"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
BILL BARR – Unqualified For Office – Unfit To Act In A Quasi-Judicial Capacity
There have been many articles pointing out that Bill Barr unethically has acted as Trump’s defense counsel rather than fulfilled his oath to uphold the Constitution and be the Attorney General of all of the American people. There have also been some absurdist “apologias” for Barr some written by once-respected lawyers who should know better, and others written by the normal Trump hacks.
Here are my choices for four of the best articles explaining why Barr should not be the Attorney General. It goes without saying that he shouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination be running the Immigration Court system. His intervention into individual cases in a quasi-judicial capacity is a clear violation of judicial ethics requiring avoidance of even the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. There is no “appearance” here. Barr has a clear conflict in any matter dealing with immigration.
Attorney General William Barr. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
House Democrats are going to face a difficult decision about launching an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Balanced against the president’s impressive array of misconduct is the fact that several more criminal investigations that may add to the indictment are already underway, and that impeaching the president might jeopardize the reelection of red-state Democratic members. But in the meantime, Attorney General William Barr presents them with a much easier decision. Barr has so thoroughly betrayed the values of his office that voting to impeach and remove him is almost obvious.
On March 24, Barr released a short letter summarizing the main findings of the Mueller investigation, as he saw them. News accounts treated Barr’s interpretation as definitive, and the media — even outlets that had spent two years uncovering a wide swath of suspicious and compromising links between the Trump campaign and Russia — dutifully engaged in self-flagellation for having had the temerity to raise questions about the whole affair.
Barr had done very little to that point to earn such a broad benefit of the doubt. In the same role in 1992, he had supported mass pardons of senior officials that enabled a cover-up of the Iran–Contra scandal. Less famously, in 1989 he issued a redacted version of a highly controversial administration legal opinion that, as Ryan Goodman explained, “omitted some of the most consequential and incendiary conclusions from the actual opinion” for “no justifiable reason.”
And while many members of the old Republican political Establishment had recoiled against Trump’s contempt for the rule of law, Barr has shown no signs of having joined them. He met with Trump to discuss serving as his defense lawyer, publicly attacked the Mueller investigation (which risked “taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president”), called for more investigations of Hillary Clinton, and circulated a lengthy memo strongly defending Trump against obstruction charges.
The events since Barr’s letter have incinerated whatever remains of his credibility. The famously tight-lipped Mueller team told several news outlets the letter had minimized Trump’s culpability; Barr gave congressional testimony hyping up Trump’s charges of “spying,” even prejudging the outcome of an investigation (“I think there was a failure among a group of leaders [at the FBI] at the upper echelon”); evaded questions as to whether he had shared the Mueller report with the White House; and, it turns out, he’s “had numerous conversations with White House lawyers which aided the president’s legal team,” the New York Times reports. Then he broke precedent by scheduling a press conference to spin the report in advance of its redacted publication.
It is not much of a mystery to determine which officials have offered their full loyalty to the president. Trump has reportedly “praised Barr privately for his handling of the report and compared him favorably to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions” —whose sole offense in Trump’s eyes was following Department of Justice ethical protocol. Trump urged his Twitter followers to tune in to Barr’s conference, promotional treatment he normally reserves for his Fox News sycophants.
The press conference was the final disqualifying performance. Barr acted like Trump’s defense lawyer, the job he had initially sought, rather than as an attorney general. His aggressive spin seemed designed to work in the maximal number of repetitions of the “no collusion” mantra, in accordance with his boss’s talking points, at the expense of any faithful transmission of the special counsel’s report.
Barr’s letter had made it sound as though Trump’s campaign spurned Russia’s offers of help: “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” he wrote. In fact, Mueller’s report concluded, “In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer,” but that the cooperation fell short of criminal conduct.
Where Mueller intended to leave the job of judging Trump’s obstructive conduct to Congress, Barr interposed his own judgment. Barr offered this incredible statement for why Trump’s behavior was excusable: “[T]here is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr said. “Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” and credited him further with taking “no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.”
Sincere? How can Barr use that word to describe the mentality of a man whose own staffers routinely describe him in the media as a pathological liar? Trump repeatedly lied about Russia’s involvement in the campaign, and his own dealings with Russia. And he also, contra Barr, repeatedly denied the special counsel access to witnesses by dangling pardons to persuade them to withhold cooperation.
It is true that many of Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice failed. As Mueller wrote, the president’s “efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
This is a rather different gloss on the facts than the happy story Barr offered the press. What’s more, it is a pressing argument for Barr’s own removal. Next to the president himself, the attorney general is the most crucial actor in the safeguarding of the rule of law. The Justice Department is an awesome force that holds the power to enable the ruling party to commit crimes with impunity, or to intimidate and smear the opposing party with the taint of criminality.
There is no other department in government in which mere norms, not laws, are all that stand between democracy as we know it and a banana republic. Barr has revealed his complete unfitness for this awesome task. Nearly two more years of this Trumpian henchman wielding power over federal law enforcement is more weight than the rickety Constitution can bear.
In the years after Watergate, Justice Department officials — from both parties — worked hard to banish partisan cronyism from the department. Their goal was to make it the least political, most independent part of the executive branch.
“Our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose,” Edward Levi, Gerald Ford’s attorney general, said at the time. Griffin Bell, later appointed to the same job by Jimmy Carter, described the department as “a neutral zone in the government, because the law has to be neutral.”
Attorney General William Barr clearly rejects this principle. He’s repeatedly put a higher priority on protecting his boss, President Trump, than on upholding the law in a neutral way. He did so in his letter last month summarizing Robert Mueller’s investigation and then again in a bizarre prebuttal news conference yesterday. As The Times editorial board wrote, Barr yesterday “behaved more like the president’s defense attorney than the nation’s top law-enforcement officer.”
Throughout his tenure, Barr has downplayed or ignored the voluminous evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing — his lies to the American people, his willingness to work with a hostile foreign country during a presidenial campaign, his tolerance of extensive criminal behavior among his staff and his repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation. Barr even claimed that Trump “fully cooperated” with that investigation, which Vox’s Ezra Klein notes is “an outright lie.”
Since he took office, Trump has made clear that he wants an attorney general who acts as first an enforcer of raw power and only second as an enforcer of federal law. In Barr, Trump has found his man. Together, they have cast aside more than four decades worth of Justice Department ideals and instead adopted the approach of Richard Nixon.
President Donald Trump has long wished for an attorney general who would act as his own private lawyer, protecting him from any potential legal damage. He finally found his man in William Barr.
Barr could have released special counsel Robert Mueller’s report from the beginning. Instead, the attorney general chose to twice present his own interpretation of the special counsel’s findings on foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. election ― before allowing members of the public to see the report and decide for themselves whether Trump and his associates did anything improper.
The first time the public received a glimpse of what was in the Mueller report was on March 24, when Barr sent a four-page letter to congressional leaders summarizing his conclusions from the report the special counsel team had submitted to Barr two days earlier.
The second time the public heard about the report’s content was in a Thursday morning press conference when Barr went out of his way to echo Trump talking points, attacking the media and the president’s “political opponents.”
To the Justice Department’s credit, the redactions in the Mueller report were relatively light ― allowing the public to see a substantial amount of the content.
But still, in his public comments, Barr made sure to paint as positive a picture of Trump before the report became widely available.
Here’s how the attorney general misled the public:
He left out the Trump campaign’s expectation of benefiting from hacked material.
In his letter to Congress on March 24, Barr wrote:
The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ”[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election inference activities.”
While it’s true that the Mueller report did reach that conclusion, that quote is incomplete. Barr left out the first part, which was less complimentary to the Trump campaign.
Below is the full quote from the Mueller report, with the part Barr omitted in bold:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
He said it was up to him to make a decision on obstruction of justice.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Attorney General William Barr went to bat for Trump in a Thursday morning press conference.
In his March 24 letter, Barr said Mueller’s team did not come to a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed justice in the course of the investigation. Therefore, Barr claimed, it was now up to him to make that determination.
“The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” he wrote.
Barr said he concluded that the evidence “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
But Barr never had to make that legal conclusion, as Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department under President Barack Obama, pointed out. And Mueller never asked Barr to so.
Indeed, the report said the special counsel’s team couldn’t come to such a conclusion:
[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.
The report also said that ultimately, the obstruction call wasn’t for Mueller to make. The special counsel decided not to make a decision on whether to prosecute Trump because the Justice Department’s position, according to an Office of Legal Counsel memo, is that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
“Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations … this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction,” the report states.
Furthermore, it seems clear that Mueller and his team expected that ultimately, Congress would make the decision on obstruction of justice.
NBC News reported earlier that some in Mueller’s office had said “their intent was to leave the legal question open for Congress and the public to examine the evidence.”
“[W]e concluded that Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice,” the report says.
In other words, Congress can impeach the president if it wants to do so.
He gave an incomplete picture of Trump’s actions that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
“In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct,” Barr wrote in his March 24 letter.
The report doesn’t let Trump off the hook quite so easily. It says Trump tried to obstruct justice ― but he didn’t succeed because his staff refused to follow his orders.
“The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” the report reads.
The report detailed 10 acts by Trump that could amount to obstruction of justice.
He said Mueller found “no collusion.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been called to testify before Congress about his report.
