+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 15 of 15

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default 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


    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.


    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.”


    I am The Librarian

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default 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


    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.


    I am The Librarian

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Judge bars citizenship question from 2020 census

    Judge bars citizenship question from 2020 census


    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.


    I am The Librarian

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default 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


    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.


    I am The Librarian

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default 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


    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.


    I am The Librarian

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts