The God-Emperor Says, "Yes, we want no more niggers, no niggers from Shitholeistan non-jew Ass Oy Vey"

[Librarian]

The God-Emperor Says, "Yes, we want no more niggers, no niggers from Shitholeistan non-jew Ass Oy Vey"


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000313
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sla...cation-brknews
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...7494#post17494
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...7494#post17494

In an Oval Office meeting with lawmakers on Thursday, President Donald Trump described Haiti and African nations as “shithole” countries in slamming the idea of restoring protections for immigrants from those regions.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” the president said, sources told The Washington Post. The remarks were later confirmed by NBC News, BuzzFeed and CNN.

Related Searches
Trump ShitholesTrump Haiti
Trump then said the U.S. “should have more people from places like Norway,” sources told NBC News.

White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah responded in a statement to CBS Newson Thursday afternoon, saying, “Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people.”

The president “will always reject temporary, weak and dangerous stopgap measures that threaten the lives of hardworking Americans, and undercut immigrants who seek a better life in the United States through a legal pathway,” Raj added.

The statement did not directly address the reported “shithole” remark.

Trump is currently negotiating with congressional lawmakers over how to help so-called Dreamers, young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. The president put many of them at risk of losing their protection from deportation when he ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. In exchange for helping Dreamers now, Trump wants various border security measures ― including his wall ― and restrictions on legal immigration that would largely affect people of color.

During the negotiations, some lawmakers have proposed granting visas to individuals from Haiti, El Salvador and multiple African nations who are in the U.S. on temporary protected status. The Trump administration has already terminated that status for people from Haiti, El Salvador and Nicaragua, which means more than 200,000 people currently living in the U.S. have a matter of months to either leave or face deportation.

Trump reportedly scoffed at “shithole countries” in response to that proposal.

Democratic lawmakers including Reps. Barbara Lee (Calif.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.), Jim McGovern (Mass.) and Karen Bass (Calif.) swiftly condemned Trump’s “racist attitudes” on Twitter.

“Donald Trump is a cowardly racist who has no business being President of the United States,” Coleman tweeted. “Shame on him and those who don’t hold him accountable.”

Elisa Massimino, president and CEO of Human Rights First, called the president’s reported remark “disgusting and disgraceful.”

“That the President of the United States would talk this way about people who are fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries is shameful,” she said in a statement. “Congress must not give in to this hateful, racist, and divisive narrative coming out of the White House. America is counting on you to defend human dignity by standing firm for our commitment to protect the persecuted.”

This wouldn’t be the president’s first racially charged remark. He spent years furthering the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president, was not born in the U.S. He launched his presidential campaign with a speech that accused Mexico of sending rapists and criminals across the border and proposed banning all Muslims from entering the country before settling for barring individuals from certain Muslim-majority nations. He has repeatedly referred to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as “Pocahontas,” including at an event to honor Native Americans who served in World War II.

Trump previously said in private meetings that Haitians “all have AIDS” and that people from Africa would never “go back to their huts” once they had seen the U.S., The New York Times reported in December. The White House has denied that he made either of those comments.

Jack Davidson, executive director of the American Haitian Foundation, said Trump’s latest comment was “ignorant [and] racist with a complete disregard for the human dignity of the Haitian people.”

“[Haiti] has been struggling with its democracy and extreme poverty for many years,” Davidson told HuffPost. “The people of the country of Haiti are hardworking but many have given up hope. I am embarrassed that he is the president of the United States.”

The president has criticized black athletes for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality, calling for NFL owners to “get that son of a bitch off the field.”

He has been reticent at times to criticize white nationalists who support him. In August, the president said there were “very fine people” participating in a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a counter-protester was killed.

Trump is demanding an end to the diversity visa lottery, which grants up to 50,000 green cards to people from countries that send comparatively few immigrants to the U.S., many of them in Africa. Those individuals are chosen by the U.S. and then vetted, and there is no indication that they pose a greater threat than other immigrants or native-born citizens. But Trump has nonetheless made the baseless claim that through the visa lottery, foreign governments “give us their worst people … really the worst of the worst.”

The president also wants to limit what he and many proponents of slashing legal immigration call “chain migration,” the process by which Americans and legal permanent residents can sponsor certain family members for green cards. That, too, could largely affect people of color, because recent immigrants are more likely to come from Asian or Latin American countries.

For Trump’s own Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, however, his business has reportedly requested hundreds of visas to bring in foreign workers, including from Haiti.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

[Librarian]

Democrats ‘all talk and no action’ on fixing DACA, Trump says

Democrats ‘all talk and no action’ on fixing DACA, Trump says

By S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Saturday, January 13, 2018


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...o-action-fixi/
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...7503#post17503
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...7503#post17503
.

The God-Emperor Shits on not in sundry Shitholes Jan 13, 2018
.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump on Saturday blamed Democrats for blowing up the deal to protect “Dreamers” from deportation.

“The Democrats are all talk and no action. They are doing nothing to fix DACA. Great opportunity missed. Too bad!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

Mr. Trump and congressional negotiators are looking for a permanent fix to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, that granted temporary deportation amnesty to illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

“I don’t believe the Democrats really want to see a deal on DACA. They are all talk and no action. This is the time but, day by day, they are blowing the one great opportunity they have. Too bad!” Mr. Trump tweeted.

