United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is changing its mission statement to eliminate a passage that describes the U.S. as "a nation of immigrants."
Metzger Meister on
+7
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is changing its mission statement to eliminate a passage that describes the U.S. as "a nation of immigrants."
They give no reasoning for that change (though obviously none is really needed) but the reasoning for the other change in the mission statement is just oh so telling on it's own:
referring to applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits, and the beneficiaries of such applications and petitions, as "customers" promotes an institutional culture that emphasizes the ultimate satisfaction of applicants and petitioners, rather than the correct adjudication of such applications and petitions according to the law. Use of the term leads to the erroneous belief that applicants and petitioners, rather than the American people, are whom we ultimately serve.
ie - We want to emphasize that we aren't thinking about the immigrants trying to use our services, but about the people already here.
You know, the ones who don't want those immigrants around.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is changing its mission statement to eliminate a passage that describes the U.S. as "a nation of immigrants."
When do we ship the Statue of Liberty back to France?
Alternate post:
Republicans turning their back on our culture and heritage.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is changing its mission statement to eliminate a passage that describes the U.S. as "a nation of immigrants."
They give no reasoning for that change (though obviously none is really needed) but the reasoning for the other change in the mission statement is just oh so telling on it's own:
referring to applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits, and the beneficiaries of such applications and petitions, as "customers" promotes an institutional culture that emphasizes the ultimate satisfaction of applicants and petitioners, rather than the correct adjudication of such applications and petitions according to the law. Use of the term leads to the erroneous belief that applicants and petitioners, rather than the American people, are whom we ultimately serve.
ie - We want to emphasize that we aren't thinking about the immigrants trying to use our services, but about the people already here.
You know, the ones who don't want those immigrants around.
Something something liberal virtue-signalling something something?
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is changing its mission statement to eliminate a passage that describes the U.S. as "a nation of immigrants."
If there's anything worse than listening to a person fret over the importance of updating a mission statement, it's realizing that said person has never heard of vision or value statements, and, apparently, has formed that opinion on their own rather than through mandatory training on why it's important to pretend these matter when shareholders are listening.
Then realizing your org doesn't actually have any shareholders.
So, if it's all the same to you guys,
Ending the use of the word "customer," writes Cissna, is "a reminder that we are always working for the American people."
Can I be the one to tell him there's a scroll bar on that page?
Core Values
Integrity
We will always strive for the highest level of integrity in our dealings with our customers, our fellow employees, and the citizens of the United States of America. We review each case before us on its own merit and reach decisions that are based on the law and facts. We will be ever mindful of the importance of the trust the American people have placed in us to administer the nation’s immigration system fairly, honestly, and correctly.
Respect
We will demonstrate respect in all of our actions. We will ensure that everyone we affect will be treated with dignity and courtesy regardless of the outcome of their case. We will model this principle in all of our activities with each other, our customers, and the public. Through our actions, USCIS will become known as an example of respect, dignity, and courtesy.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is changing its mission statement to eliminate a passage that describes the U.S. as "a nation of immigrants."
When do we ship the Statue of Liberty back to France?
Alternate post:
Republicans turning their back on our culture and heritage.
Why would they give her back when they can just replace the inscription with "AMERICA FIRST" and turn her from a beacon of freedom to a torch wielding sentinel, jealously clutching our founding document to her chest; far from the reach of the intruders over whom she towers.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
+30
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So SCOTUS told Trump he has to go through the regular appeals process
So 700k+ people do not get deported next month. That's good news. The court system (again) tells Trump he can't do something. So at least one of the "checks and balances" in our gov't is working.
I'm unfamiliar with the proper appeals process. I'm guessing everyone is assuming the Appeals count will rule against the WH, and then they'll go to the SC from there? Do we have any sort of time frame for that?
Reading through some of the tweets and other reporting, it looks like it'll be at least a year until this could possibly go back to the SC?
So 700k+ people do not get deported next month. That's good news. The court system (again) tells Trump he can't do something. So at least one of the "checks and balances" in our gov't is working.
I'm unfamiliar with the proper appeals process. I'm guessing everyone is assuming the Appeals count will rule against the WH, and then they'll go to the SC from there? Do we have any sort of time frame for that?
Reading through some of the tweets and other reporting, it looks like it'll be at least a year until this could possibly go back to the SC?
ICE might just round up, intern, and deport those people anyway, because they want to, and there's no enforcement mechanism to stop them though.
While I am pleased with scotus pushing this matter back down to the normal process I just don't see how this does not end with DACA getting ditched anyway. If it was made via executive order then there is no reason it should not be able to be rescinded in the same fashion. It does however buy the dreamers some time hopefully.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It keeps the fight going on longer and pushes it ever closer to election time. Single issue voters will be fired up still.
Plus it buys more time for people to have lawyers fight for their individual cases.
While I am pleased with scotus pushing this matter back down to the normal process I just don't see how this does not end with DACA getting ditched anyway. If it was made via executive order then there is no reason it should not be able to be rescinded in the same fashion. It does however buy the dreamers some time hopefully.
Again, no one is saying Trump & co. can't rescind DACA whenever they want.
The issue is they don't want to do it that way, because officially ending it makes them the baddies. They want it to be Obama's fault because it wasn't ordered correctly or they used a semi-colon in the wrong place or some such bullshit.
Trump wants DACA to end because racism, but Trump doesn't want to be the one to end it.
While I am pleased with scotus pushing this matter back down to the normal process I just don't see how this does not end with DACA getting ditched anyway. If it was made via executive order then there is no reason it should not be able to be rescinded in the same fashion. It does however buy the dreamers some time hopefully.
Again, no one is saying Trump & co. can't rescind DACA whenever they want.
The issue is they don't want to do it that way, because officially ending it makes them the baddies. They want it to be Obama's fault because it wasn't ordered correctly or they used a semi-colon in the wrong place or some such bullshit.
Trump wants DACA to end because racism, but Trump doesn't want to be the one to end it.
I actually think Trump ended it cause it's something Obama did. Him and all the people around him are trying to keep it dead because of white supremacy though.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
While I am pleased with scotus pushing this matter back down to the normal process I just don't see how this does not end with DACA getting ditched anyway. If it was made via executive order then there is no reason it should not be able to be rescinded in the same fashion. It does however buy the dreamers some time hopefully.
Again, no one is saying Trump & co. can't rescind DACA whenever they want.
The issue is they don't want to do it that way, because officially ending it makes them the baddies. They want it to be Obama's fault because it wasn't ordered correctly or they used a semi-colon in the wrong place or some such bullshit.
Trump wants DACA to end because racism, but Trump doesn't want to be the one to end it.
I actually think Trump ended it cause it's something Obama did. Him and all the people around him are trying to keep it dead because of white supremacy though.
But the reason he doesn't want to say "it's dead because I say so" is because he's a fucking coward.
While I am pleased with scotus pushing this matter back down to the normal process I just don't see how this does not end with DACA getting ditched anyway. If it was made via executive order then there is no reason it should not be able to be rescinded in the same fashion. It does however buy the dreamers some time hopefully.
Again, no one is saying Trump & co. can't rescind DACA whenever they want.
The issue is they don't want to do it that way, because officially ending it makes them the baddies. They want it to be Obama's fault because it wasn't ordered correctly or they used a semi-colon in the wrong place or some such bullshit.
Trump wants DACA to end because racism, but Trump doesn't want to be the one to end it.
I actually think Trump ended it cause it's something Obama did. Him and all the people around him are trying to keep it dead because of white supremacy though.
But the reason he doesn't want to say "it's dead because I say so" is because he's a fucking coward.
He knows taking responsibility for ending DACA will result in people not liking him, and he wants to be adored (and obeyed) above all else.
Several lawsuits filed in the Northern District of California were consolidated into one and resulted in the first nationwide, preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from ending the DACA program while the lawsuit proceeds. The order, issued in January, requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to keep processing DACA renewals for people who have been approved for the program in the past, but doesn’t require them to process first-time applications.
The lawsuits that are pending claim that the way in which Trump rescinded DACA was wrong, either because of things like procedural errors or because of violation of equal protection (i.e. racism). The California combined lawsuit is still pending a ruling on the merits. However, those representing the Dreamers successfully argued to the court that a preliminary injunction should be put in place, which means that while the lawsuit is still pending, the DACA program must continue to process renewals for previous DACA recipients.
Part of the analysis of a preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits with their claim. Judge Alsip has determined that they are likely to do so, which is part of why he issued the preliminary injunction. The lawsuits continue to move forward in CA and elsewhere on this issue. There has not been a decision on the merits yet.
Recall that Trump's stated reasoning for ending DACA is that it's unconstitutional.
The Trump administration appealed the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, but also took the unusual step of asking the Supreme Court to immediately consider the lawsuit rather than waiting for the appeals court to rule first.
And SCOTUS said no, you must wait for the appeals case to finish before you can take it up with us.
The practical outcome of all of this? The preliminary injunction stands (in both cases), and DACA cannot be ended and renewals must still be processed as long as the lawsuits are still going on.
These cases will basically turn on whether the Trump admin properly following the Administrative Procedures Act when it rescinded DACA. There is also the constitutional question of equal protection/due process but if the court can rule on the, imo, easier process argument they probably will do so. The Trump admin is so incompetent they couldn't even get close to dotting their i's and crossing their t's on this decision, so I expect they will lose this round eventually.
BTW Scotusblog has always got your back on explaining this stuff. Here's their blurb:
On January 9, a federal judge in California blocked the government from ending the program. A few days later, the Justice Department appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit, but it also opted to take the dispute straight to the Supreme Court, without waiting for the 9th Circuit to rule — a procedure known as “cert before judgment.” The justices have rarely granted review in this scenario, and they opted not to do so today. In a brief two-sentence order, the court indicated that it was denying the government’s petition “without prejudice” – which means that the government would still have the option to file another petition later on, after the 9th Circuit rules on its appeal. The justices added a caution that may help to explain their decision to stay out of the case at this point, particularly when the federal government had not asked them to put the lower court’s ruling on hold while its appeals wind their way through the system: “It is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case.”
