Image 01 Image 03

Trump Immigration Tag

Remember Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General. He down-played and lied about his and Obama's Fast and Furious fiasco, refused to prosecute Black Panthers for voter intimidation, pursued prosecution of journalists and labeled one a "c0-conspirator," used his taxpayer-financed "slush fund" to funnel money to Obama allies until it was dismantled by AG Jeff Sessions.  Holder also holds the dubious distinction of being the first sitting cabinet member to be held in (both criminal and civil) contempt of Congress.

President Donald Trump's Department of Homeland Security did not touch former President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows undocumented immigrants, who came to the U.S. as small children, to remain in America. From The New York Times:
The Department of Homeland Security announced late Thursday night that it would continue the Obama-era program intended to protect those immigrants from deportation and provide them work permits so they can find legal employment.

We've been here before. Another judicial opinion upholding an injunction against Trump's Travel Order No. 2. This time from the 9th Circuit arising out of the injunction by the Hawaii District Court. The Opinion (pdf.) is embedded below. The Trump administration already has the Hawaii injunction before the Supreme Court, as it previously filed for contingent review of a possible 9th Circuit decision, expecting a losing result. The 4th Circuit Opinion also is before the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunctions, the opposition to which is due today.

Que Twilight Zone theme.  Scott Johnson of the conservative blog Powerline has been served a draft subpoena ordering that he preserve records of items he noted in his blog posts. Judge James Robart, presiding over the Hawaii v. Trump "travel ban" case, authorized the move. Johnson writes:
These are strange days. I seem to have been caught up in the so-called “travel ban” litigation challenging President Trump’s executive orders “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” Yesterday I was served with a letter and draft subpoena from one Tana Lin of the Keller Rohrback law firm’s Seattle office alerting me to my “document preservation obligations with respect to documents that are relevant or potentially relevant to this litigation.” Lin represents plaintiffs in Doe v. Trump, venued in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington.

There he went again. Early this morning Donald Trump launched a twitter storm regarding the issue of the Executive Orders regarding visa entry to the U.S. from 6 (originally 7) majority Muslim nations previously identified by the Obama administration as posing unique security risks. On January 28, 2017, just after the first Executive Order, I addressed much of the nonsense in the media about the substance of the Executive Order, Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading. Most significantly, it was inaccurate to describe it as a "Muslim ban," which was the media descriptor of choice.

Donald Trump's second Executive Order on visa entry from six majority Muslim countries is now before the Supreme Court. Trump is seeking review of the 4th Circuit's decision upholding a Maryland District Court injunction halting the Executive Order. In addition to the Petition for  a Writ of Certiorari asking SCOTUS to hear the case on the merits, Trump has a request for a stay of the lower court injunctions pending a decision on the merits. The application is on a fast track, with the Court setting June 12 as the deadline for opposition papers. The 4th Circuit's decision found that the Executive Order, though facially neutral, "in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination" and that context was "a backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisors and representatives at different points in time, both before and after the election and President Trump’s assumption of office."

IF the U.S. Supreme Court wants to weigh in quickly on the legality of Donald Trump's Second Executive Order temporarily barring new visa entries on people from six high-risk countries, SCOTUS has an opportunity to do so. Yesterday the Justice Department filed requests for review of the case (Petition for Certiorari) and for a stay of 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmance of a Maryland District Court injunction pending determination of whether SCOTUS will hear the case.

In a move that is sure to go uncelebrated on the regressive left and to leave many Trump supporters scratching their heads, the State Department has lifted the limit on the number of refugees admitted to the U. S.   This change will result in almost twice as many refugees flooding into our country each day. It is not clear at this time if President Trump is aware of or has approved this change of policy, though it seems highly unlikely he would be unaware of such a substantive change.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case en banc, has upheld substantially all of the Maryland District Court injunction against Trump's revised travel Executive Order in an opinion (pdf.) dripping with politics. (Full embed at bottom of post). The opinions (including concurring and dissenting) are 200 pages, so it will take some time to digest, but you'll get the message from the opening paragraph:

When it comes to blocking President Donald Trump's plans for the Border Wall, the Democratic Party has displayed imagination, creativity, and enthusiasm rarely surpassed in the annals of human history.
Democrats opposed border wall funding in the latest government spending debate and the White House eventually backed off of its demand to secure the money this month. When the funding fight comes up again in September, Democrats are still likely to deem it a non-starter in negotiations. "I have said repeatedly and consistently, I will not support an omnibus that includes funding for a wall; not going to do it," said Rep. Joe Crowley, D-New York, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, at a recent press conference.

Hey, give Joy Reid credit. At least she didn't go full Hitler analogy . . . On her MSNBC show this morning, Reid claimed that a recently-adopted Texas immigration law sounds "almost like an apartheid-era law." To support her alarmist claim, Reid badly mischaracterized the law, suggesting that under it, "any person can be stopped for any reason and asked essentially [to] show their papers." Her ACLU guest seemingly agreed, saying, "that's right." But she added that immigration-status inquiries can be made "once a person is legally detained," thus debunking Reid's suggestion that a person could be stopped and asked "for any reason."

Baltimore is taking the idea of "sanctuary cities" to the next level in its ongoing "resistance" to President Trump's policy of enforcing our nation's immigration laws. The mayor has insisted that Baltimore is a "welcoming" rather than a "sanctuary" city, and earlier this month, Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz signed an executive order regarding illegal immigrants.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a press conference in Long Island, New Jersey in which he addressed gang violence.  He directly addressed the brutal and growing barbarism of the MS-13 gang, stating that in the Trump era the violent grip this gang has on Long Island, in particular, is unacceptable and will be stamped out. MS-13 is a Salvadoran gang that has established roots across America and is touted as "the gang that scares other gangs." Fox News reports:
They’re known as MS-13, MS, Mara or Mara Salvatrucha, but by any name, they’re trouble.

There's a wall being built on the Mexican border. You just can't see it. But Mika Brzezinski could feel it. On today's Morning Joe, Brzezinski mimed an invisible border wall. Mika's shtick came in the course of a discussion suggesting that the Trump administration might settle for less than a 2,200 mile-long wall, substituting surveillance of various types. Joe Scarborough helpfully suggested "wild coyotes wearing cameras."

A federal judge in California blocked a portion of President Trump's January Immigration Executive Order Tuesday. Jude William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California targeted the Trump administration's promise to cut federal funding from "sanctuary cities" or cities who refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement concerning immigration matters.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a stop in my hometown on Friday. During the visit, he urged cities and other government jurisdictions with sanctuary policies to reconsider and work with federal law enforcement to identify criminals who should be deported.