hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,194
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 30, 2019 20:13:38 GMT -5
So Trump can pardon Eddie Gallagher but he can't do anything about this? "The problem is that in 2013, Schreiber, just before he deployed to Afghanistan as a chief intelligence officer, didn't get the right information about filing adoption papers. He says an attorney told him he needed to adopt Hyebin before her 18th birthday for her to have U.S. citizenship. But the age was in fact 16." Malpractice claim against the first attorney? But I suspect that maybe the incorrect information may have come from an Army JAG in which case he likely has no recourse. This article made me weep. Can't Trump, who almost never does the right thing, do the right thing to remedy this situation?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,250
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 30, 2019 20:18:42 GMT -5
"The problem is that in 2013, Schreiber, just before he deployed to Afghanistan as a chief intelligence officer, didn't get the right information about filing adoption papers. He says an attorney told him he needed to adopt Hyebin before her 18th birthday for her to have U.S. citizenship. But the age was in fact 16." Malpractice claim against the first attorney? But I suspect that maybe the incorrect information may have come from an Army JAG in which case he likely has no recourse. This article made me weep. Can't Trump, who almost never does the right thing, do the right thing to remedy this situation? If the adoptee was Norwegian, perhaps.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 2, 2020 11:19:47 GMT -5
Smh... www.newsweek.com/trump-winery-vineyard-undocumented-workers-virginia-1479970The Trump Winery in Virginia retained its undocumented workers until the end of the harvest in order to protect the wine despite knowing about their immigration status, a lawyer advising one of the laborers let go has claimed.
Anibal Romero, an immigration lawyer who has represented many former workers at Trump Organization properties, made the allegation to The New York Times after a number of undocumented laborers were fired this week from the winery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 14:39:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2020 18:31:30 GMT -5
“I didn’t mean to come across as harsh,” he said. His voice dropped. “It’s just that this is all I care about. I don’t have a family. I don’t have anything else. This is my life.”
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,194
|
Post by hoyarooter on Feb 24, 2020 20:44:43 GMT -5
“I didn’t mean to come across as harsh,” he said. His voice dropped. “It’s just that this is all I care about. I don’t have a family. I don’t have anything else. This is my life.” Scum. Absolute garbage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 13:28:10 GMT -5
Over half of frontline workers selflessly serving New Yorkers during #COVID19 crisis are foreign-born.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2020 15:07:40 GMT -5
Trump's America: You tell people they're essential only when they're essential to YOUR survival & then turn them away when they're the ones trying to get by.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Apr 22, 2020 12:13:26 GMT -5
www.propublica.org/article/ice-has-access-to-daca-recipients-personal-information-despite-promises-suggesting-otherwise-internal-emails-show"When undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors applied for deportation protections and work permits, the forms included a promise: The information would not be shared with immigration enforcement agents. The pledge was first made by the Obama administration, when it created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, eight years ago. It continued under President Donald Trump. Even after Trump announced that he was ending DACA, his administration assured immigrants that the information on their applications generally wouldn’t be sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But internal administration emails obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Make the Road New York, and shared with ProPublica, show that those assurances — given to Congress under oath and in lawsuits over the program — were incomplete or misleading. The Trump administration left out the fact that immigration enforcement agencies already had access to databases containing detailed information, such as home addresses, about DACA recipients and millions of other immigrants. “ICE already has the information,” Gene Hamilton, an appointee at the Department of Homeland Security, wrote in an internal email shortly before Trump’s announcement in September 2017. (Hamilton is now at the Department of Justice.) “There is no way to take that back.” Two weeks later, the communications show, the agency decided to leave that fact out of congressional testimony."
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Apr 24, 2020 0:10:56 GMT -5
www.propublica.org/article/ice-has-access-to-daca-recipients-personal-information-despite-promises-suggesting-otherwise-internal-emails-show"When undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors applied for deportation protections and work permits, the forms included a promise: The information would not be shared with immigration enforcement agents. The pledge was first made by the Obama administration, when it created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, eight years ago. It continued under President Donald Trump. Even after Trump announced that he was ending DACA, his administration assured immigrants that the information on their applications generally wouldn’t be sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But internal administration emails obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Make the Road New York, and shared with ProPublica, show that those assurances — given to Congress under oath and in lawsuits over the program — were incomplete or misleading. The Trump administration left out the fact that immigration enforcement agencies already had access to databases containing detailed information, such as home addresses, about DACA recipients and millions of other immigrants. “ICE already has the information,” Gene Hamilton, an appointee at the Department of Homeland Security, wrote in an internal email shortly before Trump’s announcement in September 2017. (Hamilton is now at the Department of Justice.) “There is no way to take that back.” Two weeks later, the communications show, the agency decided to leave that fact out of congressional testimony." This area also happens to be tangentially related to things I have worked on. What I would say is: just because (some people within) an agency has access to certain databases does not mean it can use the data contained therein for any and all purposes. I mean, just logically speaking, if a certain class of undocumented people have deportation protections, you would need to let some of the deporters have access to that info... so that they would know not to deport them! Dara Lind, who is one of the best immigration reporters out there, has a good thread on this, including an overview of the various IT systems at play. If you want to learn how the Federal government works, you could do a lot worse than reading Privacy Impact Assessments!