The president has demanded extra border security, including funding for a wall, as well as an end to family-based chain migration and the visa lottery program.

The deal hit a snag after reports Thursday that Mr. Trump told lawmakers at a meeting on immigration at the that the U.S. didn’t need more immigrants from “sh—hole countries” like Haiti, El Salvador and several African countries.

he report, which Mr. Trump denied, set off an onslaught of accusations that the president was a racist.

Among those present at the meeting were Sen. Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who presented a compromise that included using the 50,000 visas from the current lottery to extend protection to illegal immigrants from countries such as Haiti and El Salvador.

Mr. Trump ended temporary protected status for 250,000 Salvadorans this week.

.

[Donald Trump]

http://christian-identity.net/forum/...7512#post17512
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...7512#post17512

[Librarian]

Trump asks Supreme Court to overturn DACA program

Trump asks Supreme Court to overturn DACA program

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 16, 2018

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tm_medium=push
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...7518#post17518
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...7518#post17518

The God-Emperor looking warily smug as He Makes Amurri'kwa Grate Agin.
.

The Justice Department said Tuesday it will appeal directly to the Supreme Court to approve President Trump’s decision to phase out the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals deportation amnesty, hoping to cut corners and get the justices to quickly overturn a lower court’s ruling.

The rare move puts the justices on the spot, at a time when the fate of Dreamers is being heatedly debated in the Capitol, just across the street from the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup threw a curveball at negotiators last week when he issued a series of rulings. He said then-candidate Donald Trump showed “racial animus” toward Mexicans during the 2016 campaign, and he said because most DACA recipients are Mexican, that tainted the Homeland Security Department’s decision last year to phase out the deportation amnesty.

Judge Alsup, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton, also became the first judge to rule the 2012 DACA program itself legal.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Tuesday that Judge Alsup’s ruling “defies both law and common sense.”

“We are now taking the rare step of requesting direct review on the merits of this injunction by the Supreme Court so that this issue may be resolved quickly and fairly for all the parties involved,” he said in a statement announcing the speedy appeal.

Analysts said that such direct appeals, known in court-speak as “certiorari before judgment,” are rarely granted, but when they are, it’s usually in response to this type of Justice Department request.

Immigrant-rights group United We Dream, which advocates for some 690,000 illegal immigrant “Dreamers” protected by the DACA program, derided Mr. Sessions’ move as racist.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the direct appeal “the latest in a disturbing pattern of hostile actions directed at young immigrants across America.”

The DACA program has gotten twisted out of all recognition in recent months after the Trump administration announced last September it thought the program as established in 2012 was illegal, and began a six-month phase-out.

Judge Alsup said the Trump administration was wrong and DACA, established by executive action, was legal. But he said the Trump administration’s executive action to cancel it was illegal.

Critics have blasted the judge’s ruling as a muddle. On the one hand he used Mr. Trump’s campaign statements to rule the president had racial animus toward Mexicans, and since most DACA recipients are Mexican the phaseout was illegal — even though the phaseout was done by Homeland Security, not Mr. Trump.

At the same time, Judge Alsup ignored President Obama’s own repeated comments as president that DACA would be illegal — before Mr. Obama reversed himself ahead of the 2012 election, as he was seeking Hispanic votes.

Adding to the irony is that the chief plaintiff in the case against Mr. Trump is University of California President Janet Napolitano, who created the DACA program when she was Homeland Security secretary.

For now, Judge Alsup’s ruling remains in place. He ordered Homeland Security to restart DACA applications for the 690,000 people already protected by the program, saying they can apply for two-year renewals.

The government announced Saturday it would begin accepting those applications, even as it fights in court to cut the program off again.

Congress, meanwhile, is trying to come up with a more permanent solution for Dreamers, reaching for an agreement that would grant them citizenship rights in exchange for improvements to border security and other immigration policy.

.

[The ZOG Emperor]

The God-Emperor Trump: ‘I’d love to see a shutdown’ unless Dems fix immigration

The God-Emperor Trump: ‘I’d love to see a shutdown’ unless Dems fix immigration

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
- Tuesday, February 6, 2018


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-immigration/
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...7617#post17617
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...7617#post17617

In this Feb 6, 2018 photo the God-Emperor tells the jewsmedia & CONgress how the cow ate the cabbage on them nasty beaners
.


President Trump said Tuesday that he would “love to see a shutdown” over immigration if Democrats don’t come to the table to negotiate on border security and other stiff enforcement measures, escalating the stakes with less than four weeks to go before a deadline for action.

“If we have to shut it down because the Democrats don’t want safety … let’s shut it down,” the president said at a White House roundtable discussion on MS-13 gang violence and illegal immigration.

The tough talk seemed to upend congressional Republicans’ carefully crafted strategy of avoiding shutdown threats, hoping to pin blame on Democrats if the government did tumble into another stoppage.

Rep. Barbara Comstock, a Virginia Republican who represents a number of federal employees, told Mr. Trump that she thought lawmakers could reach an immigration deal without resorting to the worst-case scenario.

“We don’t need a government shutdown on this,” she said.

