Trump Admin Immigration Policy Thread - DACA, ICE, etc

So It Goes

Here is the newly reopened immigration policy thread.

This thread is about the immigration policy decisions of the Trump administration. Immigration legislation is on topic as well. Discussion of DACA and ICE are on topic. Court rulings on DACA, Muslim ban, etc are on topic.

What will get this thread locked again are any of the following:

- failure of threadgoers to recognize when they are at an impasse with another poster and should move on to discussing other things
- derailment to topics of Democratic Party strategy/failures (this is not the topic of this thread)
- general inability of threadgoers to participate in a respectful manner


Here is the latest news story:

https://splinternews.com/federal-judge-rules-that-trump-has-to-keep-accepting-ne-1825519769

“The Department’s decision to rescind DACA was predicated primarily on its legal judgment that the program was unlawful. That legal judgment was virtually unexplained, however, and so it cannot support the agency’s decision,” Bates wrote in his decision. “And although the government suggests that DACA’s rescission was also predicated on the Department’s assessment of litigation risk, this consideration is insufficiently distinct from the agency’s legal judgment to alter the reviewability analysis.”

Because of this, Bates—who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2001—vacated the decision to end DACA, and ordered that the Department of Homeland Security “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications.”

Bates also granted the federal government a stay of 90 days to give them time to issue another memorandum rescinding DACA, this time with a better explanation of why it ended the program. As the National Immigration Law Center pointed out, this means that US Citizenship and Immigration Services isn’t accepting new applicants yet.

If the government doesn’t give a better explanation of why it ended DACA, however, Bates wrote that he would restore the DACA program in full.

Undead Scottsman

Would the Supreme Court leaning towards upholding the Muslim ban go here as well?

EDIT: Because yikes: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban/index.html

Fencingsax

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Would the Supreme Court leaning towards upholding the Muslim ban go here as well?

EDIT: Because yikes: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban/index.html

Kennedy always asks questions of both sides like that. He also was skeptical that candidate statements have zero bearing on later policy and cabinet advisories.

I think this one we just have to wait and see.

Couscous

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Would the Supreme Court leaning towards upholding the Muslim ban go here as well?

EDIT: Because yikes: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban/index.html

Francisco said at the end that Trump has stated this is not a Muslim ban and pointed to specific statements from September 25.

"He has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country and he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world," Francisco said.

Well, that is a clear lie.

Fencingsax

Islam is not a country, So did he misspeak, or accurately quote Trump?

Ardol

Couscous wrote: »

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Would the Supreme Court leaning towards upholding the Muslim ban go here as well?

EDIT: Because yikes: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban/index.html

Francisco said at the end that Trump has stated this is not a Muslim ban and pointed to specific statements from September 25.

"He has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country and he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world," Francisco said.

Well, that is a clear lie.

Idk I could see Trump praising Islam as one of the great countries of the world.

So It Goes

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Would the Supreme Court leaning towards upholding the Muslim ban go here as well?

EDIT: Because yikes: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban/index.html

Yes

Jragghen

So during the hiatus of the thread, This American Life and Radiolab had a series of podcasts about the immigration issue in the United States, which I think are definitely worth a listen.

This American Life had one which followed the DACA bill process from start to finish from the perspective of Jeff Flake. It can be intensely frustrating to listen to, particularly as someone who followed the process closely via places like this, but which is probably invaluable to people who DON'T follow as closely. But just be aware, listening to this will make you angry all over again.


Radiolab, on the other hand, had a series of three episodes which starts at noting that our immigration policy, as it is now, is resulting in MANY more human deaths than the official numbers probably describe, and looked at how our immigration policy got to where it is now (and where it's probably going), and it actually starts back LONG before most of us were acutely politically aware. It's kinda horrifying, but it's very enlightening.

While scouring the Sonoran Desert for objects left behind by migrants crossing into the United States, anthropologist Jason De León happened upon something he didn't expect to get left behind: a human arm, stripped of flesh.

This macabre discovery sent him reeling, needing to know what exactly happened to the body, and how many migrants die that way in the wilderness. In researching border-crosser deaths in the Arizona desert, he noticed something surprising. Sometime in the late-1990s, the number of migrant deaths shot up dramatically and have stayed high since. Jason traced this increase to a Border Patrol policy still in effect, called “Prevention Through Deterrence.”

Hole in the Fence

We begin one afternoon in May 1992, when a student named Albert stumbled in late for history class at Bowie High School in El Paso, Texas. His excuse: Border Patrol. Soon more stories of students getting stopped and harassed by Border Patrol started pouring in. So begins the unlikely story of how a handful of Mexican-American high schoolers in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country stood up to what is today the country’s largest federal law enforcement agency. They had no way of knowing at the time, but what would follow was a chain of events that would drastically change the US-Mexico border.

Hold the Line

After the showdown in court with Bowie High School, Border Patrol brings in a fresh face to head its dysfunctional El Paso Sector: Silvestre Reyes. The first Mexican-American to ever hold the position, Reyes knows something needs to change and has an idea how to do it. One Saturday night at midnight, with the element of surprise on his side, Reyes unveils ... Operation Blockade. It wins widespread support for the Border Patrol in El Paso, but sparks major protests across the Rio Grande. Soon after, he gets a phone call that catapults his little experiment onto the national stage, where it works so well that it diverts migrant crossing patterns along the entire U.S.-Mexico Border.

Years later, in the Arizona desert, anthropologist Jason de León realizes that in order to accurately gauge how many migrants die crossing the desert, he must first understand how human bodies decompose in such an extreme environment. He sets up a macabre experiment, and what he finds is more drastic than anything he could have expected.

What Remains

The third episode in our Border Trilogy follows anthropologist Jason De León after he makes a grisly discovery in Arivaca, Arizona. In the middle of carrying out his pig experiments with his students, Jason finds the body of a 30-year-old female migrant. With the help of the medical examiner and some local humanitarian groups, Jason discovers her identity. Her name was Maricela. Jason then connects with her family, including her brother-in-law, who survived his own harrowing journey through Central America and the Arizona desert.

With the human cost of Prevention Through Deterrence weighing on our minds, we try to parse what drives migrants like Maricela to cross through such deadly terrain, and what, if anything, could deter them.

The specifics of the Trump administration is that there are some interviews which relate to the Wall and how the Wall is more seeking to further funnel those trying to cross the border into the desert as a matter of deterrence, and with the explicit knowledge that this means more people dying. But it's all with the context from the first episode of basically showing how, to a certain degree, we barely even had a border in the early 90s, in a real sense, and how there was real problems for people along the border because of it.

ArbitraryDescriptor

Re: SOCTUS ban arguments

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/argument-analysis-travel-ban-seems-likely-to-survive-supreme-courts-review/

They note that if there are genuine, good faith exemptions / waivers, then theres no problem here; but the number granted (430 since Sept) seems really low (based on nothing).

Does anyone know if that is low, or if the waivers are reasonably attainable?

Veevee

Fencingsax wrote: »

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Would the Supreme Court leaning towards upholding the Muslim ban go here as well?

EDIT: Because yikes: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban/index.html

Kennedy always asks questions of both sides like that. He also was skeptical that candidate statements have zero bearing on later policy and cabinet advisories.

I think this one we just have to wait and see.

As well he should be, since policy was literally created based off Trump's campaign speeches.

A speech Trump delivered in October in Gettysburg, Pa. — at the time intended to be his closing argument to voters — will serve as a blueprint for his initial policy prescriptions, according to his aides. There, in the shadow of the Civil War battlefield, Trump promised on his first day in office more than a dozen actions, ranging from the less likely — proposing a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress — to the more plausible — withdrawing from and beginning to renegotiate key trade deals.

And yes, in that speech he did talk about ending immigration from "terror prone regions" and warned about the spread of radical islamic terror.

It's also not uncommon for policy to be crafted based on campaign promises, and I'd go as far to say it's the natural and right way to do it. As that same article points out, Romney had policy plans prepared based on his campaign rhetoric as well

Of course, the Trump operation is hardly the first to prepare a robust list of executive actions for an incoming president. Mitt Romney’s transition team, which began work well before Election Day in 2012, combed through all of Romney’s policy speeches and op-eds, identifying and prioritizing all the promises he had made during the campaign, and drafted a 200-day plan.

