skip to main |
skip to sidebar
AAD
Posted at the White House website this morning.
The arrival of large numbers of aliens will contribute to the overloading of our immigration and asylum system and to the release of thousands of aliens into the interior of the United States. The continuing and threatened mass migration of aliens with no basis for admission into the United States through our southern border has precipitated a crisis and undermines the integrity of our borders. I therefore must take immediate action to protect the national interest, and to maintain the effectiveness of the asylum system for legitimate asylum seekers who demonstrate that they have fled persecution and warrant the many special benefits associated with asylum.... I therefore hereby proclaim the following:
Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry of any alien into the United States across the international boundary between the United States and Mexico is hereby suspended and limited, subject to section 2 of this proclamation. That suspension and limitation shall expire 90 days after the date of this proclamation or the date on which an agreement permits the United States to remove aliens to Mexico in compliance with the terms of section 208(a)(2)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(A)), whichever is earlier.
Sec. 2. Scope and Implementation of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall apply only to aliens who enter the United States after the date of this proclamation.
(b) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States at a port of entry and properly presents for inspection, or to any lawful permanent resident of the United States.
(c) Nothing in this proclamation shall limit an alien entering the United States from being considered for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) or protection pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the authority of the implementing legislation regarding the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or limit the statutory processes afforded to unaccompanied alien children upon entering the United States under section 279 of title 6, United States Code, and section 1232 of title 8, United States Code.
(d) No later than 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on whether an extension or renewal of the suspension or limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation is in the interests of the United States.
Sec. 3. Interdiction. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the Government of Mexico regarding appropriate steps — consistent with applicable law and the foreign policy, national security, and public-safety interests of the United States — to address the approach of large groups of aliens traveling through Mexico with the intent of entering the United States unlawfully, including efforts to deter, dissuade, and return such aliens before they physically enter United States territory through the southern border....
ADDED: From the NYT,
"Trump Claims New Power to Bar Asylum for Immigrants Who Arrive Illegally":
The Trump administration, invoking national security powers meant to protect the United States against threats from abroad, announced new rules on Thursday that give President Trump vast authority to deny asylum to virtually any migrant who crosses the border illegally.
Administration officials declined to say who will be affected by the new rules, but it is widely expected inside the government and by advocate groups that Mr. Trump intends to deny asylum to migrants from Central American nations, some of whom are marching toward the United States in a widely publicized caravan....
Posts
91 comments:
They are already shopping for a federal judge in Hawaii.
I recall from when I worked on some asylum cases, that a genuine refugee has to stop in the first country that offers asylum. These people in the “caravan” were apparently offered asylum by the Mexican government. Yet they are still traveling toward the United States. How can they possibly be treated as refugees as a matter of law? I don’t hear anyone talking about this. Perhaps the rules have changed, or I am remembering that incorrectly. I am resisting the urge to do my own legal research on this question!
Seems like if you're an asylum seeker you have to use a legal point of entry. Could someone explain to me how that is unreasonable?
”How can they possibly be treated as refugees as a matter of law?”
The law doesn’t matter anymore. Maybe it never did.
90 days?
A very Presidential response to a difficult crisis. Of course his critics will find it inhumane, and as mentioned a leftie judge will find it unconstitutional.
Gee, I wonder if the usual pattern will occur. District Judge orders an illegal national injunction, 9th refuses to stay, SCOTUS stays, it drags through the courts for years, SCOTUS affirms the President's actions, riots.
Maybe now after the election the democrats will finally speak up and explain what we should do about this well planned illegal, invasion from central america? It's clear Trump isn't going to let it slide. What are they going to do about it? Investigate his tax returns from 2010?
"The United States shall . . . protect each of them [namely, the several states] against invasion;"
What Trump is doing is what I fully expect of a person who's taken the Article II WITH HIS HEART AND MIND. Obama took the same oath but had no intent of obeying the Constitution.
I wonder what the strategy is here with the proclamation?
As a threshold tactic, is Trump challenging even the authority of a federal court to enjoin a proclamation?
Proclamations are the last form of executive actions. These are largely used for ceremonial purposes and usually don’t carry any legal effect. For example, when a former justice of the Supreme Court dies, a president might issue a proclamation, ordering American flags to be flown at half-staff.
Donald Trump has signed more than a dozen executive actions since taking office on policies covering immigration, health care, abortion and trade. But what exactly do they mean? Is there a difference between an executive order and an executive action? And how does Trump compare to other presidents when it comes to the pace of these early edicts? We break it all down below:
What is an executive order?
An executive order is a specific type of presidential action — an official, legally binding mandate passed down from the president to federal agencies under the executive branch. Executive orders are printed in the Federal Register, and they’re numbered consecutively for the sake of keeping them straight. Essentially, an executive order gives agencies instructions on how to interpret and carry out federal law.
Is an order different from an executive action?
Not exactly. “Executive action” is a catch-all term that describes any action taken by a president. So technically, an executive order is one type of executive action. Other common types include presidential memorandums and proclamations, which are also used to direct the operations of the executive branch.
What about memorandums and proclamations?
An executive memorandum is essentially an executive order. The difference: An executive memorandum does not have an established process for how the president issues it. Memoranda do not have to be submitted to the Federal Register and are therefore harder to track. President Obama utilized executive memorandum at least 407 times, including on DACA (the immigration policy), gun control and the overtime rule. President Trump has already used this type of executive action eight times.
Proclamations are the last form of executive actions. These are largely used for ceremonial purposes and usually don’t carry any legal effect. For example, when a former justice of the Supreme Court dies, a president might issue a proclamation, ordering American flags to be flown at half-staff.
From what I've seen on the news, there's a substantial amount of razor wire being stretched across large areas of real estate. For a shop owner with a small business, that's a clear indication that trying to climb the wire is an attempt to enter illegally. For those that are abysmally ignorant (aka Democrat voters) it's terrible, since someone might get hurt, and the illegal activities are for some ethereal noble cause. For a nation of laws, it's the physical deterrent for those unwilling to obey immigration laws.
Trump can shut down the border. Who's going to stop him? Courts? Protesters? He controls the military, and the military is backed by the majority of the citizens in the border states. When he gives the orders to close the borders, Mexico will suddenly find they have the resources to herd the invaders to another location; if they even make it to the border.
Ebola, baby.
I suspect there would be a First Amendment, separation of powers issue with any judicial attempt to enjoin or strike a presidential proclamation.
It's a good statement. But.
He's gotta continue to back it up with appropriate legal action - even though the Left with a combination of lawyers, protestors, liberal judges, liberal politicians, and the media will try every trick to thwart it.
I hope his allies stay strong.
I recall from when I worked on some asylum cases, that a genuine refugee has to stop in the first country that offers asylum. These people in the “caravan” were apparently offer asylum by the Mexican government. Yet they are still traveling toward the United States. How can they possibly be treated as refugees as a matter of law? I don’t hear anyone talking about this. Perhaps the rules have changed, or I am remembering that incorrectly. I am resisting the urge to do my own legal research on this question!
Lexington Green said...
I recall from when I worked on some asylum cases, that a genuine refugee has to stop in the first country that offers asylum.
As a matter of law, you are correct, but I doubt the 9th Circuit agrees
Evidently the Travel Ban too was through Proclamation... a distinction now without a difference?
The Travel Ban Case and Nationwide Injunction (Congressional Research Service)
Background of the Injunction in the Travel Ban Case.
The travel ban case has had a long and winding road to the Supreme Court, which is discussed in detail in this CRS Sidebar. In its present incarnation, the travel ban case involves the legality of a proclamation issued by the President on September 24, 2017.