Mr. Trump was insistent, however: “You can say what you want. We are not getting support of the Democrats.”

The White House said Mr. Trump isn’t cheerleading for a shutdown and hopes the government keeps running, contingent on a Democratic agreement to a two-year budget and to laws cracking down on illegal immigration as part of a deal to legalize immigrant Dreamers.

It’s not clear what shutdown Mr. Trump envisions.

A government funding deadline is looming this week, but Democrats agreed to decouple that from the immigration talks.

Meanwhile, the deadline Mr. Trump set for dealing with Dreamers is March 5, which is when his phaseout of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals deportation amnesty fully kicks in. But no government funding or debt deadline is tied to March 5.

“We are not advocating for the shutdown,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. “The president’s encouraging people to do their jobs.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said Mr. Trump’s own words belie that.

“We had a Trump shutdown. Nobody wants another, maybe except him,” Mr. Schumer said.

The Senate is slated to begin an immigration debate over the next week — though it’s unclear what a bill would look like.

On Tuesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, wasn’t certain what bill he would even bring to the floor to use as a basis for the debate.

“There’s no secret plan here to try to push this in any direction,” Mr. McConnell said.

He later added, “We just don’t know where 60 votes are for any particular proposal, and so we’re going to find out.”

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said he won’t take up a bill that doesn’t have Mr. Trump’s backing.

Republicans said they have been waiting for Democrats to make a counteroffer to Mr. Trump’s four-prong plan to enact a generous amnesty for 1.8 million illegal immigrant Dreamers in exchange for major policy changes including a border wall and more authority to speed deportations, an end to the visa lottery and limits to the chain of family migration.

Democrats say Mr. Trump’s plan is a nonstarter. They want a “clean” vote on granting citizenship to as many as 3 million illegal immigrants.

The shutdown talk overshadowed Mr. Trump’s efforts to draw attention to the threat of MS-13, a gang that acting Assistant Attorney General John Cronan said is stocked by illegal immigrant “savages.”

“MS-13 can simply replenish its jail population by sending more and more members across our borders,” Mr. Cronan said.

The administration argues that the pipeline relies heavily on the flow of illegal immigrant minors who have surged across the border over the past five years, taxing the ability of the Homeland Security Department to deal with them.

“When they come to our border, I have to let them in,” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at the White House roundtable.

“This is unique to our country, and it’s got to change,” Mr. Trump said.

Immigrant rights advocates don’t defend the gangs but say Mr. Trump is giving immigrants an unfair rap by pointing to MS-13 as part of the debate.

The Democratic National Committee called Mr. Trump’s remarks an attempt to “fearmonger,” saying he was “falsely [conflating] MS-13 gang members with undocumented immigrants.”

Data from a major anti-gang operation last year, though, suggested a link.

A series of raids dubbed Operation Raging Bull netted 214 MS-13 gang members in California. Of those arrested, 193 were illegal immigrants and 60 had entered the country as unaccompanied minors, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

American citizens accounted for just 16 of the gang members, and five were foreign nationals with legal residency in the U.S.

Angel Melendez, special agent in charge in Homeland Security Investigations’ New York office, said a stunning 30 percent of MS-13 members arrested in recent anti-gang operations came to the U.S. as part of the surge of unaccompanied alien children that overwhelmed the Obama administration in its final years in office.

Of 40,810 unaccompanied alien children who arrived in the U.S. and were granted initial entry in 2017, more than half were males ages 13 to 17 from the Central American countries that serve as the source for MS-13, Mr. Melendez said.

He said not all of unaccompanied children are gang members, but MS-13 is “looking at these 20k AUC that came into the United States as potential recruits to refill their ranks.”

• Dave Boyer and S.A. Miller contributed to this article.

[Librarian]

Court orders restoration of DACA program

Court orders restoration of DACA program

Judge uses Trump’s Twitter post to undercut DHS phaseout


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-daca-program/
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...7648#post17648
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...7648#post17648

[Librarian]

Trump vs. California feud escalates to all-out warfare

Trump vs. California feud escalates to all-out warfare

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
- Wednesday, February 28, 2018


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...l-out-warfare/
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...7728#post17728
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...7728#post17728

Dirty diseased shitskinned beaner faggots desperately deserving deportment protest the God-Emperor sometime somewhere
.

The Trump administration’s simmering feud with California has turned into all-out warfare over immigration after Oakland’s mayor warned illegal immigrants this week of looming sweeps — leading Homeland Security’s deportation chief to accuse her of endangering her city and his officers.

Analysts said there was no comparison in recent memory for the sort of bad blood that’s developed between President Trump and California’s leaders, who have legislated, sued, tweeted and used just about every other tool at their disposal to try to stymie the administration.

Things grew particularly tense this week with Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s warning to her city’s illegal immigrants that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was conducting a major operation in the Bay Area.

ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan compared her to a gang snitch on the lookout for police, and said more than 800 criminal migrants escaped the sweep — some of them almost certainly alerted by Ms. Schaaf’s warning.

“This is beyond the pale,” Mr. Homan said on Fox News.

California is just one of the states vying for title of chief of the anti-Trump resistance. New York is also in the running, along with Hawaii, each of which have led major lawsuits against the administration.