I see we need a 28th amendment. Something simple like "All rights guaranteed here within applies to everyone affected by the laws the United States" should suffice.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
The argument is almost certainly that because immigrants which are convicted are subject to deportation that the guarantee of bail hearings would produce people who run.
Posts
Yeah. Aren't CPB and ICE different agencies?
They give no reasoning for that change (though obviously none is really needed) but the reasoning for the other change in the mission statement is just oh so telling on it's own:
ie - We want to emphasize that we aren't thinking about the immigrants trying to use our services, but about the people already here.
You know, the ones who don't want those immigrants around.
When do we ship the Statue of Liberty back to France?
Alternate post:
Republicans turning their back on our culture and heritage.
Something something liberal virtue-signalling something something?
If there's anything worse than listening to a person fret over the importance of updating a mission statement, it's realizing that said person has never heard of vision or value statements, and, apparently, has formed that opinion on their own rather than through mandatory training on why it's important to pretend these matter when shareholders are listening.
Then realizing your org doesn't actually have any shareholders.
So, if it's all the same to you guys, Can I be the one to tell him there's a scroll bar on that page?
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Why would they give her back when they can just replace the inscription with "AMERICA FIRST" and turn her from a beacon of freedom to a torch wielding sentinel, jealously clutching our founding document to her chest; far from the reach of the intruders over whom she towers.
http://kron4.com/2018/02/24/oakland-mayor-mayor-libby-schaaf-warns-residents-of-possible-ice-raids/
She knows how bullshit ICE has been conducting itself. Well done.
But what was this specifically in relation to? Which one of the many evil policy concepys was denied here?
Here's the HuffPo story on this:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-daca_us_5a8dabdfe4b00a30a251c495
So 700k+ people do not get deported next month. That's good news. The court system (again) tells Trump he can't do something. So at least one of the "checks and balances" in our gov't is working.
I'm unfamiliar with the proper appeals process. I'm guessing everyone is assuming the Appeals count will rule against the WH, and then they'll go to the SC from there? Do we have any sort of time frame for that?
Reading through some of the tweets and other reporting, it looks like it'll be at least a year until this could possibly go back to the SC?
Took me a second to realize that "an immigration policy tied up in a legal challenge" was not actually specific enough for this white house.
ICE might just round up, intern, and deport those people anyway, because they want to, and there's no enforcement mechanism to stop them though.
Plus it buys more time for people to have lawyers fight for their individual cases.
Again, no one is saying Trump & co. can't rescind DACA whenever they want.
The issue is they don't want to do it that way, because officially ending it makes them the baddies. They want it to be Obama's fault because it wasn't ordered correctly or they used a semi-colon in the wrong place or some such bullshit.
Trump wants DACA to end because racism, but Trump doesn't want to be the one to end it.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I actually think Trump ended it cause it's something Obama did. Him and all the people around him are trying to keep it dead because of white supremacy though.
But the reason he doesn't want to say "it's dead because I say so" is because he's a fucking coward.
He knows taking responsibility for ending DACA will result in people not liking him, and he wants to be adored (and obeyed) above all else.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
So first:
The lawsuits that are pending claim that the way in which Trump rescinded DACA was wrong, either because of things like procedural errors or because of violation of equal protection (i.e. racism). The California combined lawsuit is still pending a ruling on the merits. However, those representing the Dreamers successfully argued to the court that a preliminary injunction should be put in place, which means that while the lawsuit is still pending, the DACA program must continue to process renewals for previous DACA recipients.
Part of the analysis of a preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits with their claim. Judge Alsip has determined that they are likely to do so, which is part of why he issued the preliminary injunction. The lawsuits continue to move forward in CA and elsewhere on this issue. There has not been a decision on the merits yet.
Recall that Trump's stated reasoning for ending DACA is that it's unconstitutional.
(Note that another federal judge in NY has also issued a similar preliminary injunction that is nationwide. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daca-dreamers-second-judge-injunction_us_5a8366a4e4b02b66c51301c5)
Then:
And SCOTUS said no, you must wait for the appeals case to finish before you can take it up with us.
The practical outcome of all of this? The preliminary injunction stands (in both cases), and DACA cannot be ended and renewals must still be processed as long as the lawsuits are still going on.
These cases will basically turn on whether the Trump admin properly following the Administrative Procedures Act when it rescinded DACA. There is also the constitutional question of equal protection/due process but if the court can rule on the, imo, easier process argument they probably will do so. The Trump admin is so incompetent they couldn't even get close to dotting their i's and crossing their t's on this decision, so I expect they will lose this round eventually.
Internment camps hoooooo
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Is citizenship considered "permanent legal status"?
It breaks down exactly how you expect it to.
Nope, that protection is still in place for now.
Goddamnit.
The dissent argues that the majority's decision renders certain bits of immigration law unconstitutional by it's interpretation of them.
Fortunately it is not. Yet.
Permanent Legal Status is the actual name for green cards.