The proclamation was intended to bar certain nationals of certain countries from entering the United States. Within weeks, following a lawsuit brought by the State of Hawaii on behalf of its University (among other parties), and a federal district court judge sitting in Hawaii enjoined most of the Proclamation globally. While the Supreme Court stayed the injunction pending an appeal, the Ninth Circuit, largely affirmed the district court’s order. The injunction, as revised by the Ninth Circuit, fully enjoins the United States from enforcing or implementing six provisions within the proclamation concerning entry restrictions on certain nationals of five countries “in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas” with respect to all persons who have a credible bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
"Seems like if you're an asylum seeker you have to use a legal point of entry. Could someone explain to me how that is unreasonable?"
I know. "Asking someone to ring the doorbell, and we will come and open it" vs Allowing people to go through the cellar door without wiping their feet"
Oops am I saying migrants are 'dirty' nope... not at all.... but I am worrying about TB and other diseases that we have manage. That can only be done at the port of entry.
It's limited to people who don't present themselves for inspection at the border, which means it does not apply to people seeking asylum in good faith. The battling narratives will be fun to watch.
CDC site
https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/index.html
Aren't changes to the asylum system a job for Congress? Did you all have a problem with "executive overreach?" Or was that just a talking point and you don't really care as long as it's a policy you support?
When the New York Times opines (doesn't matter whether it's on the editorial pages or the front page--a distinction without a difference in the real world), a knee jerk reaction ensues.
Those who despise the Times (count me in that crew) think that once again, the NYT is full of more nonsense than the Christmas Goose!
Those of the progressive persuasion treat the New York Times diktat as akin to the stone tablets Moses carried down from the top of the mountain----not that progressives believe in any of that mythological mumbo jumbo called religion.
On either side it's a knee jerk reaction.
Anyone here with experience explaining the law?
This looks to me like very little. Article 1 says except for what it says in article 2.
Article 2 says anyone coming in at a port of entry and going through customs. So, basically anyone not sneaking across the border. It also exempts asylum seekers doesn’t it?
The NYT is wrong then, isn’t it? And this is close to a nothing burger.
What am I missing?
How can they possibly be treated as refugees as a matter of law?
They won't be after their hearing. They just need to be processed first. Presumably Congress can change the law and allow them to be held awaiting adjudication. Republicans have controlled congress for going on two years now. Funny they never did anything about this...
John said...
Aren't changes to the asylum system a job for Congress? Did you all have a problem with "executive overreach?" Or was that just a talking point and you don't really care as long as it's a policy you support?
The proclamation reads as subject to and enforcing existing statutory law: a change in enforcement procedures for those newly caught attempting to enter the country illegally by means not protected by existing statutory law mentioned in Section 2(a), (b) and (c) of the proclamation.
"Trump's "Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States."
The Proclaimers
But I would walk 500 miles
And I would walk 500 more
Just to be the man who walks a thousand miles
To fall down at your door
Da da da (da da da)
Da da da (da da da)
Da da da dun diddle un diddle un diddle uh da
Da da da (da da da)
Da da da (da da da)
Da da da dun diddle un diddle un diddle uh da
Blogger John said...”Aren't changes to the asylum system a job for Congress? Did you all have a problem with "executive overreach? Or was that just a talking point and you don't really care as long as it's a policy you support?”
Please explain how this is contrary to existing law. We’ll wait.
Do we have any stocks of napalm left over from Vietnam? Asking for a friend.
John
As I said, I hardly see any reach, much less overreach. You seem to take the NYT characterization at face value. Can you explain how, in light of article 2, this is anything
I see the NYT has its Trump template out today. It's angry liberals using MadLibs to ensure their articles contain all the required elements to fire up the base:
The Trump administration, invoking XXXXX, announced new rules YYYYY that give President Trump vast authority to ZZZZ.
Administration officials declined to say AAAA, but it is widely expected inside the government and by advocate groups that Mr. Trump intends to BBBB, some of whom are CCCC....
You can just picture the editor striking through "authority" and writing in "vast authority" in the margin above.
We eagerly await release of the tortured legal arguments against this proclamation.
The Trump administration, invoking national security powers meant to protect the United States against threats from abroad
Outside of the border is "abroad."