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,250
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 18, 2020 9:08:18 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 18, 2020 10:59:31 GMT -5
Another loser for Trump but gives him cred with his xenophonic base without having to actually take responsibility for anything. Which was, of course, the whole point. DHS lawyers understand just fine how you would go about rescinding DACA lawfully, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. They did not do so, because it would require the administration to own it whole hog. So they tried to loophole out of it, got called on it, and now won't do anything more until after the election, hoping that they get the base motivated without triggering the backlash that actually ending DACA would mean.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,194
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 19, 2020 20:24:30 GMT -5
Another loser for Trump but gives him cred with his xenophonic base without having to actually take responsibility for anything. Which was, of course, the whole point. DHS lawyers understand just fine how you would go about rescinding DACA lawfully, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. They did not do so, because it would require the administration to own it whole hog. So they tried to loophole out of it, got called on it, and now won't do anything more until after the election, hoping that they get the base motivated without triggering the backlash that actually ending DACA would mean. Yep, totally agree with this, but the decision was still only a 5-4 squeaker.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 20, 2020 10:22:20 GMT -5
Which was, of course, the whole point. DHS lawyers understand just fine how you would go about rescinding DACA lawfully, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. They did not do so, because it would require the administration to own it whole hog. So they tried to loophole out of it, got called on it, and now won't do anything more until after the election, hoping that they get the base motivated without triggering the backlash that actually ending DACA would mean. Yep, totally agree with this, but the decision was still only a 5-4 squeaker. Right. At a certain point, if you're dealing with vague statutes/tests, it creates a lot of wiggle room for personal views, motivated reasoning, etc. In this particular case, I really think it's the latter. The main thrust of conservatives' modern argument against administrative law writ large is that it is undemocratic, allowing unelected bureaucrats to legislate from their bureaus. Such a stance would argue for more stringent requirements to be placed on officers of the Executive Branch when making changes to administrative law. But that's exactly what's at issue here - did DHS do what it needed to do under the APA to lawfully rescind DACA? To me, the reasons for the four finding that DHS did meet the requirements has less to do with a belief that there is a certain generic standard and they met it, and more to do with their belief that DACA is bad policy and/or shouldn't have been permitted in this first place. But that wasn't the question at hand. The Duke/Nielsen memos thing complicates matters, because you could more plausibly argue that Nielsen's follow-up justification *was* sufficient due diligence. Here again, though, as a matter of principle it should be conservatives saying, "Wait a minute, no, you can't just attach a follow-up SorryTheFirstRationalizeWasCrap.pdf to your administrative action after the first one was found deficient - clearly this thing was deficient from the start. Go back and do your homework and show your work." The pivot point here is that Roberts hates that kind of stuff, he's extremely rulesy and does not want to reward bad lawyering.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,194
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 22, 2020 20:21:55 GMT -5
Yep, totally agree with this, but the decision was still only a 5-4 squeaker. Right. At a certain point, if you're dealing with vague statutes/tests, it creates a lot of wiggle room for personal views, motivated reasoning, etc. In this particular case, I really think it's the latter. The main thrust of conservatives' modern argument against administrative law writ large is that it is undemocratic, allowing unelected bureaucrats to legislate from their bureaus. Such a stance would argue for more stringent requirements to be placed on officers of the Executive Branch when making changes to administrative law. But that's exactly what's at issue here - did DHS do what it needed to do under the APA to lawfully rescind DACA? To me, the reasons for the four finding that DHS did meet the requirements has less to do with a belief that there is a certain generic standard and they met it, and more to do with their belief that DACA is bad policy and/or shouldn't have been permitted in this first place. But that wasn't the question at hand. The Duke/Nielsen memos thing complicates matters, because you could more plausibly argue that Nielsen's follow-up justification *was* sufficient due diligence. Here again, though, as a matter of principle it should be conservatives saying, "Wait a minute, no, you can't just attach a follow-up SorryTheFirstRationalizeWasCrap.pdf to your administrative action after the first one was found deficient - clearly this thing was deficient from the start. Go back and do your homework and show your work." The pivot point here is that Roberts hates that kind of stuff, he's extremely rulesy and does not want to reward bad lawyering. And I also totally agree with this, and it illustrates why, oh so many moons ago when I was studying for the bar exam, I opted to completely ignore constitutional law, and not do the con law question that appeared on the exam. Larry Tribe may not have intended this, but he taught me that the law is whatever the majority of the Justices say it is, and that they will rationalize their way to get to the result they want, no matter how convoluted the explanation may be. Now granted this is not always the case, but I wanted no part of it.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,250
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 5, 2020 20:11:20 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,250
