and Peña Nieto’s disagreement, saying the decision to “postpone” her Mexico trip was made a week before the two presidents spoke.

U.S. officials said Trump and Peña Nieto agreed to have their staffs continue talking and try to reach an agreement about the border wall and other issues. A few hours after the two presidents spoke, officials said, Kushner called Peña Nieto to help smooth things over.

U.S. officials said they anticipate that Peña Nieto may try again to visit Washington, perhaps in the spring, and the Mexican official suggested that the two presidents may get together in April at the Summit of the Americas in Lima, Peru.

“Build the wall!” was a signature slogan of Trump’s campaign and has continued to be one through his presidency, even though Congress has not yet fully funded its construction. At his rallies, Trump would cry out, “Who’s going to pay for the wall?” His crowds would shout their answer back: “Mexico!”

Speaking Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, Trump told his fans, “Don’t worry, you’re getting the wall,” adding that whenever he hears someone suggest that he does not really want to build a wall, “the wall gets 10 feet higher.”

Trump’s statements are considered offensive and outright racist by many Mexicans, who accuse the U.S. president of using their country as a punching bag to motivate his most fervent supporters.

In private, Mexican officials bristle at Trump’s claims that their government is passively allowing drugs and Central American migrants to pass through en route to the United States.

The number of Central Americans detained and turned back by Mexican authorities has at times exceeded the number caught by U.S. border agents, but enforcement by the Peña Nieto government appears to have waned in recent years.

Still, there is an understanding in Mexico that Trump is playing to his national interests, according to Larry Rubin, a businessman who for years has been a leader among U.S. Republicans on Mexico.

“There’s a better understanding of where President Trump is coming from and what his objective is and what his style is,” Rubin said. “Like in any negotiations, there is always posturing or issues that countries don’t agree with. But overall they have so many similarities.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...e-house/ar-BBJxlPj?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Mexican president postpones visit to White House after Trump 'loses his temper' during testy 50-minute phone call as he continues to 'insist that Nieto's country should pay for the border wall'
  • Summit between Trump and Enrique Pena Nieto has been postponed
  • The two leaders reportedly had a difficult phone conversation on Tuesday
  • Impasse reached when Trump refused to say Mexico wouldn't pay for the wall
  • Officials had discussed a meeting in coming weeks, but date had not been set
  • Trump has floated the idea of tariffs or taxes on remittances to pay for wall


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5431723/Mexican-presidents-visit-White-House-postponed-testy-Trump-call.html#ixzz587JHse6k
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Senate pivots to stopgap 'Dreamers' deal


Jordain Carney and Rafael Bernal
5 hrs ago


The Senate is weighing a short-term fix for "Dreamers" as lawmakers struggle to break a stalemate that has stalled the chamber's debate.

The hunt for a fallback option comes ahead of the March 5 deadline created by President Trump's decision to end the immigration program and amid fresh questions about what, if anything, can clear Congress and win over the White House.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is in talks with Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) about a plan to tie a three-year extension of protections for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients with roughly $7.6 billion in border security.

"I can promise that I'll be back on the floor, again and again, motioning for a vote until we pass a bill providing relief for those struggling due to our inaction," Flake said, outlining his plan.

Passing a years-long immigration stopgap is no one's first choice for restoring protections from the Obama-era program, which the Trump administration announced it was ending last year. Democrats largely refused to touch the idea during the Senate's debate, while GOP Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) referred to it as "Plan Z."

But senators appeared increasingly resigned to any potential immigration legislation being a stopgap patch, rather than a permanent fix, after months of closed-door negotiations failed to produce a deal.

How long a potential stopgap agreement could last remains unclear. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) predicted Congress would only be able to punt into 2019, kicking the hot-button issue past the midterm elections.

"I think we wind up punting. I think we'll do a one-year extension of DACA and punt," he said.

GOP Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have offered a bill to provide legal protections for current DACA recipients. But it could struggle to win Democratic support because it includes tens of billions in wall funding without a path to citizenship and doesn't address the larger 1.8 million population of potential DACA recipients.

With the Senate turning back this week to confirming Trump's nominees, senators are pointing to a funding bill that needs to passed by March 23 to prevent a government shutdown as their next shot.

"Obviously we're going to have to deal with the DACA issue probably on the [omnibus] because of what has happened," Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters earlier this month, predicting the Senate would settle on including an extension.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, left the door open to dropping immigration into the mammoth spending bill, saying "some temporary provision" could be included if both sides can reach an agreement.

An aide said that Flake and Heitkamp are discussing trying to get the DACA extension included in mammoth omnibus legislation. And a spokesman for Flake added that the GOP senator would support trying to link the proposals.

There's no guarantee a DACA-border security stopgap could get the 60 needed to clear the Senate as a stand-alone bill, or that leadership is willing to include it in the omnibus. And its path would be even rockier, if not impossible, in the House.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declined to say if the tight-lipped GOP leader supports a years-long immigration fix. Asked if McConnell would oppose including DACA in the omnibus, the aide pointed to his comments after the Senate failed to pass a deal.