Calling it an "invasion" might be an exaggeration. It's just thousands of foreigners marching under their nation's flag with the mission of entering another country against that country's wishes.
Do we have any stocks of napalm left over from Vietnam? Asking for a friend.
I asked that a couple of weeks ago. But this would only be used if the helicopters and Wagner's Die Walküre weren't effective.
Big Mike said...
Do we have any stocks of napalm left over from Vietnam? Asking for a friend.
gasoline and tide soap works well as a field expedient.
In fact napalm goes bad in 12 months. It is made as needed by mixing a gasoline grade fuel with a 'gelling agent'
So at any given time there would only be a very small stockpile at some training ranges.
Blogger John said...”Aren't changes to the asylum system a job for Congress?
Haven't these people already violated the requirements for seeking asylum by not seeking it 1) at the US embassy in their home country, and 2) at the first country that offers it, which was Mexico?
Presumably Congress can change the law and allow them to be held awaiting adjudication.
I understand the detention centers are full so the 'applicants' must be released until they show up for their hearings, years hence. That's the hilarious part, right there. NOBODY keeps track of these people and they almost never show up for their hearings. But that's also true for Mexican nationals who come across every day through the checkpoints. They aren't tracked down to see if they ever left. This whole process could be enforced if there was motivation from the 'top' to do so.
That said, an ICE helicopter hovered over my block the other day in search of some illegals. Other LE was involved and they caught three. I suspect they had sneaked over the border while trafficking drugs. As a grand juror, I'm hearing a lot of cases involving drug importation and trafficking where the feds never get involved at all so this must be a big deal. One vehicle was caught at the checkpoint with 30lbs of meth and almost 30lbs of heroin. It's almost a daily occurrence.
I don’t think John’s coming back.
(b) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States at a port of entry and properly presents for inspection, or to any lawful permanent resident of the United States.
Wait . . . so . . . what was this proclamation about anyway? I mean, practically speaking, the "suspension and limitation" is just recapitulating current law, right? Because aliens who don't properly present for inspection at designated ports of entry are already committing a criminal violation, punishable upon repeat violation by imprisonment for up to two years:
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed
John,
If the officials aren't calling pass interference at all, and your opponents are taking advantage of that officiating decision, do you want your team to also take advantage of it? Or do you want your players to go strictly by the rule book and not by how the officials are calling the game? Just curious.
@Balfegor -- Just a guess, but does current law allow an apprehended alien to still apply for asylum?
I love how the word alien is still used in immigration statutes.
Law trumps Sci-Fi
Re: Henry --
Doesn't this allow any illegal aliens who sneak into the country still apply for asylum:
(c) Nothing in this proclamation shall limit an alien entering the United States from being considered for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) or protection pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the authority of the implementing legislation regarding the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or limit the statutory processes afforded to unaccompanied alien children upon entering the United States under section 279 of title 6, United States Code, and section 1232 of title 8, United States Code.
8 USC 1231(b)(3) provides:
(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
That's the asylum provision right there, right?
@Balfegor -- I have no idea, then.
Maybe Trump is just loudly proclaiming current law. That would be kind of Trumpish.
Maybe Trump is just loudly proclaiming current law. That would be kind of Trumpish.
Or he's just loudly proclaiming his intention to enforce current law. Which is something he said he would do.
Re: Henry:
I think the point of the proclamation is just Section 3 - interdiction. The precedents cited in the proclamation suggest that his objective is to interdict or block illegal aliens before they enter unless they're entering in orderly fashion through designated ports of entry:
Other presidents have taken strong action to prevent mass migration. In Proclamation 4865 of September 29, 1981 (High Seas Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), in response to an influx of Haitian nationals traveling to the United States by sea, President Reagan suspended the entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas and ordered the Coast Guard to intercept such aliens before they reached United States shores and to return them to their point of origin. In Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 1992 (Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), in response to a dramatic increase in the unlawful mass migration of Haitian nationals to the United States, President Bush ordered additional measures to interdict such Haitian nationals and return them to their home country. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of those measures in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993). (emphasis added)
The proclamation makes perfectly clear that aliens attempting to enter the US lawfully will be considered for asylum:
I am tailoring the suspension to channel these aliens to ports of entry, so that, if they enter the United States, they do so in an orderly and controlled manner instead of unlawfully. Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry. (emphasis added)
I have no idea what the New York Times is talking about. My suspicion is that it's classic "fake news," but if it helps deter aliens from attempting illegal entry and channels them towards properly designated ports of entry, well, "oft evil will shall evil mar," I suppose.
mccullough at 11:53 AM
I love how the word alien is still used in immigration statutes.
The correct legal term is illegal alien.
" One vehicle was caught at the checkpoint with 30lbs of meth and almost 30lbs of heroin. It's almost a daily occurrence."
This problem may be the best reason to build a wall-wall. People with nefarious intent cross the border, to and fro, all the time---they cross not just with intent to illegally reside, but instead with intent to conduct regular criminal business. A wall might not stop individual people from climbing over, but there is a whole new level of harm possible when VEHICLES can easily cross over and back.
Thanks for the information,Balfegor.
“Do we have any stocks of napalm left over from Vietnam? Asking for a friend.”
“I asked that a couple of weeks ago. But this would only be used if the helicopters and Wagner's Die Walküre weren't effective.”
Yet you don’t want to be thought of as deplorables? So burning these asylum seekers is what, a joke? Or does it reveal some abnormal level of fear and loathing? What is wrong with you people?
John,
He is changing the way the executive interprets the legislation, however, the legislation is actually quite explicit about how one presents ones case for refugee status- none in the caravan have plans to follow that law nor has anyone who has crossed the border illegally, and all Trump seems to be doing is making that explicit in how he intends to enforce it. I am sure the lower courts and the DC circuit will block this order, but the Left will lose at SCOTUS 100% certain with the current makeup.
Yet you don’t want to be thought of as deplorables? So burning these asylum seekers is what, a joke? Or does it reveal some abnormal level of fear and loathing? What is wrong with you people?
Yes, it was a joke, Inga. I'm sorry you didn't get it. Sorry. but not surprised.
Inga: "Yet you don’t want to be thought of as deplorables? So burning these asylum seekers is what, a joke? Or does it reveal some abnormal level of fear and loathing? What is wrong with you people?"
Making a joke makes you deplorable.
Literally burning people alive and throwing gays off buildings by the hundreds and cutting the heads off thousands and sexually enslaving thousands of girls gets you big time lefty allies....if you are an islamist.
But remember, Inga thinks you are a deplorable.
MS13 gangsters who machete school girls to death? "Spark of divinity" baby. "Spark of divinity", according to the left.
Blogger mccullough said...
I love how the word alien is still used in immigration statutes.
Law trumps Sci-Fi
I think this proclamation would appy to Alpha Centaurians who fleeing violent oppression from their Siriusinian conquerers too. They'd still have use a designated point of entry.
Mockturtle, your jokes are evil.
Meanwhile, actual torture and murder by islamists is simply multiculturalism, and its all good.
We cant get enough of those guts into the country fast enough!
By the way, knife and acid attacks are increasing by leaps and bounds in Europe.
Its the Amish no doubt.
Mass emigration (e.g. refugee crisis) indicates a need for emigration reform, including establishing security that will mitigate collateral damage at both ends of the bridge. The lessons learned in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Niger, Somalia, etc., and the later years in Iraq and Afghanistan, are templates for what not to do in order to avoid progressive humanitarian crises.
How about it Inga? Does Mockturtle have a "spark of divinity"?
Are MS13ers "deplorables"?
Not to worry. We already know the Left's answer on that.
The dude is relentless. He's going to use the Democrat Congress as a speed bag.
Come to think of it, that might be the point. Make the "moderate" Congressfolk-elect take a stand on this. Rock them back before they even take office.
I recall from when I worked on some asylum cases, that a genuine refugee has to stop in the first country that offers asylum. ... I don’t hear anyone talking about this.
"If they are fleeing Honduras, they can seek asylum in Mexico, the first stop in their "escape." Mexico has the responsibility to grant them asylum, turn them over to the UN, or return them to their country of origin."
Blogger mccullough said..."..I love how the word alien is still used in immigration statutes...?" I hope this is sarcasm, because if it's not, you need to return to remedial education on word definitions.
I am not one to call everything that Trump does as brilliant. That is apologetics.
But this is...pretty frigging smart.
By this proclamation, Trump has forced the NYT to post what the Law is for the ignorant masses...and put the Anderson Coopers of the Media arguing about how awful this law is.
It makes the Democrats rail against a popular law which now everyone knows.
And yes, it puts a military feel to the whole endeavor. The Military supports Trump on this.
This feels like a precursor to Martial Law. If Inga etc were smart (they aren't) they would be GOFUNDME a frigging Wall or it doesn't matter how many votes Inga creates as her Democrat Craft Project.
I DO NOT WANT TRUMP WITH EMERGENCY POWERS!
BUILD THE FUCKING WALL
This is the least bad option. The Dems don't have public support, the votes or the SCOTUS. There is no 'win' here.
Mockturtle, Drago
Inga got incensed when I said she hated some guy's soul. What do you think her feelings are about yours?
FIDO
Trump with emergency powers might finally clarify to them them why conservatives worry about even non-emergency powers.
"Did you all have a problem with "executive overreach?" Or was that just a talking point and you don't really care as long as it's a policy you support?"
-- Hold up there. Conservatives DO have an issue with executive over reach. And, maybe this policy IS that. But the left doesn't get to play the game of: We get to abuse the rules, but you don't. Obama has set a precedent that there's a LOT of executive authority that can be stretched and not objectionable. I disliked it then, and I think it may not be healthy for the country to devolve to tit-for-tat with these things. But, the left doesn't get to break a norm and rule, and then chastise the right when they say: "Hey, OK. We like your new rules and norms better than the old ones. We'll play that way too."
(Note: I don't see this policy as an over reach, and some smarter people than me explain why above. But, I hold I *could be in error.*)
hstad,
“Word definitions” is redundant. I hope you were being sarcastic. Maybe you are one of those stupid people who doesn’t know they are stupid. No amount of education will help. Some people are just stupid.
A proclamation to uphold civil rights, and expose the progress of diversity and antinativism, at both ends of the bridge.
Donald Trump swore an oath to "Preserve,Protect,and Defend." Now get the fuck out of his way so he can do just that.
mccullough illustrates the difference between the educated and the credentialed quite clearly.
BTW, does anyone know/care, how thousands of people are traveling thousands of miles from Honduras to the US border? The TV news shows them walking, or ocasionally being given a "lift to the next town" on a bus or truck. Some of them have (apparently per TV news) already made it to Mexico City for a demonstration -- that's a thousand miles in 3 weeks, which is pretty good hiking.
A Democrat-controlled Congress is not going to tighten restrictions on illegal immigrants. Current law, we know, provides plenty of opportunities for illegal immigrants to slip through the cracks and disappear into our interior. Don't you think Trump is preparing for 2020? And don't you think he's got a good hand?
I do not want more executive powers for EITHER side to abuse.
But the Left refuses to stop fomenting crisis.
This ends badly!
It’s difficult to illegally immigrate to Hawaii.
Political Test - please rank in order of offensiveness
1. Joke about napalm
2. FGM - female genital mutilation
3. Religious leader marrying a pre-teen, but waiting 3 years to consummate the marriage
4. Marrying your daughter in law
5. Hanging gays from cranes
6. Enslaving Yahdzis
7. Saying nationalism is ok
8. Enforcing us borders
9. Throwing gays from buildings
This ends badly!
This will be the world's shortest civil war. What Napoleon said.....
What is wrong with you people?
Hey, Inga. It's what you would do to us, if you could.
Liberals across the world still have bad conscience for Jewish refugees from the Nazi actual genocide attempt being refused asylum (including in the U.S. by the Roosevelt administration) and wrote over-broad language into the U.N. resolutions on the subject, which are now being taken advantage of, but even these do not allow "afraid my boy/girl-friend will beat me up" as a reason for granting asylum.
@madAsHell, all wars last longer than expected. One of the Antebellum Southern Firebrands offered his handkerchief to mop up all the blood that would be spilled over secession. Another thought that not more than a thimbleful of blood would be spilled. They were just a little off.
A civil war might present logistical problems that the War Between the States did not. After all, we're not dealing with whole states and certainly not contiguous ones. What is essential is to have the support of the military and its materiel, control of airports, seaports, freeways and food supply. European leaders might very well aid the 'opposition' as might China, who owns a lot of our debt. Would 'we' have any useful allies?
And perhaps most importantly, control of communications. We're screwed.
Would 'we' have any useful allies?
"Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky."
...and the farms and rivers, the mines and wells.
Let us see if NY state can feel 50 million people. Let us see how long Los Angeles lives without the Colorado River.
They have no children and they have only those too self important to fight. And Mexicans.
A land and sea embargo would make the lower classes in NYC thoughtful about how their masters are willing to let them suffer.
But the Flyover states would lose the internet and easy communications.
Pilots, however, are VERY conservative.
An interesting thought experiment.
It would be interesting to speculate on who would be on each other's Proscription Lists.
feed, not feel.
Re: Ray - SoCal
You left off the most heinous, inflammatory comment possible in these times: suggesting that it might be okay to be white.
My apologies to any ladies in the audience . . .
My younger daughter and I were hashing this out on the phone this evening. We concluded that we are--at present--ill prepared.
Can you get real, a civil war would not be one state or another but across the street or six blocks over.
I said: "After all, we're not dealing with whole states and certainly not contiguous ones. "
We see long standing strife in Beirut, Sarajevo places like that we wouldnt wish
that on anyone.
Hmmm...hmmm....hmmm. Been doing business immigration since 2000. This year's batch of new H-1Bs (filed in April) is really, really, really behind in overall adjudication compared to years past. The validity dates start on October 1. Not unusual for decisions to be rendered in October, but there are way too many still in the queue that haven't been touched.
There are 4 major centers that deal with H-1B petitions: California, Texas, Nebraska, Vermont. California gets the bulk of the petitions due to size and prevalence of software/tech. California's Service Center has been shifting cases to the other Service Centers all summer, indicating a severe shortage of personnel hours. The slowness this year is really giving me pause. And it suddenly popped into my head that this asylum train might, just might have something to do with it. Are California and Texas Service Centers gearing up for....something related to this? Can't help but wonder - the whole immigration system shifts work here and there around the various resources when needed.
Hmmm....hmmm....
Honestly, I am seeing some good comments here in support of the President. And some very good questions along the line of, “Why wouldn’t the President have the power to set forth many of these terms in a proclamation?
I think that there are two answers there. One is that the President does possess most of these powers. But very simply, some of this may be in conflict with settled treaty law, and other particulars may be in conflict with real, settled statutory law. Trump wouldn’t know anything about that, but a good team of Republican lawyers assembled by somebody like Jeff Sessions should be able to guide the President and craft for him a mostly defensible, if boundary-pushing, proclamation.
Trump’s public relations problem is all of the completely indefensible stuff he’s said, like “the complete and total shutdown of Muslims, from entering the United States.” His actual proclamations, worked over by competent lawyers, are fine. His advocacy is what is incompetent.
Blogger narciso said...
Can you get real, a civil war would not be one state or another but across the street or six blocks over.
11/9/18, 10:07 PM
Are you stating that "across the street or six blocks over"" did not happen during the American Civil War of the 1860s? Sorry my friend, it happened within families.
Post a Comment