One of Trump’s favorite phrases is that there was “no collusion” between his campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 elections. He has tweeted it 84 times.
Barr used the phrase four times in his 18-minute remarks in Thursday’s press conference:
“Put another way, the special counsel found no ‘collusion’ by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.”
“But again, the special counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s hacking.”
“After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the special counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel’s investigation.”
“At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was, in fact, no collusion.”
But the Mueller report never actually said the investigation found no collusion. In fact, the report explains specifically why it doesn’t use the term “collusion.” The word only appears in the report as part of this explanation or in quoting someone else.
MUELLER REPORT
The Mueller report avoided using the term “collusion,” and explains why here.
Therefore, Barr repeatedly saying Mueller found “no collusion” was simply the attorney general adopting a Trump talking point.
He said Trump fully cooperated with the investigation.
Barr was extremely sympathetic to Trump in Thursday’s press conference. He tried to paint a picture of a president under extreme ― and unfair ― pressure, telling reporters, “As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates.”
He said Trump was “frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” so it’s not surprising if he may have lashed out a bit. And, he added, Trump deserved credit for “fully cooperat[ing]” with the special counsel at all:
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.
Trump, however, didn’t fully cooperate. He refused repeated requests to give an interview to Mueller and his team. The report said the special counsel’s team considered issuing a subpoena for Trump to testify but ultimately decided it wasn’t worth it:
MUELLER REPORT
The Mueller report says Trump refused to be interviewed by the special counsel and his team.
******************************************
Finally, this editorial form the SF Chronicle really “hammers home” Barr’s patent unfitness to continue serving.
Editorial: Attorney General Barr’s misplaced loyalties
Chronicle Editorial Board
Updated
Photo: Tom Brenner / New York Times
Attorney General William Barr has been acting as if he is Presisdent Trump’s personal attorney.
President Trump has never made any secret of his desire to have an attorney general whose first loyalty was to him. Regrettably for the nation and the honest administration of justice, Trump unquestionably now has one in William Barr.
The attorney general has lost all credibility with his disgraceful handling of the rollout of the Mueller report into Russian interference into the 2016 election. Barr left the American people for more than a month with a seriously skewed characterization of the “principal conclusions” from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings from the two-year investigation.
His four-page summary of those conclusions amounted to “nothing much to see here, folks.” While he was correct that the Mueller team could not make a case that anyone in Trump’s campaign broke the law by conspiring with Russians, the Barr summary was downright deceptive in its portrayal of the special counsel’s findings on possible obstruction of justice by the president.
Barr’s summary suggested that “difficult questions of law and fact” left it difficult for Mueller to determine whether Trump had obstructed the probe. Barr and his deputy took it upon themselves to conclude that “the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient” to establish obstruction.
Americans who have now read the Mueller’s team’s own words in the 448-page report discovered that Barr’s account was highly misleading. In fact, Mueller’s hesitation was not based on an inability to decide; it was guided in part by a Department of Justice policy that a sitting president could not be indicted. Given that, Mueller suggested it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime when the president could not have a chance to defend himself in a “speedy and public trial” with the constitutional protections.
Barr also suggested that Trump could not have obstructed justice into an investigation of a crime he did not commit.
Mueller’s report clearly stated otherwise.
“The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong,” it stated. Mueller’s investigation detailed “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
Rather than punting the obstruction decision to Barr, Mueller very clearly noted that a decision on what to do with the substantial evidence of wrongdoing he collected should be made by Congress, which has the power of impeachment.
Barr never bothered to correct Trump’s exhortation of “complete and total exoneration.” Barr might as well have been on a Trump spokesman, rather than the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, at a bizarre Thursday news conference (before the report’s release) in which he offered a sympathetic explanation for Trump’s repeated efforts to stymie the investigation. Barr chalked it up to Trump’s anger and frustration.
Justice has been frustrated. Americans are justifiably angry. Barr has proved himself unfit for the high office he holds.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
Undoubtedly, Trump is unfit for office as many of us have been saying for some time now. The Mueller report confirmed what most thinking people already knew: the guy is dishonest, immoral, pathological, and a not very bright “con man.” (He’s also a racist and a White Nationalist would be authoritarian, although those admittedly were not points of emphasis in the Mueller report which focused on other aspects of his totally disgraceful conduct.)
But, I’ll concede that Trump’s removal is unlikely to happen except at the ballot box. Even that is uncertain with about 40% of American voters apparently wedded to a “beggar thy neighbor, who cares about the majority, country be damned” worldview. Trump is already focused on a “race-baiting” strategy of leveraging the most problematic aspects of our electoral college system while treating the interests of majority of Americans with mockery and disdain.
It remains to be seen whether any Democratic candidate can unite the diverse majority of Americans for at least long enough to save our country by removing Trump and, hopefully, his GOP enablers along with him. It also remains to be seen whether any country where 40% of the voters are so out of touch with reality and the common interests of the rest of us can actually be governed, once majority rule is restored.
But, Barr is a different matter. He’s not elected, he’s not President, and we don’t have to enable his continued unethical misuse of authority at the DOJ, at least not in the the all important area of the U.S. Immigraton Court.
If Congress won’t do the job by creating an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, it’s time for the Article III courts to invalidate precedents produced by Barr’s and Sessions’s unethical participation in individual quasi-judicial decision-making and to start invalidating removal orders entered by “courts” controlled by political enforcement officials, in clear contradiction to the Due Process requirement that individuals facing the life or death authority of the Federal Government are entitled to have fair and impartial decision makers and reasoned decisions. That can’t happen in a system controlled and directed by biased political “enforcement only” officials like Barr (and Sessions before him). Barr has made it crystal clear that he always will put the selfish interests of Trump above truthfulness, the law, due process, fundamental fairness, and the common good.
Letting this farce of a “judicial system” continue unfairly endangering individual lives and deferring to officials who are neither subject matter experts nor fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision makers is unconstitutional. By letting it continue, life-tenured Federal Judges both tarnish their reputations and fail to fulfill their oaths of office.
As a young attorney in the Department of Justice during the Watergate Era, I, along with many others, were indelibly impressed and inspired when then Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his Deputy William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s illegal order to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor (a/k/a/ “The Saturday Night Massacre”). Obviously, Barr has dragged the Department and its reputation down to new depths — back to the days of Nixon and disgraced (and convicted) Attorney General “John the Con” Mitchell, who actually planned criminal conspiracies in his fifth floor office at the DOJ.
Obviously, there are systemic problems that have allowed unqualified individuals like Barr and Sessions to serve in and co-opt the system of justice, and denigrate the Department of Justice. (I spoke to some recently retired DOJ officials who characterized the morale among career professionals at the DOJ as “below the floor”). Some of those can be traced to the lack of backbone and integrity in the “Trump GOP” which controls the Senate and refuses to enforce even minimal standards of professionalism, meaningful oversight, and independent decision making in Trump appointees. That’s what a “kakistocracy” is. It’s up to the rest of us to do what is necessary under the law to replace the kakistocracy with a functioning democracy.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves fiercely criticized President Donald Trump’s attacks on the judiciary in a speech Thursday, likening some of his rebukes to tactics that had been used by the Ku Klux Klan and segregationists.
“When politicians attack courts as ‘dangerous,’ ‘political’ and guilty of ‘egregious overreach,’ you can hear the Klan’s lawyers, assailing officers of the court across the South,” said Reeves, quoting Trump’s repeated criticisms of judges and the courts. (The speech’s footnotes cite the president’s tweets, speeches and more.)
“When the powerful accuse courts of ‘open[ing] up our country to potential terrorists,’ you can hear the Southern Manifesto’s authors, smearing the judiciary for simply upholding the rights of black folk,” Reeves went on, referring to a 1956 manifesto by Southern congressmen rebuking the Supreme Court’s 1954 landmark anti-segregation ruling, Brown v. Board of Education.
“When lawmakers say ‘we should get rid of judges,’ you can hear segregationist Senators, writing bills to strip courts of their power. And when the Executive Branch calls our courts and their work ‘stupid,’ ‘horrible,’ ‘ridiculous,’ ‘incompetent,’ ‘a laughingstock,’ and a ‘complete and total disgrace,’ you can hear the slurs and threats of executives like George Wallace, echoing into the present,” he added, referring to the pro-segregation Alabama governor elected in 1962.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced backlash, and eventually had to apologize, in 2016 for criticizing then-candidate Trump.
In his speech, Reeves also skewered the lack of diversity among Trump’s judicial nominees ― as the vast majority of those confirmed have been white men.
“Think: In a country where they make up just 30% of the population, non-Hispanic white men make up nearly 70% of this Administration’s confirmed judicial appointees,” said Reeves, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. “That’s not what America looks like. That’s not even what the legal profession looks like.”
“There is no excuse for this exclusion of minority experiences from our courts,” he added.
The Trump administration has faced myriad legal challenges to its policies. Trump’s travel ban targeting largely Muslim-majority countries was blocked several times by the courts before its third iteration was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. Trump’s February declaration of a national emergency to fund a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border was met by lawsuits from more than 20 states and an upcoming suit from House Democrats.
“Each of us has a role to play in defending our judiciary,” Reeves said in his speech. “Judges, politicians and citizens alike must denounce attacks that undermine our ability to do justice.