McConnell left the door open to returning to immigration if a plan emerged that could pass both the Senate and the more conservative House and had what has so far remained elusive: Trump's support.

"If a solution is developed in the future that can pass both the House and the Senate and be signed into law by the president, it should be considered. But for that to happen, Democrats will need to take a second look at these core elements of necessary reform," he said.

But Democrats and the White House appear increasingly dug in, with Trump and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) exchanging barbs.

Trump, during his Conservative Political Action Conference speech, said Democrats had "totally abandoned" DACA recipients.

"They don't want to do anything about DACA, I'm telling you, and it's very possible that DACA won't happen," he told the conservative crowd.

Meanwhile, Schumer said "it's clear to everyone but President Trump" that the president is to blame.

"Democrats have been willing to negotiate for months, and have forged several bipartisan deals, but his refusal to take yes for an answer led to his partisan plan that only got 39 votes," he said.

Democrats have been loath to embrace a short-term fix because they believe it provides no long-term security for "Dreamers," immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. Schumer hasn't weighed in on the proposal.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat and a key senator in the immigration fight, is still urging action on immigration before March 5.

"Congress still has a chance to address the DACA crisis before March 5th, when 1,000 people will start losing their legal status every single day," he said in a tweet.

With no must-pass legislation expected to come up before the deadline, Democrats' options are limited. They could, for example, try to grind the Senate to a halt by launching an hours-long floor speech, limit the ability for committees to meet or try to get consent to pass an immigration bill.

No Democratic senator has signaled they are planning to create procedural headaches and much of the political oxygen is being sucked up by the debate over gun control following a shooting at a Florida high school, where 17 people were killed.

One Democratic aide described the current DACA debate as a "wait-and-see game."

"[We're] waiting to see what kind of traction Mr. Flake garners from his caucus on his 3-year patch proposal," the aide said.

Two court decisions are further throwing the DACA timeline into limbo and helping feed Congress's inertia, where lawmakers frequently wait until deadlines to tackle any legislation.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said that even though two courts ruled the DACA program has to stay on the books for now, "eventually that deadline [is] coming."

"It's not going to be March 5, it looks like, but it may be early April, it may be other time periods," he told an Oklahoma NPR station. "[But] some federal court is going to step out and is going to rule one executive can change another executive's decisions."

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has set up an end of March deadline for action in his chamber and pledged to only bring up a bill that has Trump's support.

Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) said he approached Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the House majority leader, on the floor and urged them to do "queen of the hill" on immigration, pitting Goodlatte and Rep. Michael McCaul's (R-Texas) bill against a narrower, bipartisan proposal by Reps. Will Hurd (R-Texas) and Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.).

Under queen of the hill, competing proposals are voted on by the House and whichever gets the most votes is passed. But a top GOP leadership aide told The Hill "there is no queen of the hill strategy, the Goodlatte-McCaul bill is what is being whipped."

And Cuellar said Goodlatte told him the whipping operation had still not garnered 218 votes.

"They were whipping last week, last Wednesday, before we took off. ... Thursday, they did not have 218. They didn't want to give me the numbers, but said, 'Well, we're working on it,' " said Cuellar.

But Goodlatte said the conversation with Cuellar happened "weeks ago."

"The Securing America's Future Act is the product of months worth of meetings and discussions with a diverse range of members and stakeholders. It is clear that this legislation is the only bill that can get a majority of Republican votes in the House," Goodlatte said of his proposal.

"Last week, we had a positive whip count and we are working quickly to build on that support so that we have the votes needed to pass the Securing America's Future Act in the House," he added.

Despite Goodlatte's optimism on capturing a majority of Republicans, Cuellar said the House Judiciary Committee chairman struck down his queen of the hill proposal, saying, " 'No, my bill won't pass, and your bill will pass. You'll get 30, 40, 50 Republicans. We need our bill to pass - the Goodlatte bill.' "

- Mike Lillis contributed

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rs-deal/ar-BBJA4rx?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,934
Likes
5,917
Location
Instant Gratification Land
In blow to Trump, Supreme Court won’t hear appeal of DACA ruling
It's not a blow yet. Trump was asking them to do stuff out of order. Gotta follow the process, because if they'll take stuff up for him out of order, they'll have to do it for any other future administration that asks, too.
...and as much as I agree with with what Trump was trying to do, I agree that processes need to be followed.


The court's denial was expected, because the justices rarely accept appeals asking them to bypass the lower courts.
In a brief order, the court said simply, "It is assumed the court of appeals will act expeditiously to decide this case."


So we'll see what the Appeals Court will do with it. Point is, it's not dead yet.
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,275
He should have rescinded it day one and started deportations.

Now.........

Playing poly ticks.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Trump will visit the border for the first time to look at the wall prototypes: White House unveils plans for the president's California trip just two days after he 'lost his temper' with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto
  • Trump is expected to make trip to see the prototypes in California in mid-March
  • All eight wall prototypes have been completed on the US border of Mexico
  • Companies who built the prototypes include Maryland's ETLA North America Inc and Caddell Construction Co, LLC, of Alabama, which built two
  • Texas Sterling Construction Co. of Houston and Arizona's Fisher Sand & Gravel are also among the companies that have built a prototype


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5438739/Trump-visit-California-view-border-wall-prototypes.html#ixzz58IzdRp41
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,275
My prediction is more amnesty and no wall.

Iow ssdd as labor gets fucked.

Corporate interests superceded the American worker's.

Keep voting for the uniparty you kids will vote for basic inc
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,275
My prediction is more amnesty and no wall.

Iow ssdd as labor gets fucked.

Corporate interests superceded the American worker's.

Keep voting for the uniparty you kids will vote for basic income.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Court hands DACA recipients another victory

By Catherine E. Shoichet and Tal Kopan, CNN
1 hr ago



Young immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children have won another legal victory.

A federal judge in California ruled Monday that the government can't revoke DACA recipients' work permits or other protections without giving them notice and a chance to defend themselves.

The ruling in a California district court marks the third time a lower court has ruled against the administration's handling of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. But this case, unlike the others, is not about President Donald Trump's September decision to end the program.

US District Judge Philip Gutierrez's preliminary injunction Monday addressed another aspect: government decisions to revoke protections from individual DACA recipients.

The Obama-era DACA program protected young immigrants brought illegally to the United States from deportation if they met certain criteria, paid fees, passed background checks and didn't commit serious crimes.

The Trump administration announced it was ending the program last year, arguing that it was unconstitutional. A series of recent lower court rulings have thwarted that effort, requiring the government to continue renewing permits under the program while legal challenges make their way through the courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court said it was staying out of the dispute for now.

Meanwhile, activists across the country have increasingly criticized government decisions to end DACA protections in individual cases.

Monday's ruling came in a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The suit argues that the government had revoked protections from DACA recipients who hadn't been convicted of serious crimes without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves.

An example: Officials revoked the work permit of one of the plaintiffs, Jesus Arreola, after he was arrested on suspicion of immigrant smuggling. An immigration judge later found that allegation wasn't credible, according to the ACLU's complaint. Arreola says he was an Uber and Lyft driver who had picked up passengers for a friend without any knowledge of their immigration status.

Attorneys representing the government argue that the plaintiffs had "misused the trust given to them with the administrative grace of DACA."

The judge said the Department of Homeland Security must restore protections to the group of DACA recipients who had them revoked "without notice, a reasoned explanation, or any opportunity to respond."

The ruling also temporarily blocks officials from revoking DACA protections from others without following a procedure "which includes, at a minimum, notice, a reasoned explanation, and an opportunity to be heard prior to termination."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Monday's ruling.

According to DHS, officials had revoked or terminated 2,139 individuals' DACA protections over the lifetime of the program as of August 2017.

The ruling came the same day the Supreme Court said it would stay out of the dispute over the termination of DACA for now, leaving renewals under the program in place for at least months.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...victory/ar-BBJFENd?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
'Big legal win today': Trump tweets his delight that a judge he once taunted during the presidential campaign ruled against an environmental challenge to his US-Mexico border wall
  • Trump tweeted that US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel's ruling was a 'big legal win'
  • Curiel rejected arguments by CA and advocacy groups that the administration waived laws requiring environmental reviews before construction began
  • The judge's ruling may have removed what could have been a major obstacle to Trump's pledge to build the wall


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5442485/Judge-sides-Trump-challenge-Mexico-border-wall.html#ixzz58PwluZKO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Extra-ordinary: Melania Trump refuses to reveal how she was able to obtain an Einstein visa amidst her husband's hard line on immigration
  • Melania Trump was granted at EB-1 Visa in 2001 which gave her a path to citizenship
  • The EB-1 is known as the ;Einstein Visa,' and reserved for 'persons with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics'
  • Melania has never detailed her path to citizenship in detail, choosing instead to have her husband's lawyer submit a letter backing her in September 2016
  • She was just one of six people from Slovenia who was able to obtain an EB-1 back in 2001, making her feat all the more impressive
  • This comes as her hudsband takes a hard line on immigration and questions have arose over how her ownb parents became citizens of this country


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5451949/Melania-Trump-wont-reveal-got-Einstein-visa.html#ixzz58XcMaaAZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
154,187
Likes
40,798
Justice Department launches investigation into Oakland mayor after she warned illegal immigrants of an ICE raid in the city and 'kept more than 800 criminals from being deported'
  • Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is being investigated by the Justice Department for warning the public of a surprise ICE raid
  • Sarah Huckabee Sanders called it 'outrageous' and says Schaaf put federal officials in danger
  • ICE acting director Thomas Homan said she let 800 'criminals' to escape arrest
  • He told Fox News that the mayor's warning on Twitter was 'beyond the pale'
  • Homan compared her to a gang lookout who tells people when cops are coming
  • The mayor's warning last weekend came hours before the agency launched an operation in Northern California that resulted in more than 150 arrests
  • Schaaf defended herself and says she broke no laws because Oakland is a sanctuary city


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5453161/Justice-Department-launches-investigation-Oakland-mayor-Schaaf.html#ixzz58aPQ9HKe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook