Image 01 Image 03

Trump Immigration Tag

This week's battle between President Donald Trump's administration and California has escalated, as the state has officially filed a lawsuit over the cut-off of federal funding due to sanctuary city policies:
Intensifying California’s standoff with the Trump administration over immigration policy, the California attorney general sued the Justice Department on Monday over the administration’s plans to cut off millions of dollars in federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities unless they begin cooperating with federal immigration agents.

Migrants who have either just arrived in America or been here for awhile have started to venture into Canada in record numbers by using the back roads to take advantage of loopholes in Canada's immigration system. The Associated Press reported:
Under the 2002 Safe Country Agreement between the United States and Canada, migrants seeking asylum must apply to the first country they arrive in. If they were to go to a legal port of entry, they would be returned to the United States and told to apply there. But, in a quirk in the application of the law, if migrants arrive in Canada at a location other than a port of entry, such as Roxham Road, they are allowed to request refugee status there.

While his city is spiraling out of control, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice over threats to cut funding to sanctuary cities. The Chicago Tribune reported:
“Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate,” Emanuel said. “Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city.”

We all know that CNN's Jim Acosta enjoys playing the role as an activist instead of a journalist, anything to bring attention to himself. He attempted to do just that on Wednesday, but fell flat on his face and made a fool of himself and his employer. President Donald Trump's policy advisor Stephen Miller attended the White House press briefing to explain the RAISE act, an immigration policy, that Trump endorsed Wednesday morning. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) developed the plan and Trump explained that the "application process will favor applicants who can speak English, financially support themselves and their families and demonstrate skills that will contribute to our economy." Acosta tried to debate Miller on the English speaking part of the RAISE act and failed miserably.

The Department of Homeland Security trumped the Environmental Protection Agency, waiving numerous rules that could have delayed the construction of the border wall between the United States and Mexico with lawsuits or studies.
Laws intended to protect endangered species and habitat at the border by requiring environmental impact reports can be circumvented by a wavier issued by the department, it said. The announcement was only tied to the San Diego area.

Pro-DREAMer organization Cosecha is planning a sit-in at Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton's office Wednesday, July 26. Cosecha, literally translated as "harvest" is a radical, "non-violent movement fighting for permanent protection, dignity, and respect for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. We believe that through direct action and economic non-cooperation, we can make a change" so they claim.

Thirty-eight people, eight of whom were deceased, were found in the back of an 18-wheeler in a San Antonio Walmart parking lot.  Temperatures reaching as high as 100 degrees and a lack of water are believed to have been the cause of the deaths. Authorities are calling it a "horrific" human trafficking case involving the smuggling of illegal aliens across the porous Southern border.  San Antonio is suing Texas Governor Gregg Abbott over the state's law banning sanctuary cities. Fox News reports:
Eight people were found dead Sunday morning inside a sweltering 18-wheeler parked outside of a San Antonio Walmart in what police called a horrific human trafficking case.

The State of Hawaii and the Trump administration have jointly requested that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals expedite consideration of the Trump administration's request for a stay of a Hawaii District Court preliminary injunction that significantly curtailed the implementation of Travel Order No. 2. The request comes just days after the Supreme Court ruled on the Trump administration's request for "clarification" and a stay. The Supreme Court denied the request for “clarification,” granted a stay of the Hawaii Order on refugees, and was silent (de facto denial) of a stay as to relatives:

The Supreme Court has ruled on the Trump administration's Motion for Clarification and for a Stay of the Hawaii Order significantly scaling back implementation of Travel Order No. 2. The Court denied the request for "clarification," granted a stay of the Hawaii Order on refugees, and was silent (de facto denial) of a stay as to relatives:

Hawaii just filed its Opposition (pdf.) to the Trump administration's request for clarification of the Supreme Court's prior ruling as to Travel Order No. 2, and to stay the Hawaii federal District Court's Order significantly scaling back the Trump administration's interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling. A full copy of the Opposition papers is embedded at the bottom of this post. We covered the issues in our prior post, Trump asks Supreme Court halt Hawaii Court ruling on Travel Order:

In the ongoing saga over the lower federal courts' attempt to usurp presidential power over who may enter the country, the Trump administration late last night filed a request for the Supreme Court to review and to halt the Hawaii federal court order that dramatically scaled back Trump's Travel Order No. 2. As described in our post about the Hawaii Order, we noted that those exempted from the Order extend far beyond the "close familial" relations as described in the prior Supreme Court ruling which substantially overruled the Hawaii Court's prior preliminary injunction. Those exempted, according to the Hawaii federal court, include:

Late last night a federal judge in Hawaii issued an Order scaling back the Trump administration's implementation of the Travel Order. The judge disagreed with the Trump administration as to who would be considered a “close familial relationship” under the Supreme Court's ruling. The Hawaii judge ruled that "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins" would fall under that category, and thus be excluded from Travel Order bar to entry. The ACLU celebrated early this morning with a *most unfortunate* tweet:

A federal judge in Hawaii has just granted in part, and denied in part, the State of Hawaii's motion to enforce an injunction issued prior to the Supreme Court ruling as to Trump's Travel Order No. 2. The key issue was who would be considered to have a "bona fide" connection to the United States under the Supreme Court ruling, such that they would be excluded from Travel Order No. 2 restrictions on entry. A full copy of the Order is embedded at the bottom of this post. (pdf.) For background, see this prior post, Twice rejected, Hawaii goes to court AGAIN to halt Trump Travel Order implementation

We previously wrote how the State of Hawaii (with co-plaintiff Dr. Ismail Elshikh) struck out in Hawaii federal court and in the 9th Circuit, in seeking "clarification" of how Trump's Travel Order No. 2 was to be implemented in light of the prior court injunctions and the Supreme Court's substantial overruling of those injunctions: The key problem identified by the court was the Hawaii's request for "clarification" was not proper. The District Court ruled that if Hawaii wanted clarification of a Supreme Court Order, it should seek such clarification from the Supreme Court:

The 9th Circuit just issued an Order denying the State of Hawaii's Emergency Motion for an Injunction. For details on the motion, see our post earlier today, Hawaii seeks injunction from 9th Circuit to halt Trump application of SCOTUS Travel Ruling. The Court issued its Order without even waiting for the Trump administration to respond, and was issued by the same panel of Judges as decided the original appeal, which the Supreme Court substantially overrode. The full 9th Circuit Order (pdf.) is embedded below.

Last night a District Court judge denied the State of Hawaii's emergency motion to "clarify" how the Trump administration is applying the Supreme Court's ruling on Travel Order No. 2. See my post last night, Judge Denies Hawaii request to halt Trump admin interpretation of SCOTUS Travel Order ruling. The District Court judge refused to consider the request to "clarify" his prior injunction, telling the parties to go to the Supreme Court if they want a to interpret the Supreme Court's Order. Today Hawaii filed its appeal (pdf.) in the 9th Circuit. A full copy is embedded below.