“It is not enough for judges, seeing race-based attacks on their brethren, to say they are merely ‘disheartened,’ or to simply affirm their non-partisan status,” he added. “We must do more to defend our bench.”
*************************************************
So, U.S. Immigration Judges aren’t the only ones under attack; they just have less protection than judges serving under Article III or Article I.
But, let’s get down to the “brass tacks.” As long as a majority of the Supremes fails to take a stand with lower court judges appointed by both parties who very consistently have called out Trump’s “pretextual” reasons for engaging in racially and religiously biased actions, the unwarranted attacks will continue.
Yes, we are in the “New Era Of Jim Crow;” and the Supremes’ majority has “taken a dive” this time around.
Wonder who will be left to speak up in their behalf when Trump inevitably turns against them?
The partial government shutdown lasted 35 days, affecting about 800,000 federal workers ― in addition to thousands of federal contractors. Government employees missed two paychecks, with many wondering how they would pay for essentials like food, medicine and housing. They looked for new jobs, turned to relatives and friends for temporary loans and went to food pantries.
The shutdown occurred because Trump insisted that Congress give him $5.7 billion to build a wall on the country’s southern border, even though he once promised that Mexico would pay for that barrier. Democrats refused to go along with his demand and said he should simply fund the government and argue about immigration later. He refused.
On Jan. 25, Trump caved and signed a bill funding the government for three weeks. He has insisted that if he doesn’t get his money for a wall by Feb. 15, he may declare a national emergency allowing him to build it anyway.
Trump never mentioned what federal workers went through during his speech Tuesday night. He expressed no remorse for the shutdown, and he didn’t promise that it wouldn’t happen again. The closest he came to referencing the shutdown was in urging Congress to fund the border wall when passing legislation to fund the government beyond Feb. 15.
“Congress has 10 days left to pass a bill that will fund our government, protect our homeland and secure our southern border,” he said. “Now is the time for the Congress to show the world that America is committed to ending illegal immigration and putting the ruthless coyotes, cartels, drug dealers and human traffickers out of business.”
Even Trump’s State of the Union address was affected by the shutdown. It was supposed to occur on Jan. 29, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) canceled it ― she has that power since the president delivers it in the Capitol ― and said they would discuss a new date only after the government reopened.
Trump’s approach is a break from what President Bill Clinton did in 1996, after what had previously been the longest shutdown ever. In his State of the Union speech that year, Clinton honored a heroic public servant who had been furloughed because of the shutdown. He then warned Congress to remember the pain of the shutdown when legislating in the future.
“On behalf of Richard Dean and his family and all the other people who are out there working every day doing a good job for the American people,” Clinton said. “I challenge all of you in this chamber: Never, ever shut the federal government down again.”
In the Democratic response to Trump’s address Tuesday night, Stacey Abrams ― who ran for governor of Georgia ― did address the shutdown.
“Just a few weeks ago, I joined volunteers to distribute meals to furloughed federal workers. They waited in line for a box of food and a sliver of hope since they hadn’t received a paycheck in weeks. Making their livelihoods a pawn for political games is a disgrace,” she said. “The shutdown was a stunt engineered by the President of the United States, one that defied every tenet of fairness and abandoned not just our people ― but our values.
********************************
If Tom Brady is the the “GOAT,” Trump certainly is the “WOAT,” hands down!
There aren’t many things more vile than an ungrateful employer!
On Friday, officials from the Trump administration said it would require too much effort to reunite the thousands of families it separated before implementing its “zero-tolerance” policy in April, according to a declaration filed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between the American Civil Liberties Union and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Last month, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services released a report stating that “thousands” more immigrant families had been separated than the government had previously disclosed. In the declaration submitted Friday, HHS officials said they don’t know the exact number of children who were taken from their parents before “zero tolerance” and that finding them would be too much of a “burden” since there was no formal tracking system in place.
“The Trump administration’s response is a shocking concession that it can’t easily find thousands of children it ripped from parents and doesn’t even think it’s worth the time to locate each of them,” said Lee Gelernt, the lead lawyer in the ACLU’s ongoing lawsuit against ICE, in a statement. “The administration also doesn’t dispute that separations are ongoing in significant numbers.”
HHS did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
The deputy director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jallyn Sualog, said that 100 ORR analysts would have to work eight hours each day for between seven and 15 months to “even begin reconciling” data on separated families. “In my judgment, ORR does not have the requisite staff for such a project,” Sualog wrote in the declaration.
Immigration advocates are appalled by the fact that the government didn’t bother to properly track separated families and that it is now shirking its responsibility to reunite parents and children.
“They are saying they just don’t care,” said Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice Program at the Women’s Refugee Commission. “It’s shocking frivolous om a human rights perspective for a government to behave this way.”
“I think the policy of taking the children away in the first place was cruel,” said Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer, “but to not even have a system to return the parents to the children just increases the magnitude of the cruelty.”
The government also failed to properly track the roughly 2,800 children that it separated from their parents under the “zero-tolerance” policy between April and June. The administration was required to reunite families as part of an ACLU lawsuit, an ongoing process that has at times required immigration advocates to search for deported parents on foot in remote, crime-ridden areas of Central America.
According to the inspector general’s report, 159 children who were separated under “zero tolerance” are still in ORR care, most of whose parents were deported and decided to keep their kids in the U.S. due to dangerous situations back home. If the government doesn’t allow those parents to re-apply for asylum in the U.S., families may remain permanently separated. Gelernt worries that before “zero tolerance” the government could have deported hundreds more parents who might not have had a say in their children’s futures.
In the declaration, Jonathan White, a commander with the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, said that most unaccompanied children are released to family sponsors and that in addition to logistical challenges, trying to reunite separated kids with their parents could be destabilizing and “would present grave child welfare concerns.”
But Gelernt says the government should not be making decisions on behalf of mothers and fathers. “[The administration] had no right to just give these kids away unless the parent was making an informed decision,” he said. “This is not a situation where the parents put the child up for adoption. This is a situation where the child was forcibly taken from the parents.”
On Feb. 21, Gelernt will argue in front of a federal judge in California that all families separated before “zero tolerance” should be part of the ACLU’s ongoing lawsuit and that the government has a responsibility to reunify these parents with their children. He is disappointed that the administration failed to act humanely towards immigrant families in its declaration.
“The [government] is saying it’s not legally required for them to [reunite families] and therefore they won’t do it,” he said. “But why not do it because it’s the right thing to do?”
*******************************
Isn’t it time for the U.S. District Judge to start holding ICE and ORR officials in contempt of court? What about former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions who “masterminded” this cruel fiasco?
Can there be justice without any morality or accountability?
Most Americans hold President Donald Trump responsible for the partial government shutdown, according to a slate of just-released surveys, including the fourth wave of HuffPost/YouGov’s shutdown tracking poll.
The share of Americans who regard the shutdown as “very serious” now stands at a new high of 50 percent, the HuffPost/YouGov survey finds, up from 29 percent in an initial survey taken just before Christmas.
HuffPost
Just under a quarter say that they have or they expect to be personally affected by the shutdown. Some hold only general or hazy concerns. But with thousands of workers now missing paychecks, others cite more concrete, imminent harms.
“[Our son] is an essential federal worker with a one year old and no way to buy diapers or baby food,” wrote one Arizona woman, who described her family as devastated by the impact. “He has to work but is not being paid. I am helping him out but my funds are limited too. Also, my son in law is on unpaid leave but luckily my daughter is working full time. But she’s going on maternity leave in March so they won’t have any money, either.”
A Democrat, the woman gave low marks to President Trump and the Republicans for their actions, but said she believed her party was making a good-faith effort to end the standoff.
Views about who’s to blame for the shutdown remain sharply divided along partisan lines. Another woman surveyed also said her family members are going unpaid. She described herself as very concerned about the shutdown and held the president and both parties in Congress at least somewhat responsible. But as a Republican, she also backed Trump’s desire to hold out for a border wall and believed that he and his congressional allies were working to bring the shutdown to an end.
Everyone In Washington Is Playing Politics
Overall, as in previous HuffPost/YouGov surveys, Americans give everyone in Washington low marks for their handling of the shutdown ― but the GOP is faring especially badly. Americans are 45 percentage points likelier to disapprove than to approve of the performance by Congress as a whole. They disapprove of congressional Republicans by a 29-point margin, of Trump by a 17-point margin and of congressional Democrats by a 13-point margin. Members of the public are close to evenly split on how they feel about the performance of their own representatives.
HuffPost
In the newest HuffPost/YouGov poll, 57 percent of Americans say they hold Trump at least partially responsible for the shutdown, an uptick from the 49 to 51 percent who have said the same in previous weeks. The 44 percent of the public who assign some responsibility to the Democrats and the 39 percent who point to the Republicans are less changed from previous surveys, although the GOP number is slightly increased.
Americans say by a 23-point margin that Republicans are playing politics rather than working in good faith to end the shutdown. They say the same of Trump by a 19-point margin and of Democrats by a 14-point margin.
But Trump Is Most To Blame
Several other polls about the shutdown have also been released since Friday. Taken together, they paint a consistent picture that’s also in accordance with earlier surveys: When asked who’s most to blame for the shutdown, Americans largely point their fingers at the president. Some of the highlights:
―In a CNN/SSRS poll released Sunday morning, 55 percent of Americans hold Trump mostly responsible for the shutdown, with 32 percent blaming congressional Democrats and 9 percent saying both are responsible. Fifty-six percent of Americans say they oppose building a wall along the border with Mexico.