But California’s resistance is broader and deeper, including a statewide sanctuary law that took effect Jan. 1, and lawsuits against Mr. Trump’s sanctuary-city crackdown, his border wall plans and his phase-out of the Obama-era DACA deportation amnesty.

In the early rounds of the legal battle, California has scored victories on DACA and sanctuary policy, while the president won the first skirmish over the border wall this week.

That loss prompted state Attorney General Xavier Becerra to fire back, calling the wall “medieval” and promising to “do what is necessary” to stop construction.

Mr. Becerra also backed up Ms. Schaaf in her battle with ICE, saying on Twitter that the law enforcement agency had crossed lines.

“It’s becoming sadly clearer that #ICE is losing its focus on #immigration enforcement: rather than focus on people who are dangerous criminals, we hear ICE may be terrorizing communities, including family members who are citizens,” said Mr. Becerra, a Democrat and former member of Congress.

The president has gotten personally involved in the fight.

Last week, while talking with officials about ways to combat gun violence in the wake of the Florida school shooting, Mr. Trump singled out California as doing a “lousy management job” in fighting crime.

He threatened to pull federal law enforcement from the state — specifically mentioning ICE personnel and Border Patrol agents. He said he’s “thinking about doing it.”

“You would see crime like nobody has ever seen crime in this country. And yet we get no help from the state of California,” he said. “They have the highest taxes in the nation. And they don’t know what’s happening out there. Frankly it’s a disgrace.”

On Wednesday, the president took to Twitter to say he was suspending parts of the border wall that California wants built until the full wall is approved. He did not elaborate on that threat.

His own administration seemed unsure of what to make of the new orders, and said as far as they know nothing has changed.

“ICE is continuing operations,” said Homeland Security spokesman Tyler Q. Houlton.

Mr. Houlton also said new fence construction in Calexico, California, is proceeding.

“The funding has already been put in place so that’s a congressional thing,” he said.

Federal immigration agents also scoffed at the idea they could be pulled out of the state, and questioned the wisdom of the president’s threats.

The Trump-California feud could come to a head in mid-March, when the president is scheduled to travel to San Diego to look at the eight prototypes that were built as part of a contest to design the border wall of the future.

Mr. Trump in the past has said he would pick the winner, though Homeland Security officials on Wednesday refused to say whether that was still the plan.

“The selection of the border wall prototypes will be going through the normal course of the procurement process,” assistant secretary Jonathan Hoffman said.

Some conservative states regularly battled President Obama, with Texas leading the way in suing to stop his immigration and environmental policies. Arizona, meanwhile, took the lead on legislation, passing laws that attempted to crack down on illegal immigration.

Those laws were largely blocked by the Supreme Court.

Mark Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies, said the difference was Arizona was trying to push a reluctant Obama administration to fully enforce federal laws. California, he said, is attempting to thwart an administration that is finally determined to carry out those laws.

“We haven’t seen this kind of animosity between a state the federal government since 1865,” he said.

He doubted either side will give in, and said an escalationis more likely.

“I think what will turn the dial up to 11 on this is if and when a city or state official is criminally prosecuted either for obstruction of justice or harboring illegal aliens,” he said.

Mr. Homan has already set the stage for that move. He suggested last year that officials from sanctuary cities could face federal charges. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Neilsen told Congress last month that she’s officially asked the Justice Department to look into that move.

A senior administration official this week declined to comment on that possibility.

[Librarian]

Judge rules Trump’s DACA phaseout legal

Judge rules Trump’s DACA phaseout legal


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...l-judge-rules/
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...7757#post17757
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...7757#post17757

[Librarian]

Sessions excludes domestic, gang violence from asylum claims

Sessions excludes domestic, gang violence from asylum claims

ELLIOT SPAGAT,
June 11, 2018


https://www.yahoo.com/news/sessions-...-politics.html
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...8227#post18227
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...8227#post18227

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Immigration judges generally cannot consider domestic and gang violence as grounds for asylum, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday in a ruling that could affect large numbers of Central Americans who have increasingly turned to the United States for protection.

"Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-government actors will not qualify for asylum," Sessions wrote in 31-page decision. "The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim."

The widely expected move overruled a Board of Immigration Appeals decision in 2016 that gave asylum status to a woman from El Salvador who fled her husband. Sessions reopened the case for his review in March.

Sessions took aim at one of five categories to qualify for asylum - persecution for membership in a social group - calling it "inherently ambiguous." The other categories are for race, religion, nationality and political affiliation.

Domestic violence is a "particularly difficult crime to prevent and prosecute, even in the United States," Sessions wrote, but its prevalence in El Salvador doesn't mean that its government was unwilling or unable to protect victims any less so than the United States.

Dan Kowalski, editor of Bender's Immigration Bulletin, said the decision, subject to appeal in federal appeals court, could affect tens of thousands of people claiming asylum on grounds of domestic violence.

The decision came hours after Sessions' latest criticism on the asylum system, which he and other administration officials consider rife with abuse. The cases can take years to resolve in backlogged immigration courts that Sessions oversees and applicants often are released on bond in the meantime.

"Saying a few simple words — claiming a fear of return — is now transforming a straightforward arrest for illegal entry and immediate return into a prolonged legal process, where an alien may be released from custody into the United States and possibly never show up for an immigration hearing," Sessions said at a training event for immigration judges. "This is a large part of what has been accurately called 'catch and release.'"

[Librarian]

In reversal, Trump orders halt to his family separation rule

In reversal, Trump orders halt to his family separation rule


https://www.yahoo.com/news/homeland-...-151501530.htm
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...8273#post18273
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...8273#post18273

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bowing to pressure from anxious allies, President Donald Trump abruptly reversed himself Wednesday and signed an executive order halting his administration's policy of separating children from their parents when they are detained illegally crossing the U.S. border.

It was a dramatic turnaround for Trump, who has been insisting, wrongly, that his administration had no choice but to separate families apprehended at the border because of federal law and a court decision.

The order does not end the "zero-tolerance" policy that criminally prosecutes all adults caught crossing the border illegally. But, at least for the next few weeks, it would keep families together while they are in custody, expedite their cases and ask the Defense Department to help house them. It also doesn't change anything yet for the some 2,300 children taken from their families since the policy was put into place.

The news in recent days has been dominated by searing images of children held in cages at border facilities, as well as audio recordings of young children crying for their parents — images that have sparked fury, questions of morality and concern from Republicans about a negative impact on their races in November's midterm elections.

Until Wednesday, the president, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other officials had repeatedly argued the only way to end the practice was for Congress to pass new legislation, while Democrats said Trump could do it with his signature alone. That's just what he did.

"We're going to have strong, very strong borders, but we're going to keep the families together," said Trump, who added that he didn't like the "sight" or "feeling" of children separated from their parents.

Under a previous class-action settlement that set policies for the treatment and release of minors caught at the border, families can only be detained for 20 days. A senior Justice Department official said that hasn't changed.

"This is a stopgap measure," said Gene Hamilton, counsel to the attorney general. Justice lawyers were planning to file a challenge to the agreement, known as the Flores settlement, asking that a judge allow for the detention of families until criminal and removal proceedings are completed.

So Trump's order is likely to create a fresh set of problems and may well spark a new court fight. It's unclear what happens if no changes to law or the settlement take place by the time families reach the detainment deadline. The language also leaves room to separate children from parents if it's best for the child's welfare.

And it didn't do much for the teeming outrage over the issue. The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center said the order didn't go nearly far enough.

"The administration still plans to criminalize families — including children — by holding them in prison-like detention facilities. There are workable alternatives," president Richard Cohen said in a statement.

It's also unclear what will happen to the children already separated. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said his department will start reuniting detained immigrant children with their parents — but he made no specific commitment on how quickly that can be accomplished. And officials said the cases of the children already separated and turned over to their custody would proceed as usual.

Trump's family apparently played a role in his turnaround.

A White House official said first lady Melania Trump had been making her opinion known to the president for some time that she felt he needed to do all he could to help families stay together, whether by working with Congress or acting on his own.

And daughter Ivanka Trump tweeted, "Thank you @POTUS for taking critical action ending family separation at our border."

Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill Wednesday, and those on the fence over pending immigration legislation headed to the White House to meet with Trump. Assessments for possible detention facilities at military bases have already been done in Texas and another is expected in Arkansas on Thursday.

Two people close to Nielsen said she was the driving force behind the turnabout that led to the new order keeping families together. Those people were not authorized to speak publicly and commented only on condition of anonymity.

One of them said Nielsen, who had become the face of the administration's policy, had little faith that Congress would act to fix the separation issue and felt compelled to act. She was heckled at a restaurant Tuesday evening and has faced protesters at her home.

Trump had tweeted early Wednesday, before issuing his order: "It's the Democrats fault, they won't give us the votes needed to pass good immigration legislation. They want open borders, which breeds horrible crime. Republicans want security. But I am working on something - it never ends!"

The "zero tolerance" policy put into place last month moves adults to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service and sends many children to facilities run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The policy had led to a spike in family separations in recent weeks, with more than 2,300 minors separated from their families at the border from May 5 through June 9, according to Homeland Security.

The Flores settlement, named for a teenage girl who brought the case in the 1980s, requires the government to release children from custody and to their parents, adult relatives or other caretakers, in order of preference. If those options are exhausted, authorities must find the "least restrictive" setting for a child who arrived without parents.

Peter Schey, class-appointed counsel in the Flores case, said Wednesday there was nothing in the agreement that prevents Homeland Security officials from detaining children with their parents, "as long as the conditions of detention are humane and the child remains eligible for release, unless the child is a flight risk, or a danger to herself or others, or the child's parent does not wish the child to be released."

He said he was looking into whether the court could block deportation of parents until they have been reunited with their children, and whether it could force the Trump administration to reunite those separated.

In 2015, a federal judge in Los Angeles expanded the terms of the settlement, ruling that it applies to children who are caught with their parents as well as to those who come to the U.S. alone. Other recent rulings, upheld on appeal, affirm the children's rights to a bond hearing and require better conditions at the Border Patrol's short-term holding facilities.

In 2016, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that child migrants who came to the border with parents and were held in custody must be released. The decision did not state parents must be released. Neither, though, did it require parents to be kept in detention, apart from their children.

.