Still expect Kennedy to rule campaign speech has no bearing on policy.

Viskod

Roberts said something that got my attention.

He said that the President has knowledge of classified information that a judge ruling on this ban would not have. But that's not true right?

I have read multiple times that if a Judge is to make a ruling over a case that involves classified information, they are allowed to view the related material to make an informed decision. That would make Roberts statement just literally, factually, not true.

BigJoeM

Roberts is full of shit, this is known.

He’s a party man, any decision to the contrary is the fear for his legacy and of an understanding of how weak the court is.

Trump is exactly the kind of president who will tell the court to get fucked if it disagrees with him on something he really cares about.

Bigoted promises are in that wheelhouse so expect the conservatives to show their soft under bellies on this case.

spool32

Roberts isn't a "party man" and the Court isn't weak.

BigJoeM

The only power the court truly has is prestige (of which the Roberts court has very little) and the court still has no physical authority to enforce its rulings.

It is the weakest branch without question.

Shelby County v Holder is one of the most nakedly partisan decisions I have ever seen and it absolutely was a boon to the Republican Party. It completely destroys whatever “neutral” standing Roberts gained after National Federation of Independent Bus. V Sebelius

Which was unearned IMO, this was a man who said his job was calling balls and strikes and then gave stare decisis a quick trip to the door anytime he could justify it as soon as he was confirmed.

Fuck Roberts.

shryke

spool32 wrote: »

Roberts isn't a "party man" and the Court isn't weak.

Roberts is absolutely a party hack. Roberts was an anti-VRA hatchetman from way back in the day.

Enc

shryke wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

Roberts isn't a "party man" and the Court isn't weak.

Roberts is absolutely a party hack. Roberts was an anti-VRA hatchetman from way back in the day.

Roberts has diverged from GOP preferences in many cases, and (unlike the other conservative justices) usually* has a fairly legitimate legal reasoning behind whichever decision he backs that is bound in actual US Jurisprudence. There are exceptions, but to put him in the same basket as Thomas or Goursch is pretty inaccurate.

Again, disagreeing with a ruling doesn't mean it isn't the right ruling from a judicial standpoint. For example, while CItizen's United is devastating to our democracy, the ruling is the correct one by legal jurisprudence and the remedy would need to come from the legislative to correct our current speech/money/corporate personhood problems (etc.)

shryke

Enc wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

Roberts isn't a "party man" and the Court isn't weak.

Roberts is absolutely a party hack. Roberts was an anti-VRA hatchetman from way back in the day.

Roberts has diverged from GOP preferences in many cases, and (unlike the other conservative justices) usually* has a fairly legitimate legal reasoning behind whichever decision he backs that is bound in actual US Jurisprudence. There are exceptions, but to put him in the same basket as Thomas or Goursch is pretty inaccurate.

Again, disagreeing with a ruling doesn't mean it isn't the right ruling from a judicial standpoint. For example, while CItizen's United is devastating to our democracy, the ruling is the correct one by legal jurisprudence and the remedy would need to come from the legislative to correct our current speech/money/corporate personhood problems (etc.)

Nope. The VRA decision is pure partisan hackery and a long-time thing for Roberts, which is why I brought it up. You basically have to ignore everything this SCOTUS has done and the effects of it to pretend like there isn't a huge bias going on with the decisions.

There's a reason the GOP works very very hard and is willing to wipe it's ass with the rule of law in order to secure it's people on the courts.

Polaritie

Edit: Moving to SCOTUS thread

So It Goes

Yes please use the SCOTUS thread for in depth discussion of this case.

spool32

WACriminal wrote: »

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

Imagine the following scenario:

1. A candidate runs on a platform of antisemitism, wins the election
2. After election, commissions a "study" that manages to show public health risks from consumption of <wide list of animals>
3. After study's publication, bans the import or sale of meat from <list of all animals on the previous list which happen to be compatible with a kosher diet>

SCOTUS should absolutely throw out such a ban, on the basis that the candidate's widely published antisemitism serves as a clear motivating factor to the action, and therefore that the ban is likely part of a larger plan or system to infringe on the rights of Jewish people in particular. The study commissioned in step 2 may be scientifically/statistically valid, but that observation is secondary to the fact that it is transparently being used as a fig leaf for a larger unconstitutional plan.