―Americans “reject the president’s assertion that there is an illegal-immigration crisis on the southern border,” according to a Washington Post/ABC News survey released Sunday. In that survey, 53 percent of Americans say Trump and the Republicans are mainly to blame for the shutdown, with 29 percent calling Democrats mostly at fault, and 13 percent believing both sides share equal responsibility. A 54 percent majority oppose building a border wall, although that’s down from 63 percent in a Post/ABC survey taken last year ― the change is due largely to increased support among Republicans.
―Trump, Democrats and Republicans “all draw lackluster marks for their handling of the government shutdown,” according to a CBS/YouGov survey out Friday. Forty-seven percent say that Trump is most to blame, 30 percent that Democrats are, 3 percent that Republicans are, and 20 percent that all share the blame equally. Two-thirds of Americans don’t think Trump should declare a national emergency to pay for a wall if one isn’t funded by Congress.
―Three-quarters of the public, including most Republicans, think the shutdown is “embarrassing for the country,” per an NPR/Ipsos survey released Friday. About 7 in 10 agree that the shutdown will hurt the country and economy, with a similar number saying Congress should pass a bill to reopen the government now while budget talks continue. Just 31 percent want the government to remain closed until a border wall is funded.
―Reuters/Ipsos tracking finds that 51 percent majority of Americans now give Trump the most blame for the shutdown, up from about 46 percent at its start. Democrats receive about 32 percent of the blame and Republicans about 7 percent.
(A methodology sidenote: The new Post/ABC and CNN/SSRS polls are also notable for being the first of this shutdown to be conducted using traditional live-interviewer phone calls, rather than cheaper methods such as online surveys. That fact highlights how much the face of political polling has changed since the 1995 shutdown, when pollsters like Gallup were conducting multiple surveys a week on the political ramifications of the government’s closure. Gallup, under new leadership, recently announced it would “discontinue almost all ‘spot’ polls in the U.S. — overnight polls, usually political, of immediate front-page interest.”)
What Are The Political Implications?
As is often true in polling, the framing of a question about the shutdown can have a significant effect on the responses.
Survey questions about who’s responsible are a case in point. Some polls have asked Americans to pick between blaming Trump, Democrats or Republicans. In those surveys, very few respondents name congressional Republicans as the group primarily to blame.
But does that mean people are inclined to let the Republicans off easy? The Post/ABC survey, which instead ties Trump and the congressional GOP together, finds them mutually shouldering the blame. And in the HuffPost/YouGov poll, GOP legislators’ overall marks on the shutdown are actually worse than either Trump’s or their Democratic counterparts’.
Neither format for those questions is inherently wrong. But it does matter which of those frames manages to best represent the way ordinary people are thinking about the shutdown when they’re not fielding direct questions about it from pollsters.
So far, despite the claim of Trump’s campaign manager that the shutdown has boosted the president’s numbers, there’s little publicly available data to suggest that the shutdown has been politically helpful to anyone.At best, surveys show Trump’s numbers remaining more or less stagnant. Several pollaggregators, meanwhile, have found Trump’s disapproval rating rising modestly in the new year, albeit remaining well within the narrow range of approval ratings seen in his presidency thus far.
As hazy as the immediate political impact of the shutdown may be, its implications for the future are still more unclear. In the past, those effects have often been ephemeral. The 2013 government shutdown sent ratings for the Republican Party falling to historic lows, but faded quickly from public memory and didn’t prevent the GOP from claiming victory in the midterms a year later. As the current shutdown stretches on, however, there’s still room for that calculus to change.
The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted Jan. 12 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.
HuffPost has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. More details on the polls’ methodology are available here.
Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some, but not all, potential survey errors. YouGov’s reports include a model-based margin of error, which rests on a specific set of statistical assumptions about the selected sample rather than the standard methodology for random probability sampling. If these assumptions are wrong, the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate. Click here for a more detailed explanation of the model-based margin of error.
Think of all the arms, manpower, money, and effort the former Soviet Union wasted trying to bring down the US! Putin’s doing it “on the cheap” thanks to the Clown in Chief and the misguided voters and pols who have enabled his disasterous reign.
Asked about Trump’s threat to declare a national emergency on the southern border so that he can order his wall built without congressional approval, Lessig told MSNBC: “The man is using words that have no connection to reality.”
“He says we have a national crisis … a national emergency. I agree we have a national emergency, but the emergency is this president,” Lessig added. “The emergency is the fact we don’t have an executive who’s exercising his power in a responsible way.”
Lessig said the president can’t build his wall without the backing of Congress.
“Ultimately he has no constitutional authority to exercise the power to build this wall without Congress’ approval,” Lessig said. “These statutes were certainly not written with the intent to give a man like Donald Trump the power that he’s now claiming.”
In an opinion piece Lessig published in The Guardian on Friday, he said the Constitution would not uphold the actions of a president who shut down the government to insist on a program that was not supported by the public. Lessing referred to the situation as a “veto-ocracy,” ruled by “petulance” rather than “principle.”
If the Republicans support Trump in this, they are saying that any president can “support whatever policy he likes,” including, say, to nationalize health insurance.
“The fools are they who enable this constitutional immorality,” Lessig wrote. “Those fools are the Senate Republicans, who have placed party over country, and President Trump over the Republican Party.”
******************************
Part of the blame for this unprecedented national disaster belongs to the Supremes’ majority for their shockingly spineless performance in the “Travel Ban Case.” By failing to stand up for the Constitution in the face of Trump’s clear record of religious and racial bias and the rest of his White Nationalist hokum, their message was clear.
Whenever Trump doesn’t want to follow the law or is thwarted by Constitutional separation of powers, all he needs to do is declare another totally bogus “national emergency.” Will the GOP appointees keep looking away while the Constitution and our republic crumble before this unscrupulous madman? Or, will Chief Justice Roberts and some of the “Gang of Five” make good on Roberts’s recent claim that “there are no GOP or Democratic Federal Judges?”
Last time it was Muslims and refugees; this time, it’s asylum seekers, kids, and families in Trump’s crosshairs; next time, maybe he’ll come for the Supremes themselves. If so, they shouldn’t look to the immoral and cowardly GOP Senate for any help!
Last year, 87,000 women were murdered around the world, and more than half (50,000 or 58 percent) were killed by partners or family members. Over a third (30,000) of those intentionally killed last year were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. This means that, globally, six women are killed every hour by someone they know.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres described violence against women as a “global pandemic” in a Sunday statement marking the international day of recognition.
“It is a moral affront to all women and girls, a mark of shame on all our societies and a major obstacle to inclusive, equitable and sustainable development,” he said. “At its core, violence against women and girls is the manifestation of a profound lack of respect ― a failure by men to recognize the inherent equality and dignity of women. It is an issue of fundamental human rights.”
The U.N. report also highlighted that women are much more likely to die from domestic violence than men are. According to the study, 82 percent of intimate partner homicide victims are women and 18 percent are men.
“While the vast majority of homicide victims are men, women continue to pay the highest price as a result of gender inequality, discrimination and negative stereotypes. They are also the most likely to be killed by intimate partners and family,” UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov said.
The study suggested that violence against women has increased in the last five years, drawing on data from 2012 in which 48,000 (47 percent) of female homicides were perpetrated by intimate partners or family members.
Geographically, Asia had the most female homicides (20,000) perpetrated by intimate partners or family members in 2017, followed by Africa (19,000), North and South America (8,000), Europe (3,000) and Oceania (300). The U.N. does point out that because the intimate partner and family-related homicide rate is 3.1 per 10,000 female population, Africa is actually the continent where women are at the greatest risk of being murdered by a partner or family member.
HuffPost’s “Her Stories” newsletter brings you even more reporting from around the world on the important issues affecting women. Sign up for it here.
***********************************************
Sessions is already America’s most notorious unpunished child abuser! Now, he can add “aiding and abetting domestic violence” and “voluntary manslaughter” to the many human rights and civil rights violations and transgressions of the teachings of Jesus Christ for which he will someday have to answer to his Maker (even if he has the undeserved good fortune to escape “earthly accountability” for his actions).
Meanwhile, advocates should be using the factual information in this report and other expert opinions on the “pandemic” to overcome the fabricated factual and legal basis for Matter of A-B- and the bogus arguments manufactured by restrictionists..
The real “particular social group” staring everyone in the face is “women in X country.” It’s largely immutable and certainly “fundamental to identity,” particularized, and socially distinct. It clearly has a strong nexus to the grotesque forms of harm inflicted on women throughout our world. And, there is an ever-growing body of expert information publicly available to establish that, totally contrary to Sessions’s bad-faith distortion of the record in A-B-, many countries of the world are unwilling, unable, or both unwilling and unable to offer a reasonable level of protection to women facing gender-based persecution in the form of DV.
Sessions has unwittingly set the wheels of positive change in motion! It’s time to force judges at all levels, legislators, and government officials to recognize the reality of gender-based persecution in today’s world and that it is one of the major forms of persecution clearly covered by the U.N. Convention.