[Librarian]

House Rejects Immigration Bill After GOP Fails to Reach Agreement

House Rejects Immigration Bill After GOP Fails to Reach Agreement

Anna Edgerton, Bloomberg
June 27, 2018


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/house...175303085.html
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...8303#post18303
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...8303#post18303

House Republicans fell far short on their second attempt to pass a GOP-only immigration bill, notching one more failure on PresidentDonald Trump’s signature issue just months before they try to defend their majority in midterm elections.

The attempt to come up with legislation that would appeal to moderate and conservative Republicans failed, 121 to 301. The defeat of the legislation, which even its backers anticipated, capped more than a month of intense GOP negotiations that played out amid public backlash against immigrant families being separated at the border because of Trump administration policy.

The failure vividly illustrates House SpeakerPaul Ryan’s inability to get a fractious GOP House majority together on a broad immigration proposal, even one that would have accomplished many of President Donald Trump’s policy priorities.

With less than five months before all House members will be up for re-election, conservatives will have to explain to voters why they still haven’t funded Trump’s border wall, and moderates will go home empty handed on their promise to give immigrants brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship.

Trump Tweets
Trump on Wednesday urged Republicans in the House to pass the immigration bill, in an all-caps tweet, even after he wrote last week that members of his party were wasting their time.

“HOUSE REPUBLICANS SHOULD PASS THE STRONG BUT FAIR IMMIGRATION BILL,” Trump wrote in his Twitter message.

The administration also released a formal policy statement saying the White House backed the legislation.

With the bill’s rejection, House members will now turn their attention to a much more narrow proposal to write a law that would keep undocumented parents and children together when they’re apprehended crossing the U.S. border.

Since Trump initiated his “zero tolerance” policy of detaining everyone who enters the U.S. illegally, more than 2,000 immigrant children have been separated from their parents. After an outcry from the public and lawmakers, Trump last week signed an executive order to end the separations but said Congress needs to change the law.

More from Bloomberg.com: Canada Is Preparing Steel Quotas, Tariffs on China and Others

Some families have been reunited as the federal government works to comply with a federal judge’s order to reunite immigrant children who were separated from their families at border crossings and to stop detaining parents without their children.

Detaining Minors
The broader bill that failed Wednesday includes two provisions to address this issue: changes to the 1997 Flores court settlement that limits how long minors can be detained, and a requirement for families to be held together in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security. It also would have redirected $7 billion for border technology to build more family detention centers.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Washington state representative who is chairwoman of the Republican conference, plans to introduce a bill designed to pass quickly and prevent immigrant families from being separated. GOP leaders have been tight-lipped about her proposal to avoid draining support from the broader Republican measure that failed Wednesday.

"I dont like the fact that was raised as a possibility in some ways that would undermine our effort,"Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican who represents a diverse district, said in reference to a more narrow bill. Still, Curbelo said, “a lot of good has come” from the past few weeks of intense discussion of immigration policy.

The foundation of McMorris Rodger’s bill could be the proposal introduced by North Carolina SenatorThom Tillis that would put aside the 1997 court decision that had the practical effect of requiring children to be released from detention after 20 days.

That legislation would also give priority to timely consideration of cases involving families, and authorize 225 new immigration judges. Trump, however, said that he opposes adding any more immigration judges.

Democrats in both chambers oppose simply voiding the 21-year-old settlement because it also contained standards for facilities and treatment of children who are detained.Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, said the next proposal must be focused solely on keeping families together if it is to get any support from the minority party.

“If it includes repealing the Flores restrictions, I think the answer to that is maybe no,” Hoyer said. “If it just says, ‘look, we’re not going to separate children at the border,’ then I think we’d be for it.”

Ryan characterized the Democrats’ position as “catch and release” for immigrants apprehended at the border and said Congress shouldn’t have to choose between policies that “separate families or secure the border.”

“We should be able to keep families together and secure the border and enforce our laws,” Ryan told reporters.”

Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican who is chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, introduced his own version of a bill that would not only allow families to be detained together, but would also change the standard for asylum applications.

Congress doesn’t have much time to act on legislation to end family separations. Thursday is the last day the House is in session until July 10, and then there are only three weeks before a month-long August recess when members will be back in their districts campaigning for re-election.

It’s unclear how long Trump’s executive order, which relies on judicial action to change legal precedents, will guide administration policy on how to detain immigrants who cross the border illegally with their children.

Yet the title of the president’s action makes its true intent clear: “Executive Order Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation.”

.

[Librarian]

Judge bars US from enforcing Trump administration’s asylum ban

Judge bars US from enforcing Trump administration’s asylum ban

By Edmund DeMarche, Benjamin Brown
Fox News


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jud...ons-asylum-ban
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...8912#post18912
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...8912#post18912

A federal judge in San Francisco on Monday barred the Trump administration from refusing asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally, likely prompting a legal challenge from the White House.

Trump issued a proclamation on Nov. 9 that said anyone who crossed the southern border would be ineligible for asylum.


U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order after hearing arguments in San Francisco.

The request was made by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which quickly sued after President Trump issued the ban this month in response to the caravans of migrants that have started to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Baher Azmy, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "Individuals are entitled to asylum if they cross between ports of entry. It couldn't be clearer."