Similarly, it shouldn't matter (to SCOTUS) whether the travel ban generates a benefit to national security. It is fundamentally flawed from its inception, to a degree that we can rarely prove so easily thanks to Trump's chronic Twitter logorrhea.

What if the ban only applied to a small number of suppliers of kosher (and other) products that didn't meet X criteria, and provides exceptions in good faith* on a product-by-product basis?

*(Again, I don't know that the actual ban's criteria or exceptions are not transparently islamaphobic, as I haven't had a chance to research it. Just proposing for the sake of argument)

I don't feel it should matter. We'll see what SCOTUS thinks.

I do think that there's something to be said here about the fact that, in the analogy, there were lots of dangerous meats called out in the study which were not included in the ban, because it wasn't really about public health.

Similarly, if we're talking about a travel ban for security reasons, there are places which would have been "logically" included in the ban, but were not because it isn't actually about security.

Interesting question, cross-pollinating from the SCOTUS thread for topicality reasons:

If it's not a Muslim ban because it does nothing about stopping 86% of the Muslims, it's not racism because it lets plenty of Middle Eastern and African people in, and it's not a Terrorism ban because it transparently ignores countries like Pakistan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco...

... what is this travel ban really for??

nexuscrawler

spool32 wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

Imagine the following scenario:

1. A candidate runs on a platform of antisemitism, wins the election
2. After election, commissions a "study" that manages to show public health risks from consumption of <wide list of animals>
3. After study's publication, bans the import or sale of meat from <list of all animals on the previous list which happen to be compatible with a kosher diet>

SCOTUS should absolutely throw out such a ban, on the basis that the candidate's widely published antisemitism serves as a clear motivating factor to the action, and therefore that the ban is likely part of a larger plan or system to infringe on the rights of Jewish people in particular. The study commissioned in step 2 may be scientifically/statistically valid, but that observation is secondary to the fact that it is transparently being used as a fig leaf for a larger unconstitutional plan.

Similarly, it shouldn't matter (to SCOTUS) whether the travel ban generates a benefit to national security. It is fundamentally flawed from its inception, to a degree that we can rarely prove so easily thanks to Trump's chronic Twitter logorrhea.

What if the ban only applied to a small number of suppliers of kosher (and other) products that didn't meet X criteria, and provides exceptions in good faith* on a product-by-product basis?

*(Again, I don't know that the actual ban's criteria or exceptions are not transparently islamaphobic, as I haven't had a chance to research it. Just proposing for the sake of argument)

I don't feel it should matter. We'll see what SCOTUS thinks.

I do think that there's something to be said here about the fact that, in the analogy, there were lots of dangerous meats called out in the study which were not included in the ban, because it wasn't really about public health.

Similarly, if we're talking about a travel ban for security reasons, there are places which would have been "logically" included in the ban, but were not because it isn't actually about security.

Interesting question, cross-pollinating from the SCOTUS thread for topicality reasons:

If it's not a Muslim ban because it does nothing about stopping 86% of the Muslims, it's not racism because it lets plenty of Middle Eastern and African people in, and it's not a Terrorism ban because it transparently ignores countries like Pakistan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco...

... what is this travel ban really for??

appeases the racists who voted for Trump

Label

ACLU's got a page up of statements from folks being affected by the Muslim Ban.

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Trump’s Muslim ban, which has been in effect since December. As a result, the United States currently bans nationals of five Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen — and a minuscule number of North Koreans and Venezuelans from coming to the country on most or all types of visas, even if they have spouses, children, parents, or other family members in the United States.

We invited people to share how the ban affects their lives. Stories poured in from the United States and abroad; of families separated, weddings postponed, and lives uprooted. Communities across the country are grappling with what it means to be Muslim in the United States, living under a president who says that “Islam hates us,” and has spun that prejudice into actual policy.