Forget about the bogus “floodgates” argument. The U.N. Convention came directly out of World War II and was intended to insure that the Holocaust and the “Red Terror” did not happen again. The definition would clearly have covered most of the pre-War European Jewish population and tens of millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of individuals stuck behind the Iron Curtin. If the numbers are large, then it’s up to the signatory countries to come together, pool resources, and think of constructive ways of addressing the problems that generate refugee flows, not just inventing creative ways of avoiding their legal and moral responsibilities.
Don’t repeat 1939! Due Process Forever! Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight for human rights, human values, and human decency against the selfish forces of darkness and dishonesty who have gained control of too many countries in the Western World (including, sadly, our own)!
President Donald Trump falsely claimed that his policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the southern U.S. border was the “exact same” as the one implemented during the Obama administration.
In complaining about a “60 Minutes” segment that aired Sunday, Trump tried to deflect criticism of his “zero tolerance” immigration policy by arguing that former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also separated immigrant families.
“I tried to keep them together but the problem is, when you do that, vast numbers of additional people storm the Border,” Trump tweeted Sunday. “So with Obama seperation [sic] is fine, but with Trump it’s not.”
. . . .
Obama deported a record number of immigrants during his time in office which earned him the nickname of “deporter-in-chief.” Prioritizing the removal of people with criminal histories, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 2.7 million people between fiscal years 2009 and 2016.
The administration worked to quickly detain and deport migrants for several months in 2014, in response to a surge in migrant arrivals. Yet children who had come into the country with their parents didn’t get separated from them, and if families got deported, they were deported together.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Flores agreement ― a 1997 federal court decision requiring children to remain in custody for as little time as possible ― also applied to both accompanied and unaccompanied children. They could only be held in detention for a maximum of 20 days.
As for deportations, the Trump administration opted to prosecute every single migrant who crossed the border illegally, expanding the Obama-era strategy of focusing on criminals.
The notion that Trump is merely carrying out Obama’s legacy is “preposterous,” Denise Gilman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas Law School, told NBC News. “There were occasionally instances where you would find a separated family — maybe like one every six months to a year — and that was usually because there had been some actual individualized concern that there was a trafficking situation or that the parent wasn’t actually the parent.”
“The agencies were surfacing every possible idea,” a top Obama domestic policy advisor, Cecilia Muñoz, told The New York Times. “I do remember looking at each other like, ‘We’re not going to do this, are we?’ We spent five minutes thinking it through and concluded that it was a bad idea. The morality of it was clear — that’s not who we are.”
*****************************
Read Willa’s full article, including Trump’s revolting tweets, at the link.
Separate ‘em, jail ‘em, abuse ‘em, gas ‘em! What’s not to like about an unhinged authoritarian with a neo-Fascist program, a propaganda machine masquerading as “news,” and a bunch of mindless supporters who cheer as he and his band of cowards pick on kids and the downtrodden?
Every day is a new “Reichstag Fire” – a fake, manufactured “crisis” and a call to blame and eradicate the “usual suspects.” Some day there will be hell to pay for America’s abandoning human values and allowing Trump to represent our Government! We should all be ashamed of what our country is doing in the name of fake “border security.”
We are diminishing ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!
MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s incoming leadership is denying a published report that it had agreed to a Trump administration proposal requiring asylum seekers arriving at the southwest border to wait in Mexico as U.S. authorities consider their claims for safe haven.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that Washington had won the support of the government of Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — who takes office on Dec. 1 — for a plan mandating that asylum seekers at the border remain in Mexico as their claims move through the U.S. immigration system.
The Trump administration has long sought such an accord with Mexico as a means of resolving what it has termed a “crisis” of an escalating number of Central American asylum applicants — and limited detention space in which to hold them on U.S. territory as their petitions are considered.
Critics on both sides of the border have long assailed the notion of Mexico serving as a way station or detention grounds for Central Americans and others applying for asylum in the United States.
The administration of Mexico’s current president, Enrique Peña Nieto, rejected a similar Trump administration proposal last year.
But the Post quoted Olga Sanchez Cordero, Mexico’s interior minister-designate, as saying Mexico’s new government had accepted the policy as a “short-term solution” to the issue of Central American migration — which has been dramatized in recent weeks as thousands of U.S.-bound Central Americans have made their way north through Mexico in caravans.
Later Saturday, however, she denied that Mexico had agreed to host people seeking U.S. asylum as their cases awaited judgment.
“There is no agreement of any sort between the future Mexican federal government and the U.S.,” the incoming interior minister said in a statement.
Moreover, she said Mexico’s new government had rejected any deal in which Mexico would be considered “a safe third country” for U.S. asylum applicants.
In a Twitter message on Saturday, President Trump reiterated threats to close the southern border — threats that have alarmed many in Mexico, since cross-border trade is a mainstay of the Mexican economy.
In his tweet, Trump also said migrants would not be allowed into the United States “until their claims are individually approved in court.”
Others, he said, would “stay in Mexico,” he added, without elaboration.
The Twitter message did not specify whether Washington had reached any kind of agreement with Mexico on the matter.
Only a small minority of Central American applicants are ultimately granted political asylum in the United States, but the decision-making progress can take months or years — during which time many are released and gain footholds in the United States.
Trump has vowed to end what he calls the “catch and release” system. “Our very strong policy is Catch and Detain,” he tweeted Saturday. “No ‘Releasing’ into the U.S.”
The White House has also pushed an alternative “safe third country” approach in talks with Mexican officials. Under such a plan, Central Americans seeking asylum would generally have to file for protection in Mexico, not in the United States.
The proposal is a variant of the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” plan, under which asylum seekers would wait in Mexico until their cases were adjudicated in the United States.
With a “safe third country” designation, the United States would consider Mexico a secure nation for receiving asylum applicants. In practice, that would bar most asylum seekers who entered Mexico from filing asylum claims in the United States. The United States already has such an understanding with Canada.
But immigrant advocates have long opposed such a designation for Mexico for a number of reasons — principal among them the country’s widespread and rising violence, which often targets Central American migrants. Mexico cannot be considered safe for asylum seekers, many argue.
Critics also say Mexico’s system for processing refugee requests is already overwhelmed and ill-prepared to handle a huge new influx.
In her statement, Mexico’s incoming interior secretary echoed the vows of leftist President-elect Lopez Obrador to protect the human rights of caravan travelers and other Central American migrants while providing them with food, healthcare and shelter. Lopez Obrador has also vowed to help Central Americans acquire work papers if they opt to remain in Mexico.
More than 6,000 caravan members, mostly Hondurans, have arrived this month in the Mexican border cities of Tijuana and Mexicali, posing a humanitarian, logistical and political challenge for the two cities on the border. The migrants say they are fleeing poverty and violence in their homelands.
Tijuana’s mayor declared a “humanitarian crisis” Friday as the border city sought additional federal and state aid to help house the migrants, most of whom are crowded into a sports complex a block from the U.S.-Mexico border fence.
Tijuana officials anticipate that as many as 10,000 Central American migrants could eventually converge on the city and be stuck there for months as they seek to file asylum claims in the United States, a time-consuming process. U.S. officials at the San Ysidro crossing generally accept no more than 100 asylum applications a day.
Special correspondent Sanchez reported from Mexico City and Times staff writer McDonnell from Washington.
“There is no agreement of any sort between the incoming Mexican government and the U.S. government,” future Interior Minister Olga Sanchez told Reuters on Saturday, contradicting Trump and an earlier Washington Post report that said a deal ― albeit an informal one ― had been struck between the two governments.
The Post had quoted Sanchez as saying the administration of Mexico’s President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who will take office on Dec. 1, had “for now” agreed to the so-called “Remain in Mexico” plan.
Sanchez was quoted by the paper as saying that Mexico would allow asylum seekers to stay in the country as a “short-term solution.”
Following the publication of the Post’s report, however, Sanchez back-pedaled on those remarks. She told Reuters that Obrador’s administration was “in talks” with the U.S., but stressed officials who weren’t yet in office couldn’t formally make any agreements.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Seven-year-old Honduran migrant Genesis Belen Mejia Flores waves an American flag at two U.S. border control helicopters flying overhead near a shelter in Tijuana, Mexico.
Reuters reported that Sanchez “did not explicitly rule out” that Mexico could allow Central American caravan migrants ― thousands of whom have arrived in Tijuana, just south of California ― to wait in the country while their claims are processed in the U.S.
Sanchez did, however, say that plans for Mexico to assume “safe third country” status had been “ruled out.” Under a “safe third” agreement, the U.S. could force migrants to seek asylum in Mexico.
Trump said in a pair of Saturday evening tweets that migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border “will not be allowed into the United States until their claims are individually approved in court.”
“No ‘Releasing’ into the U.S. … All will stay in Mexico,” the president wrote.
His tweets were interpreted as possible confirmation of the posible deal between the U.S. and Obrador’s administration.
WASHINGTON — The incoming chairman of a key oversight committee in the House of Representatives said Sunday that any attempt by President Donald Trump to keep migrants from claiming asylum in the U.S. would be unlawful.
“That’s not the law,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said in an exclusive interview on “Meet the Press,” indicating that Congress will act if the president moves ahead with that policy. “They should be allowed to come in, seek asylum, that’s the law.”