An estimated 70,000 people a year claim asylum between official ports of entry, including in the Arizona desert and on the north bank of the Rio Grande in Texas, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Migrants who cross illegally are generally arrested and often seek asylum or some other form of protection.

On Monday, the U.S. closed off northbound traffic for several hours at the busiest border crossing with Mexico to install new security barriers, and also closed one of two pedestrian crossings at the San Ysidro crossing in a move apparently aimed at preventing any mass rush of migrants across the border.

U.S. border inspectors are processing only about 100 asylum claims a day at Tijuana’s main crossing to San Diego. Asylum seekers register their names in a tattered notebook managed by migrants themselves that had more than 3,000 names even before the caravan arrived.

Homeland Security officials say there are currently 6,000 people in Tijuana waiting to be processed at the San Ysidro border crossing, with more on the way.

During a conference call with reporters Monday afternoon, homeland security officials said "most of the caravan members are not women and children" and that more than 500 criminals are traveling with the group that has amassed on the other side of a San Diego border crossing.

Officials anticipate the new arrivals could swell the migrant caravan in excess of 10,000 and will need to be housed for an extended period of time – which the Mexican government says it lacks the resources for.

The majority of migrants, who have been on foot for more than a month, are sleeping on a dirt baseball field at an outdoor sports complex in Tijuana by the newly-fortified barbed wire fence that separates Mexico from the United States.

Despite the growing numbers, the Pentagon will reportedly start withdrawing a portion of the 5,800 troops deployed at the border this week, with the rest of the unit packing up before Christmas.

“Our end date right now is December 15, and I’ve got no indications from anybody that we’ll go beyond that,” Army Lt. General Jeffery Buchanan, who is overseeing the deployment, told Politico.
.

[Librarian]

Judge bars citizenship question from 2020 census

Judge bars citizenship question from 2020 census


https://news.yahoo.com/judge-bars-ci...150010751.html
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...9171#post19171
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...9171#post19171

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Tuesday from asking about citizenship status on the 2020 census, the first major ruling in cases contending that officials ramrodded the question through for Republican political purposes to intentionally undercount immigrants.

In a 277-page decision that won't be the final word on the issue, Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that while such a question would be constitutional, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had added it arbitrarily and not followed proper administrative procedures.

"He failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices," Furman wrote.

Ross' explanations for his decision were "unsupported by, or even counter to, the evidence before the agency," the judge said.

Among other things, the judge said, Ross didn't follow a law requiring that he give Congress three years notice of any plan to add a question about citizenship to the census.

The ruling came in cases in which 18 states, the District of Columbia, and 15 big cities or counties, and immigrants' rights groups argued that the Commerce Department, which designs the census, had failed to properly analyze the effect the question would have on households where immigrants live.

A trial on a separate suit on the same issue, filed by the state of California, is underway in San Francisco. The U.S. Supreme Court is also poised to address the issue Feb. 19, meaning the legal issue is far from decided for good.

"We are disappointed and are still reviewing the ruling," Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement.

In the New York case, the plaintiffs accused the administration of Republican President Donald Trump of adding the question to intentionally discourage immigrants from participating, which could lead to a population undercount — and possibly fewer seats in Congress — in places that tend to vote Democratic.

Even people in the U.S. legally, they said, might dodge the census questionnaire out of fears they could be targeted by a hostile administration.

The Justice Department argued that Ross had no such motive.

Ross' decision to reinstate a citizenship question for the first time since 1950 was reasonable because the government has asked a citizenship question for most of the past 200 years, Laco said.

When Ross announced the plan in March, he said the question was needed in part to help the government enforce the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law meant to protect political representation of minority groups.

Furman, appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said, "Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross's rationale was pretextual," meaning Voting Rights Act enforcement was not his real reason.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office was among those that litigated the lawsuit, called the decision a win for "Americans who believe in a fair and accurate count of the residents of our nation."

Officials in Massachusetts, one of the states participating in the litigation, applauded the ruling.

"The census is meant to count every person residing in the United States, and attempting to frighten immigrant communities into not responding was a clear and deliberate effort to depress the count in states like Massachusetts," said Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, a Democrat.

Ross said politics played no role in the decision, initially testifying under oath that he hadn't spoken to anyone in the White House on the subject.

Later, however, Justice Department lawyers submitted papers saying Ross remembered speaking in spring 2017 about adding the question with former senior White House adviser Steve Bannon and with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Ross from being deposed, but let the trial proceed, over the objections of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

The constitutionally mandated census is supposed to count all people living in the U.S., including noncitizens and immigrants living in the country illegally.

The Census Bureau's staff estimated that adding a citizenship question could depress responses in households with at least one noncitizen by as much as 5.8 percent. That could be particularly damaging in states like New York or California, which have large immigrant populations.

Justice Department lawyers argued that the estimate was overblown and that, even if they were true, that didn't mean Ross exceeded his legal authority in putting the question on anyway.

However, Furman said, Ross violated the law by falling short on requirements that his agency consider all important aspects of a problem, study evidence, make a decision rationally based on that evidence, comply with all laws and articulate "the real reasons" for its conclusion.

The administration faces an early summer deadline for finalizing questions so questionnaires can be printed.
.

