zoogs Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 It's strange, too, that the truly low number of terrorist attacks, or the numerous 90 (and plus) day periods that previously went by without one still summed up to a "weak and feckless administration" that is "soft on terrorism". 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/29/an-illegal-immigrant-hanged-himself-after-three-months-in-an-ice-detention-center/?utm_term=.0a61c9566cf8 Gonzalez-Gadba died early Tuesday morning at the same facility, officials said, six days after his suicide attempt. Authorities said he is the fifth detainee to die in ICE custody in fiscal year 2017. Human toll of policy. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANCTUARY_CITIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-25-16-15-56 A judge has stalled Trumps EO on sanctuary cities. His immigration fight is going no where - Sanctuary cities - tied up in court Boarder Wall - resistance in congress Ban on individuals from certain ME countries. - tied up in court Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 This really surprises me. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 This really surprises me. I'm sure they'll tout that as a win for their awesome policies, but note where that trend started... over a decade ago. Mexican immigration has been a net negative for years now. Link to comment
ZRod Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANCTUARY_CITIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-25-16-15-56 A judge has stalled Trumps EO on sanctuary cities. His immigration fight is going no where - Sanctuary cities - tied up in court Boarder Wall - resistance in congress Ban on individuals from certain ME countries. - tied up in court On sanctuary cities - the judge said they can cut Justice department funding if Trump wants, but not funding apportioned by congress. Which makes sense, what with the constitution giving congress the power of the purse and all. On the Muslim ban - I don't understand why this is still around. We obviously didn't need it for those 90 days, why would we need it now at all? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANCTUARY_CITIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-25-16-15-56 A judge has stalled Trumps EO on sanctuary cities. His immigration fight is going no where - Sanctuary cities - tied up in court Boarder Wall - resistance in congress Ban on individuals from certain ME countries. - tied up in court On sanctuary cities - the judge said they can cut Justice department funding if Trump wants, but not funding apportioned by congress. Which makes sense, what with the constitution giving congress the power of the purse and all. On the Muslim ban - I don't understand why this is still around. We obviously didn't need it for those 90 days, why would we need it now at all? Because Trump can't lose. He can't be seen as a loser. He also can't stand being questioned, period. It would destroy his psyche. The reason they struck down the sanctuary city thing boiled in large part down to the court saying Trump can't threaten to withhold general funding not related to immigration simply because he doesn't like the immigration policies chosen by different jurisdictions. Ironically, there's precedent - Obama threatened to withhold funding from states that didn't expand Medicaid. It was found unconstitutional. Really shows the stark contrast between the priorities of the two men. Link to comment
ZRod Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 That general funding is approved by congress. The judge is saying that the constitution doesn't give the president the power to delegate federal funds, only congress can do that. It really has nothing to do with what the funding is related to. “The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the president, so the order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” Orrick wrote. Now, the AG can with hold Justices department funding if he so chooses, but he's already said most cities don't meet their strict definiton of a snactuary city. So this is all just posturing for their base. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 This was the line of the decision I was referring to. Perhaps I am interpreting wrong? Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 I thought he said any "ban" was temporary and they needed 120 days to review the vetting process. We are at 100 days since taking office. So, is it safe to assume we only have 20 more days to be talking about the ban? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 Well, he supposedly dropped the funding demand. I'm sure he still has that plan on how Mexico is going to pay for it. Link to comment
commando Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 i can believe it...as much as i don't want to. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 i can believe it...as much as i don't want to. President doesn't have that authority. Congress has talked about splitting the ninth into the ninth and new twelfth circuit. I don't think this will actually help the Republicans though. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Sad story, but this is where this administration's policies have gotten us. Just heartless. Long tweetstorm - read the whole thing. Link to comment
Recommended Posts