President Donald Trump has said he’s reached a deal with the government of Mexico to keep migrants traveling in large caravans from Central America in Mexico until their court date to plead asylum. But a spokesman for incoming Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has said talk of such a deal is premature and U.S. officials told NBC News that the details are still being worked out.
Cummings said he supports the law as it stands. “I think we have a system that has worked for a long time. This president’s come in, wants to change it, that’s up to him. But now the Congress has got to stand up and hopefully they will,” Cummings said.
Family detention at the border and the separation of children from their parents after crossing the border was already on Cummings’ list of potential investigations as chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee when Democrats take control of Congress in January.
Cummings has a list of 64 subpoenas it is ready to send to the Trump administration on a variety of issues ranging from immigration to voting rights act, drug prices and the opioid epidemic.
“I think the American people have said that they want checks and balances,” Cummings said. “And subpoenas, by the way, that may involve, say, private industries like the pharmaceutical companies” over “these skyrocketing drug prices.”
When asked about the priorities he is setting for areas of investigation, Cummings said he will focus on issues that “go to the very heart of our democracy and protecting that democracy.”
Cummings also said Sunday that his committee will “probably” look into Trump’s financial ties, especially to Saudi Arabia, and if it violates the emoluments clause, which is aimed at preventing a president from profiting on the office.
Cummings said he wanted to determine “whether the president is acting in his best interest or those of the American people,” adding, “I think this would be appropriate and there are other committees that will be looking at this too.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also criticized Trump over his support for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman despite reports that a CIA assessment concluded that the Saudi ruler ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Lee said that Trump’s assessment is “inconsistent” with the intelligence he’s seen. “Intelligence I’ve seen suggests this was ordered by the crown prince,” he said.
Lee says that Khashoggi’s murder and Trump’s response provides “an opportunity” for Congress to weigh in to the U.S.-backed Saudi role in Yemen that has created a worsening humanitarian disaster.
“I think Congress has to take some ownership of U.S. foreign policy, especially as it relates to our intervention in this war,” Less said. “Our unconstitutional fighting of a civil war in Yemen that has never been declared by the U.S. Congress as a problem. And that’s on us.”
I agree with Congressman Cummings. Indeed, I’ve been saying for some time now that the law is well-designed to deal with the flow of asylum applicants to the Southern Border. This Administration has simply chosen not to make it work, in many ways. The result is a self-created crisis. I’m looking forward to some real oversight of the intentionally created immigration mess in the coming year, including holding some of those responsible for creating it accountable!
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman came in response to a request that he halt further proceedings in the trial until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on what evidence he could consider. The Supreme Court had rejected a very similar request to temporarily stop the litigation just weeks ago, the judge noted.
The judge, who sits in the Southern District of New York, did not hold back his frustration in his 7-page opinion, noting that the Department of Justice had submitted 12 separate requests to delay the proceedings since the Labor Day weekend.
“Unless burdening Plaintiffs and the federal courts with make-work is a feature of Defendants’ litigation strategy, as opposed to a bug, it is hard to see the point,” Furman wrote.
All along, the judge has expressed a desire to move the case along quickly, recognizing that any decision he makes is likely to be appealed to higher courts and that the issue needs to be resolved quickly so that the Census Bureau has time to print the census forms.
“Enough is enough,” Furman wrote in his Tuesday ruling.
The lawsuit ― brought by 18 states, the District of Columbia, several cities and a handful of immigrant groups ― argues that the decision to add the citizenship question was motivated by discriminatory intent. They also say the decision should be set aside on the grounds that it was “arbitrary and capricious.”
In this latest effort to stall the proceedings, the Justice Department said that doing so would help conserve judicial resources, an argument the judge dismissed as “galling.”
“If Defendants were truly interested in conserving judicial resources, they could have avoided burdening this Court, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court with twelve stay applications over the last eleven weeks that, with one narrow exception, have been repeatedly rejected as meritless,” Furman wrote. “Instead, Defendants would have focused their attention on the ultimate issues in this case, where the attention of the parties and the Court now belongs.”
Kelly Laco, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on Furman’s ruling.
The Justice Department appealed this latest motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit even before Furman had ruled on it ― a highly unusual move that clearly annoyed the judge, who suggested the department’s conduct in the case was sanctionable.
“Defendants’ motion makes so little sense, even on its own terms, that it is hard to understand as anything but an attempt to avoid a timely decision on the merits altogether,” the judge wrote. “That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Defendants, once again, appealed to the Second Circuit even before this Court had heard from Plaintiffs, let alone issued this ruling on the motion.”
Furman also noted that the 2nd Circuit had already denied that appeal as “premature.”
Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, who is leading the case for the plaintiffs, praised Furman’s decision.
“We agree with Judge Furman: enough is enough,” Spitalnick said in a statement.
Seems like it’s past time for the courts and bar associations to impose sanctions on the DOJ attorneys for their widespread unethical behavior and bad faith in conducting litigation in behalf of this scofflaw Administration!
Dana Rohrabacher, the 15-term Republican incumbent washed away by Democratic challenger Harley Rouda when the blue wave came ashore in Southern California’s 48th Congressional District last week, isn’t your average homophobic extremist.
He is, in fact, an architect of the decades-long battle against LGBTQ rights and a politician, among many others, whose bigotry is partly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people from AIDS.
Rohrabacher was a lieutenant of President Ronald Reagan throughout his two terms as a speechwriter and special assistant, helping Reagan court the evangelical right, which Reagan has been credited with bringing into politics. Reagan, bowing to the zealots from whom he helped amass enormous power (power they still wield with President Donald Trump), was among the most anti-gay presidents in history, ignoring the AIDS epidemic until far too late.
Rohrabacher was first elected to Congress in 1988, at the end of the Reagan administration, representing a district in Orange County, a bastion of conservatism in the ’80s and beyond. He was among a trio of California right-wing Republican congressmen ― including Bob Dornan and William Dannemeyer ― who demonized people with AIDS in that era, voted against efforts to stem the epidemic and battle discrimination and pushed legislation that was discriminatory against LGBTQ people.
Rohrabacher also teamed up with the virulently anti-gay Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina in attacking government grants to queer artists. Rohrabacher railed against the National Endowment for the Arts in 1990 ― even as George H.W. Bush’s White House tried behind the scenes to get him to pull back ― for supporting artists who created “drawings of homosexual orgies, bestiality and a Statue of Liberty turned into a transvestite, complete with male sex organs.”
Now, after 30 years, this bigot has finally been booted.
And he’s not the only one.
There has been much discussion in the aftermath of last week’s midterms about the rainbow wave, a record number of LGBTQ candidates elected in races across the country ― over 150 at last count. But on the other side of the coin, many ardent homophobes and anti-gay candidates were taken down too.
In Minnesota, Rep. Jason Lewis, a Republican who equated gay couples with rapists, lost his House seat to Democrat Angie Craig ― the first lesbian mom elected to Congress.
In Georgia’s now-famous 6th Congressional District, short-lived GOP incumbent Karen Handel, who said last year while running in a special election against Democrat Jon Ossoff that she didn’t support allowing adoption by gay and lesbian couples, was beaten by African-American Democrat and gun reform advocate Lucy McBath.
Texas GOP Rep. Pete Sessions, who claimed the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida ― the site of a 2016 gun massacre ― wasn’t actually a gay club (and who voted anti-gay every chance he got in his more than 20 years in Congress, garnering a score of zero every year from the Human Rights Campaign) was defeated by African-American civil rights lawyer Colin Allred.
In a huge upset in Oklahoma, Republican Steve Russell, who in 2016 introduced a bill that would have provided religious exemptions to President Barack Obama’s executive order banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination among federal contractors, lost to Kendra Horn, the first Democrat to win the state’s 5th Congressional District in 44 years.
Former CIA analyst Elissa Slotkin took down Republican Rep. Mike Bishop in Michigan. He voted last year to deny transgender service members medically necessary transition-related health care and was an ardent opponent of marriage equality, seeking religious exemptions.
In races that have yet to be called but where Democrats seem likely to prevail, GOP marriage equality opponents include New York’s Claudia Tenney, New Jersey’s Tom MacArthur and Utah’s Mia Love, who even sent out anti-gay emails during the campaign attacking her opponent’s support of marriage equality.
In the Senate, GOP marriage equality opponent Dean Heller went down in Nevada against Jacky Rosen. And in Arizona, Martha McSally, another equality opponent, lost in the fight for the open seat to replace marriage equality opponent Jeff Flake ― to openly bisexual Democratic candidate Kyrsten Sinema.
Far-right Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who once compared homosexuality to polygamy, was stopped from taking the governor’s seat and continuing the Kansas GOP’s anti-LGBTQ agenda. Democrat Laura Kelly flipped the state and has already vowed to reinstate protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender government employees, which were rescinded in 2015 by then-Gov. Sam Brownback.
Democrat Gretchen Whitmer flipped Michigan in its governor’s race, preventing Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette ― who rejected the Michigan Civil Rights Commission’s expansion of state law to protect LGBTQ people ― from continuing GOP Gov. Rick Snyder’s hostile agenda. (In another boost, openly lesbian civil rights attorney Dana Nessel, who fought Snyder to overturn the state’s same-sex marriage ban in a case among those that eventually prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2015 Obergefell ruling ― was elected Michigan’s new attorney general.)