Their stories illustrate how profoundly the ban has already changed their lives — and what’s at stake at the Supreme Court.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/living-muslim-ban

spool32

nexuscrawler wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

Imagine the following scenario:

1. A candidate runs on a platform of antisemitism, wins the election
2. After election, commissions a "study" that manages to show public health risks from consumption of <wide list of animals>
3. After study's publication, bans the import or sale of meat from <list of all animals on the previous list which happen to be compatible with a kosher diet>

SCOTUS should absolutely throw out such a ban, on the basis that the candidate's widely published antisemitism serves as a clear motivating factor to the action, and therefore that the ban is likely part of a larger plan or system to infringe on the rights of Jewish people in particular. The study commissioned in step 2 may be scientifically/statistically valid, but that observation is secondary to the fact that it is transparently being used as a fig leaf for a larger unconstitutional plan.

Similarly, it shouldn't matter (to SCOTUS) whether the travel ban generates a benefit to national security. It is fundamentally flawed from its inception, to a degree that we can rarely prove so easily thanks to Trump's chronic Twitter logorrhea.

What if the ban only applied to a small number of suppliers of kosher (and other) products that didn't meet X criteria, and provides exceptions in good faith* on a product-by-product basis?

*(Again, I don't know that the actual ban's criteria or exceptions are not transparently islamaphobic, as I haven't had a chance to research it. Just proposing for the sake of argument)

I don't feel it should matter. We'll see what SCOTUS thinks.

I do think that there's something to be said here about the fact that, in the analogy, there were lots of dangerous meats called out in the study which were not included in the ban, because it wasn't really about public health.

Similarly, if we're talking about a travel ban for security reasons, there are places which would have been "logically" included in the ban, but were not because it isn't actually about security.

Interesting question, cross-pollinating from the SCOTUS thread for topicality reasons:

If it's not a Muslim ban because it does nothing about stopping 86% of the Muslims, it's not racism because it lets plenty of Middle Eastern and African people in, and it's not a Terrorism ban because it transparently ignores countries like Pakistan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco...

... what is this travel ban really for??

appeases the racists who voted for Trump

that's my instinct as well... it's purely red meat for the racist portions of his base. Nothing else makes sense.

Sleep

spool32 wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

Imagine the following scenario:

1. A candidate runs on a platform of antisemitism, wins the election
2. After election, commissions a "study" that manages to show public health risks from consumption of <wide list of animals>
3. After study's publication, bans the import or sale of meat from <list of all animals on the previous list which happen to be compatible with a kosher diet>

SCOTUS should absolutely throw out such a ban, on the basis that the candidate's widely published antisemitism serves as a clear motivating factor to the action, and therefore that the ban is likely part of a larger plan or system to infringe on the rights of Jewish people in particular. The study commissioned in step 2 may be scientifically/statistically valid, but that observation is secondary to the fact that it is transparently being used as a fig leaf for a larger unconstitutional plan.

Similarly, it shouldn't matter (to SCOTUS) whether the travel ban generates a benefit to national security. It is fundamentally flawed from its inception, to a degree that we can rarely prove so easily thanks to Trump's chronic Twitter logorrhea.

What if the ban only applied to a small number of suppliers of kosher (and other) products that didn't meet X criteria, and provides exceptions in good faith* on a product-by-product basis?

*(Again, I don't know that the actual ban's criteria or exceptions are not transparently islamaphobic, as I haven't had a chance to research it. Just proposing for the sake of argument)

I don't feel it should matter. We'll see what SCOTUS thinks.

I do think that there's something to be said here about the fact that, in the analogy, there were lots of dangerous meats called out in the study which were not included in the ban, because it wasn't really about public health.

Similarly, if we're talking about a travel ban for security reasons, there are places which would have been "logically" included in the ban, but were not because it isn't actually about security.

Interesting question, cross-pollinating from the SCOTUS thread for topicality reasons:

If it's not a Muslim ban because it does nothing about stopping 86% of the Muslims, it's not racism because it lets plenty of Middle Eastern and African people in, and it's not a Terrorism ban because it transparently ignores countries like Pakistan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco...