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 9, 2020 13:49:59 GMT -5
Another immigration loss for the Trump Regime. It's just bad government. In a unanimous decision, Trump appointee Judge Eric Miller (concurring) uses the same failure to abide by the APA as the reason for his concurrence that CJ Roberts did in the DACA decision. It's not really that hard but this Regime is really incompetent. Thank G-d for small favors. According to Miller, DHS and the Justice Department had failed either to make findings regarding asylum-seekers' safety or to expressly balance the trade-offs between ensuring asylum-seekers' safety and streamlining asylum adjudication. This absence of administrative findings was notable, according to Miller, since he framed the rule as a "major change in policy—perhaps the most significant change to American asylum policy in a generation." On the scope of the remedy, Miller would have narrowed the injunction to cover only clients of the immigrants' rights groups that brought the case. www.lawfareblog.com/asylum-update-ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-third-country-rule
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,250
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 11, 2020 14:23:08 GMT -5
So Evangelical Christians continue to support the racist sociopath? Seems that President Obama allowed in more persecuted Christians than the sociopath. So why the continued support??? The United States is on track to welcome the fewest refugees since its resettlement policy was formalized in 1980, by a substantial margin. Capped at 18,000 people for 2020—the lowest ceiling on record—the US has resettled 7,600 refugees, with only three months left in the fiscal year. According to a joint report released today by World Relief and Open Doors USA, persecuted minorities representing a variety of religions have been harmed by the decline in resettlement. “Among those most disadvantaged have been Christian refugees from the countries where Christians face the most severe persecution in the world,” the report states.
So far in 2020, the US has resettled fewer than 950 Christians from the 50 countries where it is hardest to be a Christian, according to Open Doors’s annual World Watch List. At this rate, the US will receive 90-percent fewer Christian refugees this year than five years ago. www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/persecuted-christian-refugees-trump-open-doors-world-relief.html
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,335
|
Post by hoyajinx on Jul 11, 2020 14:56:04 GMT -5
So Evangelical Christians continue to support the racist sociopath? Seems that President Obama allowed in more persecuted Christians than the sociopath. So why the continued support??? The United States is on track to welcome the fewest refugees since its resettlement policy was formalized in 1980, by a substantial margin. Capped at 18,000 people for 2020—the lowest ceiling on record—the US has resettled 7,600 refugees, with only three months left in the fiscal year. According to a joint report released today by World Relief and Open Doors USA, persecuted minorities representing a variety of religions have been harmed by the decline in resettlement. “Among those most disadvantaged have been Christian refugees from the countries where Christians face the most severe persecution in the world,” the report states.
So far in 2020, the US has resettled fewer than 950 Christians from the 50 countries where it is hardest to be a Christian, according to Open Doors’s annual World Watch List. At this rate, the US will receive 90-percent fewer Christian refugees this year than five years ago. www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/persecuted-christian-refugees-trump-open-doors-world-relief.htmlThis is WHY they support Trump. When Trump-supporting Evangelicals talk about Christians, they really only mean white Christians. Actually, when they talk about people’s rights in general, they really only mean white people. It’s become shockingly clear at this point that they aren’t only comfortable with racism, they embrace it.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,250
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 11, 2020 15:11:23 GMT -5
So Evangelical Christians continue to support the racist sociopath? Seems that President Obama allowed in more persecuted Christians than the sociopath. So why the continued support??? The United States is on track to welcome the fewest refugees since its resettlement policy was formalized in 1980, by a substantial margin. Capped at 18,000 people for 2020—the lowest ceiling on record—the US has resettled 7,600 refugees, with only three months left in the fiscal year. According to a joint report released today by World Relief and Open Doors USA, persecuted minorities representing a variety of religions have been harmed by the decline in resettlement. “Among those most disadvantaged have been Christian refugees from the countries where Christians face the most severe persecution in the world,” the report states.
So far in 2020, the US has resettled fewer than 950 Christians from the 50 countries where it is hardest to be a Christian, according to Open Doors’s annual World Watch List. At this rate, the US will receive 90-percent fewer Christian refugees this year than five years ago. www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/persecuted-christian-refugees-trump-open-doors-world-relief.htmlThis is WHY they support Trump. When Trump-supporting Evangelicals talk about Christians, they really only mean white Christians. Actually, when they talk about people’s rights in general, they really only mean white people. It’s become shockingly clear at this point that they aren’t only comfortable with racism, they embrace it. IOW, the so-called Evangelical Christians choose to ignore editorials from CT, the preeminent Evangelical publication in America founded by Billy Graham. I guess CT speaks only to the 20% of Evangelicals who do NOT support Trump. (CT also called for Trump's removal from office in December 2019 after the House impeachment investigation revealed his attempt to tie Ukrainian aid to the announcement of a Biden investigation). www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
|
|