In many state legislatures, the blue wave washed away the hate last week. In Texas, where anti-LGBTQ Republicans in recent years introduced more than a dozen bills harmful to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people each session, Democrats flipped 12 House seats, in the biggest shift since 2010. In an upset, Ron Simmons, who authored an infamous anti-transgender “bathroom” bill ― which died in the Texas House last session but which conservatives vowed to bring back next year ― was defeated by Michelle Beckley.
There are more ― and I’m sure there are still others about whom I haven’t yet become aware. Just a couple of years ago, many queer activists and LGBTQ leaders would have grudgingly denied that these enemies of equality, several of whom they’ve fought for a decade or more, could have been defeated.
But the 2018 midterms showed that when progressives work together and organize with enormous drive, the possibilities are endless.
Michelangelo Signorile is an editor-at-large for HuffPost. Follow him on Twitter at @msignorile.
*************************************
Some of the slimiest politicians in America are on this list: Kris Kobach, Scott Walker, and Paul LePage are particularly “good riddance!” Intolerance seems to live in the GOP.
Another notorious GOP bigot, former AG Jeff Sessions, also was “outed,” in a somewhat different way, ironically by the “Bigot-in-Chief.”
UPDATE: On Friday, President Trump signed a presidential proclamation denying asylum for immigrants who request it after crossing the border illegally rather than at a port of entry.
In a pre-midterms television ad deemed too racist for CNN, NBC and even Fox News, the White House described members of the large group of Central American migrants making their way through Mexico as “dangerous illegal criminals.” Ominous music played in the background of the ad as images of a convicted Mexican criminal were spliced with footage of the caravan.
This description was inaccurate, not to mention illogical ― aren’t hardened criminals and narco-traffickers wily enough to avoid such an arduous and physically taxing journey, and one that has captured such public attention and scrutiny?
The truth about these migrants comes down to the most basic of human needs: survival. Those who have joined the caravan have done so because their reality is simple. In the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, where violence is endemic and justice is illusory, it’s a question of life or death.
The truth about these migrants comes down to the most basic of human needs: survival. Those who have joined the caravan have done so because their reality is simple. In the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, where violence is endemic and justice is illusory, it’s a question of life or death.
Trump, in his roiling pre-midterm elections hate-speech tour, painted the caravan as an “invasion,” even though it’s a common occurrence that hasn’t disrupted the peace before. Traveling in a large group is far safer than traveling alone, with a human smuggler or in a small group, and migrant advocacy groups have organized large caravans for at least a decade. But beyond the president and his party’s racist rhetoric, there’s a broad assumption that such an influx of immigrants will both threaten American values and weigh heavily on the American taxpayer.
Like previous waves of immigrants, this group of new arrivals may need help to acclimate to this complex country of ours. Some will need medical care, thanks to years of living in countries with limited medical infrastructure. Others will need counseling to heal from layers of traumatic experiences against the backdrop of horrible violence ― which, lest we forget, the United States played a significant role in creating.
But they won’t need much. If I’ve learned one thing during my tenure as a trauma-focused clinician, it is this: Central American immigrants are resilient. They are driven and strong. They persevere. Despite the staggering hardships and suffering they have endured, they are defined by their ability to “seguir adelante” ― to move forward.
It’s a phrase that I’ve heard hundreds of times ― perhaps thousands ― in my therapy office. Nearly all my young clients have voiced their desire to “seguir adelante.” The 17-year-old boy who witnessed his father’s murder, finding himself alone and in grave danger; the 15-year-old girl who was kidnapped by the Zetas cartel in Mexico and held for ransom for weeks; the 18-year-old boy who served as a lookout for the MS-13 gang in exchange for his sister’s life before fleeing his country.
“Tengo que seguir adelante,” they tell me. I must continue moving forward.
The 13-year-old indigenous child who recounted months of eating “grass soup” when tortillas became too expensive. The 16-year-old who mourns the loss of her brothers ― all three of them, murdered while crossing gang-controlled territory. The 20-year-old working through the night at a bakery, then coming to school filled with energy and endless questions about the workings of American bicameral government.
Tengo que seguir adelante.
While their experiences are varied and diverse, my clients have two things in common. They have been exposed to multiple horrifying traumatic events, and they have an indefatigable desire to heal, grow stronger and move forward.
Trauma is never a desirable experience, or a deserved one. Many Central Americans have seen, experienced and survived more suffering and loss than any human should be asked to bear. But part of the “seguir adelante” mentality is the idea of being a metaphorical phoenix. Instead of allowing repeated traumatic events to crush them, many of the Central American clients with whom I work rise again as stronger, more resilient versions of themselves. While they may suffer from trauma-related symptoms like flashbacks, many are simultaneously able to devote their energy to finding a new sense of purpose in ways that I have not observed as universally in my work with American-born clients.
This phenomenon is illustrative of the positive psychology concept of post-traumatic growth, which posits that those who are exposed to trauma discover or develop new capabilities: closer social and familial bonds, increased resilience, stronger motivation and deepened spirituality.
So if the resilience of the “adelante” mentality drives these immigrants forward in spirit, what compels them to move forward physically? Perhaps they were unable to pay last month’s “impuestos de guerra,” or war taxes, to the local gang as rent for their space in the market. Maybe they refused to join the controlling gang in their neighborhood, despite the near-certainty of death if they stayed. Instead of remaining in Guatemala City, or Santa Tecla, or Tegucigalpa, they wagered it all, picked up and left.
They leave behind their families, their friends, their rich cultures, their language, their homeland. They understand the risks of the journey. They have heard the horror stories of kidnapping, rape, extortion and abandonment in the desert. Despite all this, they have decided to “seguir adelante,” fueled by hope for a brighter, safer future, to be achieved through hard work, determination and unwavering courage. Don’t those values sound reminiscent of those upon which our patchwork nation was founded?
In the end, all the migrant caravan really wants is to move forward. And as a democratic country founded on ideals of egalitarianism, isn’t it time for us to move forward, too?
Stephanie L. Carnes is a bilingual licensed clinical social worker at a large public high school in New York’s Hudson Valley. She was previously a clinician in a federally funded shelter program. She specializes in trauma treatment with Central American immigrant students and culturally competent mental health care.
*******************************************
Eventually, the truth about how the Trump Administration is creating false narratives and violating both U.S. and international law by intentionally mistreating and mischaracterizing refugees will come out. Perhaps not soon enough to save the current refugees; but, certainly in time to put some of the intellectually dishonest government officials and their lawyers in the same category as we now view the failed legal profession, judiciary, and civil service during the Third Reich. Just take a stroll through the Holocaust Museum and see the disturbing similarities between the current racially driven false narratives and illegal actions being promoted by the Trump Administration and the pre-World War II actions of the Third Reich. Bogus “national security” rants are a common denominator.
The real scandal here is that although the vast majority of arrivals pass “credible fear” screening, so few them ever receive asylum. That strongly suggests that there are real problems in the “intentionally overly restrictive unduly legalistic” approach and the often dishonest ways that “in absentia orders” are used at EOIR. A better approach would probably be to allow those who have already been determined by the Asylum Office to have a “credible fear” present their initial asylum applications to those offices, rather than being forced immediately into the Immigration Courts, particularly given the current court backlogs.
The system has become far too restrictive and legalistic. Nobody has any realistic chance of winning a case without a lawyer. But, under Trump and Sessions, EOIR has abandoned efforts to insure that individuals are given reasonable access to pro bono lawyers before their cases are heard on the merits. Indeed, Sessions conducted a remarkably unethical, inappropriate, false, and vicious campaign against lawyers — right now about the only folks actually trying to make the system work and insure that our Constitution is complied with.
Of course, not every migrant from the Northern Triangle is a refugee as our law defines that term. But, we should recognize that almost all of them are decent people with good reasons for coming, even when those reasons don’t fit within our legal system. Even when they are not entitled to protection or to remain here, they deserve to be treated humanely, fairly, respectfully, and impartially, and have a full opportunity to present their claims.
The intentional demonization and dehumanization of asylum applicants, advanced by immoral and unethical folks like Trump, Sessions, Miller, and Nielsen, has now been picked up by lower level bureaucrats, who are spreading lies, promoting knowingly false narratives, and generally “taking a dive” to preserve their jobs (or, in a few cases, to gratify their own biases which match those of the Trump Administration.)
If we don’t figure out a way to stop their assault on humanity and human decency, eventually all of us will be splattered with the slime that is the Trump Administration’s approach to immigration! History will not judge us kindly for our subservience to evil.
President Donald Trump played a key role in silencing porn star Stormy Daniels and model Karen McDougal, who both claimed to have had affairs with the president.
Media executive David Pecker met with Trump multiple times to discuss using the National Enquirer tabloid to buy the silence of women he allegedly slept with, according to a new report from The Wall Street Journal. The publication said it spoke to three dozen people with direct knowledge of the payments.
The U.S. Attorneys Office in Manhattan now has evidence of Trump’s role in the hush payments, according to the WSJ. He previously denied having knowledge about the payments.
In October 2016, when discussing making a payment to Daniels, Trump told his then-attorney Michael Cohen to “get it done.”