... what is this travel ban really for??

appeases the racists who voted for Trump

that's my instinct as well... it's purely red meat for the racist portions of his base. Nothing else makes sense.

Nah it makes sense if you consider the people writing it are total fuckin idiots.

They think they are accomplishing their racist ends because they don't realize how fuckin ignorant they are being.

Basically yeah its red meat to the base... because both the people implementing it and the folks its being thrown to are in fact so dumb as to not realize it doesn't actually accomplish any of their goals, racist or security, and instead just makes a bunch of brown countries they hear are bad, and are afraid of, not able to send folks here, and they think it will solve their problems, and make them safer... cause they're idiots that dont realize the ineffectiveness of their actions towards their goal. They are just so dumb they can't even fuckin do evil shit right... which is really the only thing saving our bacon right now on a bunch of fronts.

moniker

spool32 wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

Imagine the following scenario:

1. A candidate runs on a platform of antisemitism, wins the election
2. After election, commissions a "study" that manages to show public health risks from consumption of <wide list of animals>
3. After study's publication, bans the import or sale of meat from <list of all animals on the previous list which happen to be compatible with a kosher diet>

SCOTUS should absolutely throw out such a ban, on the basis that the candidate's widely published antisemitism serves as a clear motivating factor to the action, and therefore that the ban is likely part of a larger plan or system to infringe on the rights of Jewish people in particular. The study commissioned in step 2 may be scientifically/statistically valid, but that observation is secondary to the fact that it is transparently being used as a fig leaf for a larger unconstitutional plan.

Similarly, it shouldn't matter (to SCOTUS) whether the travel ban generates a benefit to national security. It is fundamentally flawed from its inception, to a degree that we can rarely prove so easily thanks to Trump's chronic Twitter logorrhea.

What if the ban only applied to a small number of suppliers of kosher (and other) products that didn't meet X criteria, and provides exceptions in good faith* on a product-by-product basis?

*(Again, I don't know that the actual ban's criteria or exceptions are not transparently islamaphobic, as I haven't had a chance to research it. Just proposing for the sake of argument)

I don't feel it should matter. We'll see what SCOTUS thinks.

I do think that there's something to be said here about the fact that, in the analogy, there were lots of dangerous meats called out in the study which were not included in the ban, because it wasn't really about public health.

Similarly, if we're talking about a travel ban for security reasons, there are places which would have been "logically" included in the ban, but were not because it isn't actually about security.

Interesting question, cross-pollinating from the SCOTUS thread for topicality reasons:

If it's not a Muslim ban because it does nothing about stopping 86% of the Muslims, it's not racism because it lets plenty of Middle Eastern and African people in, and it's not a Terrorism ban because it transparently ignores countries like Pakistan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco...

... what is this travel ban really for??

It's iteration 3.0 and at this point the reason it exists is to arguably hopefully make it past the Judiciary and declare victory over all those mean liberals saying it's racist tyranny. Nevermind those other 2 that couldn't withstand scrutiny, we put them in the memory hole because they don't count.

DarkPrimus

spool32 wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

ArbitraryDescriptor wrote: »

WACriminal wrote: »

Imagine the following scenario:

1. A candidate runs on a platform of antisemitism, wins the election
2. After election, commissions a "study" that manages to show public health risks from consumption of <wide list of animals>
3. After study's publication, bans the import or sale of meat from <list of all animals on the previous list which happen to be compatible with a kosher diet>

SCOTUS should absolutely throw out such a ban, on the basis that the candidate's widely published antisemitism serves as a clear motivating factor to the action, and therefore that the ban is likely part of a larger plan or system to infringe on the rights of Jewish people in particular. The study commissioned in step 2 may be scientifically/statistically valid, but that observation is secondary to the fact that it is transparently being used as a fig leaf for a larger unconstitutional plan.

Similarly, it shouldn't matter (to SCOTUS) whether the travel ban generates a benefit to national security. It is fundamentally flawed from its inception, to a degree that we can rarely prove so easily thanks to Trump's chronic Twitter logorrhea.

What if the ban only applied to a small number of suppliers of kosher (and other) products that didn't meet X criteria, and provides exceptions in good faith* on a product-by-product basis?

*(Again, I don't know that the actual ban's criteria or exceptions are not transparently islamaphobic, as I haven't had a chance to research it. Just proposing for the sake of argument)

I don't feel it should matter. We'll see what SCOTUS thinks.

I do think that there's something to be said here about the fact that, in the analogy, there were lots of dangerous meats called out in the study which were not included in the ban, because it wasn't really about public health.

Similarly, if we're talking about a travel ban for security reasons, there are places which would have been "logically" included in the ban, but were not because it isn't actually about security.

Interesting question, cross-pollinating from the SCOTUS thread for topicality reasons:

If it's not a Muslim ban because it does nothing about stopping 86% of the Muslims, it's not racism because it lets plenty of Middle Eastern and African people in, and it's not a Terrorism ban because it transparently ignores countries like Pakistan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco...

... what is this travel ban really for??

appeases the racists who voted for Trump

that's my instinct as well... it's purely red meat for the racist portions of his base. Nothing else makes sense.

It blocks a lot of refugees from even trying to come to the United States. The fact that no one is really looking at it from that standpoint is actually kind of an accomplishment for Trump's constant referencing to it as a Muslim ban.

Fencingsax

The people who normally interview those refugees are instead being forced to work on deportations along the border

Styrofoam Sammich

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/989939785308495873?s=19

ICE is arresting and imprisoning citizens for years at a time

Undead Scottsman

Jesus, that's over 3 years.

And they can't sue the shit out if them, either, for some stupid reason. Right?

DarkPrimus

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Jesus, that's over 3 years.

And they can't sue the shit out if them, either, for some stupid reason. Right?

There's a two-year statute of limitations to sue over false imprisonment, which starts from the moment you are falsely imprisoned.

Don't allow them access to a lawyer and hold them long enough and you can't face any legal repercussions! So simple and evil.

More information in an NPR story about it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Dac

I somehow forget about that, and am renewed in rage every time.

What's the FUCKING justification for that, again?

override367

How the fuck does the statute of limitations start right when you get arrested for false imprisonment, at a time when the legal system is quite sure you're not being falsely imprisoned

Aren't you still falsely imprisoned on your last day of imprisonment?

Is a human trafficker in the clear if they've had their human slave for long enough that they've hit the statute of limitations, now making their human-ownership legal?

This boggles my mind

Polaritie

There is a trend of courts acting like the world would end if the government could held accountable.

DarkPrimus

Dac wrote: »

I somehow forget about that, and am renewed in rage every time.

What's the FUCKING justification for that, again?

The majority opinion claimed that the decision was "bound by precedent."

Unknown

This content has been removed.

DarkPrimus

I certainly hope that the ruling gets appealed, but honestly I don't have a ton of faith in SCOTUS making the right call.

Styrofoam Sammich

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court

Denied all compensation for his imprisonment

Fencingsax

Quelle surprise.

Our fucking justice system

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

MorganV wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Dac wrote: »

I somehow forget about that, and am renewed in rage every time.

What's the FUCKING justification for that, again?

The majority opinion claimed that the decision was "bound by precedent."

Then FUCK PRECEDENT.

Slavery was bound by precedent. Sometimes you just have to look at something and go "This is NOT justice.".

If you can't do that for something this fucking egregious, get out of the fucking profession.

I know the Democrats have a long list of shit they need to attempt to undo/curtail, but if this isn't on the list, even if it's just changing the statute of limitations aspect (though the denial of a lawyer thing needs to fucking stop too), then burn it all down.

I don't care if Donald will threaten to veto, or if they don't get both House and Senate. This thing needs to have people on record, and having to explain why they think an American citizen can be jailed for almost 3.5 years, with no legal recourse either during, or after their incarceration, and how doing so fits with their version of the American ideal.

Also, ICE as a whole needs to be burnt to the ground, dismantled down to the bedrock, and along with everyone who agrees with the current philosophical and active actions of the Department, be interred in Yucca Mountain, with the rest of the toxic waste.

ICE has always been monstrous even under Obama. It really does need to end.

Preacher

Seriously. What needs to end is acting like immigrants are god damn criminals, and you know treat them like human fucking beings.