[Librarian]

Judge calls citizenship question on Census a threat to democracy

Judge calls citizenship question on Census a threat to democracy

Bans question from 2020 count

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
- Updated: 3:22 p.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 2019


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...eat-democracy/
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...9405#post19405
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...9405#post19405

Census Form Mailing
.

A federal court on Wednesday banned the Trump administration from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census, saying even including the question at this point would threaten the foundations of American democracy.

Judge Richard Seeborg’s ruling is the second to ding the administration over the citizenship question. But where a court in New York gave the Census Bureau a chance at a do-over, Judge Seeborg said there can’t be “another bite at the apple.”

He issued an outright ban on including the citizenship question in the 2020 count.

“The inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 Census threatens the very foundation of our democratic system — and does so based on a self-defeating rationale,” the Obama appointee wrote.

The matter is not likely to end there.

The Supreme Court has already said it would hear the government’s appeal of the case out of New York, speeding arguments in order to have a final decision by this summer.

But Judge Seeborg’s 126-page opinion adds new legal heft to the case against the administration.

The judge said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross bungled the effort from the start by deciding he wanted to include the question, then concocting for a justification.

That, he said, violated procedural laws that govern how agencies make decisions.

Even beyond that, though, the judge concluded that asking about citizenship at this point would scare some people away from participating — non-citizens and Latinos in particular — thus making the count less accurate.

He said that violates the Constitution’s clause requiring an “actual enumeration” of the population every 10 years.

Citizenship questions have been asked before. Up until 1950, the question was part of the basic form all households got.

After that, the question was relegated to the “long form” that went to a smaller number of households, and it’s still to this day asked on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which is a rolling version of the census long form.

But Judge Seeborg said it doesn’t matter what happened in the past, or what might work in the future. What matters is that in today’s environment people might refuse to answer.

The ruling is a significant blow to President Trump, whose campaign has touted inclusion of the citizenship question as a major accomplishment.

.

[Librarian]

Trump vindicated in court battle on 'Return to Mexico' asylum policy

Trump vindicated in court battle on 'Return to Mexico' asylum policy

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
Tuesday, May 7, 2019

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ndicated-court
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...9684#post19684
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...9684#post19684

President Trump won a surprise victory before a usually antagonistic appeals court Tuesday when judges ruled he could continue his “Return to Mexico” policy that allows the government to make some illegal immigrants seeking asylum wait in Mexico while their cases are being heard.

The policy, which the administration officially calls the Migrant Protection Protocols, had been one of the administration’s Hail Mary attempts to try to control the surge of illegal immigrants from Central America. Many of those are lodging asylum claims and counting on lax U.S. policies to earn them a foothold here, even if they don’t deserve asylum under the law.

The goal was to make them wait in Mexico — effectively denying them that foothold — while their cases are being heard.

A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been a roadblock to much of the president’s immigration agenda, sided with him, ruling that the law allows the Return to Mexico policy to proceed, and finding it’s particularly necessary given the surge of migrants.

The judges issued a stay on a lower court injunction that had threatened to halt the policy.

“DHS is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a stay because the preliminary injunction takes off the table one of the few congressionally authorized measures available to process the approximately 2,000 migrants who are currently arriving at the Nation’s southern border on a daily basis,” the judges said in an unsigned opinion.

Immigrant-rights groups were horrified at the reversal — one of only a few battles they’ve lost in the courts.

“The decision to allow this cruel and irresponsible policy to continue will put many more people seeking protection in harm’s way,” said Charanya Krishnaswami, an official at Amnesty International USA.

The policy has only gotten a small test, with only a few locations actually returning a small set of asylum-seekers back to Mexico.

But the administration had hoped for a broader rollout, saying it could help change the calculus of some of those planning to head north.

Mexico says it wasn’t involved in crafting the policy, but has said it is working with U.S. officials to provide humanitarian assistance to those that are sent back and asked to wait.

Mexico’s ability to handle people has limited the U.S. rollout of the policy, American officials said.

No unaccompanied children are subjected to the MPP, nor are Mexicans who seek asylum — it would defeat the purpose to send them back to the country they are fleeing.

People from countries other than Mexico who say they still fear being sent to Mexico are also supposed to be exempt.

But Judge Paul J.. Watford, an Obama appointee, said Homeland Security doesn’t proactively ask migrants if they fear Mexico, instead waiting for them to raise it themselves. He suggested in a concurring opinion that could break U.S. treaty obligations.

He called Homeland Security’s refusal to ask “particularly irrational.”

He said he expects the lower court to come back with an order demanding Homeland Security ask those kinds of questions.

Meanwhile Judge William A. Fletcher, a Clinton appointee, suggested he wanted to rule against the administration, but the way the case came to the court made that impossible.

“I am hopeful that the regular argument panel that will ultimately hear the appeal, with the benefit of full briefing and regularly scheduled argument, will be able to see the government’s arguments for what they are — baseless arguments in support of an illegal policy that will, if sustained, require bona fide asylum applicants to wait in Mexico for years while their applications are adjudicated,” he said.

.

Single Squatemelan Beaneress, 24, with her mamzer sprog, 5 sits in a tent in Mexico awaiting assylum to ZOGling whiggerstan.
She claims that Jorge Soros gave her caravan millions but not the 50 ZOGbux necessary to file for assylum.

.