”President Pinocchio” and the regime of sleaze. Always thought Stormy was much more credible and a heck of a lot smarter than Trump. Just can’t figure out how a smart fundamentally nice person like her got mixed up with a total creep like Trump. But, it was consensual, and they are both into self promotion. Still, Trump’s lies about both his obvious involvement with Daniels & McDougal, combined with the stupidity of getting himself in that position in the first place, earns him a mixed “Three Pinocchio/Two Clown” Award!
In the fall of 2011, I was an unemployed recent journalism school graduate in a country still clawing its way back from recession. At a family reunion, my grandma pulled out a piece of paper with a list of signatures — signatures required to trigger a recall election against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who’d just inspired massive protests by ramming through a bill that stripped public sector employees of their right to bargain collectively.
She asked me to sign the recall petition, and I did.
Three years later, while I was working for a small political magazine in D.C., I wrote an innocuous blog post about Walker. The Walker campaign called the magazine’s managing editor — my boss’s boss — and complained that I couldn’t write about the governor because I had signed the recall petition three years earlier. The managing editor was furious with me for failing to disclose my actions as an unemployed 22-year-old. I was terrified, sure that I was going to get fired.
That’s the type of guy Walker is. He governed Wisconsin with the same vindictive pettiness, transparent corruption and laser-like focus on further oppressing already marginalized people that we now see in the Trump administration (there’s a word for this style of governance.) He was the sad, preservative-laced ham sandwich in the otherwise unassuming brown paper bag of Wisconsin politics. He would tell you, unconvincingly, that he needs his black and orange Harley Davidson jacket when he is about to go into a controlled slide on his hog. He is Miracle Whip personified. He’s the kind of guy who’d call your boss’ boss to try to get you fired.
Now he’s the one out of a job.
Beneath his corn-fed, “aw shucks” facade, Walker is one of the most conniving figures to emerge from conservative politics in the past decade.
Walker’s loss on Tuesday night had a sort of poetic justice: After the 2016 election, Walker and Republicans in the state legislature passed a rule tightening the state’s recount law. The new law requires that candidates must lose by 1 percent or less to ask for a recount. On Tuesday, Walker lost the governorship to State Superintendent Tony Evers by 1.1 percentage points.
Walker and his allies will surely consider the devastation he brought to Wisconsin over the past eight years a success. Taken together, Walker’s legacy adds up to eight years of ruin for Wisconsin’s working classes, for people of color and for the environment — all in service of further enriching the already-rich.
Beneath his corn-fed, “aw shucks” facade, Walker is one of the most conniving figures to emerge from conservative politics in the past decade. It will take decades to repair the damage he and his allies did to my home state. And much of what he broke can never be made whole again.
Throughout his two terms as governor, Walker has remained consistent in his core political strategy: promising jobs that will never appear. Look at Walker’s election-year gambit: to bring Taiwanese electronics manufacturer FoxConn to Wisconsin with promises of well-paying, high-tech jobs for Wisconsin workers.
Reality has not lived up to those expectations. FoxConn promised to create 13,000 jobs at its Wisconsin factory at an average salary of $53,875. In exchange, Walker’s administration awarded FoxConn more than $3 billion in state tax breaks and credits — equaling more than $230,000 per job the company promised. Walker could have used that money to fund a public works program to employ more than four times as many people, at the same salary, for the same cost of the FoxConn deal.
Let’s just say that, under Walker, Wisconsin underperformed its Democrat-run cousin, Minnesota, on nearly every meaningful metric: Non-farm job growth. Median income. Population growth. Median hourly wages. The share of people with health insurance.
I suspect that one reason Walker failed so badly is that although he is conniving to his core, he is not smart. Think back to when he took a prank call from someone pretending to be David Koch. Or when, as Milwaukee County executive, he signed a letter to a Jewish constituent with, “Thank you again and Molotov.” Or when he claimed he got his bald spot from bumping his head on a kitchen cabinet door. Walker has a Ph.D. in power lust and an “I tried!” sticker in political acumen.
He wasn’t even good at hiding his corruption. During his campaign for governor, while serving as county executive, Walker’s staff set up a secret wireless router in his public office to communicate about the campaign using taxpayer resources. One of Walker’s aides at the time was sentenced to six months in prison for felony misconduct.
Walker was a cheap date for corporate executives in search of friendlier laws. A John Doe investigation revealed that after a billionaire lead producer gave $750,000 to a conservative group supporting Walker and his party in the 2012 recall elections, Walker and his party passed a measure that retroactively shielded paint makers from liability.
So, on Tuesday night, Walker did what he has always done, from the moment he decided to pursue a career in politics: He failed. I hope some of his supporters, including some of my own family members, will now wake up to the fact that they were duped.
Scott Walker failed as a governor. On Tuesday, he failed as a politician. The schmuck even failed at getting me fired. Good riddance.
Congrats, Wisconsin voters on returning decency, honesty, and competency to your Governor’s office!
The new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives can’t force President Donald Trump to abandon his efforts to crack down on asylum-seekers, migrant families and immigrants already living in the U.S. But it can make it harder for him to enact his agenda.
Whether through oversight, withholding funds or passing pro-immigrant bills and daring the Republican-controlled Senate and the president to shoot them down, Democrats now have leverage on immigration.
Republicans, of course, will still control the Senate after Tuesday’s midterms, and Trump will still be in the White House, where he has already cracked down on undocumented immigrants without congressional help.
Still, there were glimmers of hope around the country. Oregon voters rejected a ballot measure that would have ended the state’s “sanctuary” policies. Kansas gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach, a Republican who has spent years pushing hard-line immigration policies around the country, lost. So did Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate Lou Barletta, who enacted an anti-immigrant policy years before as a mayor and recently defended separating families at the border. Several other Republicans who campaigned on immigration crackdowns lost too, which immigrant rights advocates held up as proof that Trump’s fear-based campaigning wasn’t the guaranteed winner he seemed to think it was.
And now that Democrats have taken control of the House, they can serve as a check on Trump’s immigration efforts.
Democrats are expected to launch investigations and conduct oversight on a number of Trump actions and policies ― something Republicans have so far declined to do. And immigrant rights groups will be pressing them to do so.
Tyler Moran, managing director of progressive group The Immigration Hub and a former Senate and White House staffer, pointed out several areas ripe for oversight. Those include the Trump administration’s family separations at the border, its deportation tactics, and its decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for young undocumented immigrants and temporary protected status for certain nationalities of immigrants whose home countries suffered natural disasters or violence.
Many of Trump’s immigration policies also require significant funding increases ― something a Democratic House is likely to fight. The Democrats have already vowed not to fund Trump’s wall along the southern border. Trump is expected to push for wall funding during the lame duck session while Republicans maintain control of both chambers, and has suggested a government shutdown in December if he doesn’t get what he wants.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told The Wall Street Journal ahead of the election that if Democrats should win a majority on Tuesday, they’d have more leverage to block wall spending even before they officially take over.
“Why would we compromise on the wall now?” she said.
BLOOMBERG
Current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has pushed for more protections for undocumented immigrants.
Mass detention of families and asylum-seekers, which Trump is pushing for through a proposed rule change and a potential executive order, would also have a hefty price tag. Most Democrats oppose such policies.
Democrats are also likely to push legislation that protects undocumented immigrants, particularly young immigrants, which could increase public pressure for Senate Republicans and Trump to back it.
Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, last year, but so far has been forced to keep it running by court orders that he is continuing to fight. Although Republicans opposed DACA, some have voiced support for some type of legislative measure that would keep its recipients ― so-called Dreamers who have lived in the U.S. since childhood ― from being deported.
But so far, Republicans haven’t actually supported measures that would do so, at least without simultaneously aiming to restrict legal immigration and ramp up deportation efforts.
Immigrant rights groups want a “clean” bill for Dreamers, called the Dream Act, that doesn’t include other measures. Democrats are expected to push for it, but past stalemates are likely to continue. More likely, Democrats could make a deal to protect Dreamers while also giving Trump something he wants, but not the whole spate of anti-immigrant measures Republicans tried, and failed, to pass earlier this year.
While Democrats gaining the majority was a good thing for supporters of immigrant rights, it required knocking out some moderate Republicans who could previously be claimed as allies on bipartisan legislation. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who unsuccessfully pushed for protections for undocumented young people, lost to a Democrat. So did Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), another Republican who called for legal status for Dreamers, although he spoke in more hawkish terms at an August fundraiser.
The defeat of bipartisan backers may be more of a symbolic loss than a substantive one. The Democrats who will take their place are likely to be even more reliable supporters of immigration reform.
Leading immigrant rights advocates, including Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, cheered Coffman’s defeat.
Even with the departure of the truly terrible Jeff Sessions, the situation is likely to remain grim. Trump’s dreams of legislation slashing legal immigration and eliminating the right to apply for asylum are DOA. Also, he’s not likely to get funding for expanding the New American Gulag, “the wall,” harassing Dreamers, or expanding already bloated, ineffective, and inhumane ICE civil enforcement. Oversight might even result in some accountability for human rights abusers like Nielsen.
But, as he has already shown, there is plenty of damage that Trump can do to the Constitution, human rights, the legal system, and our national values in the area of immigration “administratively.” It’s likely that he’ll look for a total sycophant in the Mike Pence mold for Attorney General. With the Senate firmly in GOP hands, there will be nobody to stop even more unqualified appointments. However, House oversight and budget control might be able to slow the pace of the abuses or at least make a public record for history and future action.
