It amazes me all these support the troops ostensibly pro military people are happy to completely ignore the official military assessment in favour of their own paranoid racist fantasies
They're just pro-war and trying to make it sound sympathetic.
Incenjucar on
+5
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
It amazes me all these support the troops ostensibly pro military people are happy to completely ignore the official military assessment in favour of their own paranoid racist fantasies
Here is something I just caught. In a report about the planning documents for the military border deployment, there is something that caught my eye... (my own emphasis added below)
the military is preparing to defend against an “estimated 200 unregulated armed militia members currently operating along the [Southwest Border]. Reported Incidents of unregulated militias stealing National Guard equipment during deployments. They operate under the guise of citizen patrols supporting [Customs and Border Patrol] primarily between [Points of Entry].”
The term "unregulated militia" super stands out to me... Why, because the second amendment says...
This sort of thing is the biggest reason I think the GOP would regret fucking with the 14th via administrative fiat. If you want to start making the argument that you can play fast and loose with definitions and interpretations of amendments via executive action, the 2nd is absolutely primed to eat shit.
Here is something I just caught. In a report about the planning documents for the military border deployment, there is something that caught my eye... (my own emphasis added below)
the military is preparing to defend against an “estimated 200 unregulated armed militia members currently operating along the [Southwest Border]. Reported Incidents of unregulated militias stealing National Guard equipment during deployments. They operate under the guise of citizen patrols supporting [Customs and Border Patrol] primarily between [Points of Entry].”
The term "unregulated militia" super stands out to me... Why, because the second amendment says...
This sort of thing is the biggest reason I think the GOP would regret fucking with the 14th via administrative fiat. If you want to start making the argument that you can play fast and loose with definitions and interpretations of amendments via executive action, the 2nd is absolutely primed to eat shit.
That would require conservatives to have any sort of consistency with their justifications for their worldview, and the moral fortitude to actually stick to those consistencies.
+21
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I can't believe I'm saying this right now but thank god for the Pentagon.
The Joint Chiefs chair says soldiers will not be involved in denying border entry to migrants
So the specific quote in question from the Joint Chiefs chair on the matter is:
"There is no plan for US military forces to be involved in the actual mission of denying people entry to the United States," Dunford said, speaking at an event at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. "There is no plan for soldiers to come in contact with immigrants or to reinforce Department of Homeland Security as they're conducting their mission."
"We are providing enabling capabilities," Dunford said, explaining they were tasked with supporting the DHS.
Which is to say, they're reinforcing "entry points" in the country like fencing and wiring, they're setting up medical stations and supplies. Transportation via land and air. But that's about it. DHS, which is to say ICE, will be doing everything hands-on. From the quote above it sounds like the military isn't authorized to even provide security or assist in any altercations.
+7
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
The President spent the last two weeks campaigning that the military is being deployed to defend the border against an invading horde and the motherfucking Joint Chiefs is directly undermining that narrative.
It amazes me all these support the troops ostensibly pro military people are happy to completely ignore the official military assessment in favour of their own paranoid racist fantasies
It’s military intelligence. Intelligence implies education, education implies liberal, and liberal is synonymous with the GAY ISLAM GLOBALIST CONSPIRACY that HATES AMERICA and brings in ILLEGAL SOROS CARAVANS and WAR ON CHRISTMAS.
JUST IN: Pentagon says it will no longer refer to the US military mission at the Mexico border as “Operation Faithful Patriot;” no reason given for the change on the day after the US midterm elections
Oh I'll tell you the reason. The administration's party just got de-fanged and the Pentagon is breathing easier now that it doesn't have to participate in stupid political stunts. I somehow missed that the name of the mission was something that stupid. I'm glad I'm finding out by way of them dropping the name, it would've annoyed the shit out of me.
To be honest, I'm expecting them to drop the entire mission now that the election has happened.
What I'm imagining is Trump just forgetting about it and not saying anything for a long while, to the point where the Pentagon will just say, "Uh, okay pack it up everyone" without an actual order to do so. Nor will Trump care (unless Fox News brings it up).
+5
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
They'll either wait for an order or develop mission parameters that allow them to pack up and go home after a bit.
They won't directly countermand a legal order, the pentagon isn't about to stage a coup.
Trump is expected to announce an order tomorrow blocking anyone crossing the US border illegally from claiming Asylum if they are subject to "a travel ban like proclamation issued by The President."
Clara Jeffery is the Editor in Chief of Mother Jones
Basically, it looks like Trump wants permission for his travel bans to ban people requesting asylum too, which might be leading up to a travel ban on Honduras. The legal grounds for this order are tenuous at best.
Short version: DoJ and DHS made a statement that Trump can just plain end asylum declarations coming from the southern border.
Ok, so, this is where they claim the authority to do it:
Congress, however, provided that certain categories of aliens could not receive asylum and further delegated to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security (“Secretary”) the authority to promulgate regulations establishing additional bars on eligibility that are consistent with the asylum statute and “any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum” that are consistent with the INA. See INA 208(b)(2)(C), (d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C), (d)(5)(B).
And they both start with "aliens can apply anywhere, even if not at a POE" and the clause they reference says that they're allowed to make additional conditions or limitations 'consistent with this section'.
The existing exceptions have nothing to do with manner of entry, all pertain to whether the person in question is a danger or a former oppressor of others.
IANAL, but I don't see how "or crossed over an arbitrary line" is an exception or limitation consistent with those sections.
I'm sure this order doesn't apply to white Christians seeking g asylum
Technically it doesn't apply to anyone yet.
It sets up the premise that if Trump makes a proclamation regarding the US-Mexico border, after the effective date of this rule, that creates a condition forbidding entry via the US-Mexico border, then people who enter in contravention of it will not be eligible for asylum. (The proclamation may contain (racist, probably) exceptions)
Once you get into it, I'm a little confused as to what it actually does. Actual text is all the way at the end:
(5) * * * If the alien is found to be [in contravention of the proclamation], then the asylum officer shall enter a negative credible fear determination with respect to the alien’s application for asylum. The Department shall nonetheless place the alien in proceedings under section 240 of the Act for full consideration of the alien’s claim for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture if the alien establishes a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. However, if an alien fails to establish, during the interview with the asylum officer, a reasonable fear of either persecution or torture, the asylum officer will provide the alien with a written notice of decision, which will be subject to immigration judge review consistent with paragraph (g) of this section, except that the immigration judge will review the reasonable fear findings under the reasonable fear standard instead of the credible fear standard described in paragraph (g) and in 8 CFR 1208.30(g).
Sounds like it just raises the bar from credible fear to reasonable fear?
I'm sure this order doesn't apply to white Christians seeking g asylum
Technically it doesn't apply to anyone yet.
It sets up the premise that if Trump makes a proclamation regarding the US-Mexico border, after the effective date of this rule, that creates a condition forbidding entry via the US-Mexico border, then people who enter in contravention of it will not be eligible for asylum. (The proclamation may contain (racist, probably) exceptions)
Once you get into it, I'm a little confused as to what it actually does. Actual text is all the way at the end:
(5) * * * If the alien is found to be [in contravention of the proclamation], then the asylum officer shall enter a negative credible fear determination with respect to the alien’s application for asylum. The Department shall nonetheless place the alien in proceedings under section 240 of the Act for full consideration of the alien’s claim for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture if the alien establishes a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. However, if an alien fails to establish, during the interview with the asylum officer, a reasonable fear of either persecution or torture, the asylum officer will provide the alien with a written notice of decision, which will be subject to immigration judge review consistent with paragraph (g) of this section, except that the immigration judge will review the reasonable fear findings under the reasonable fear standard instead of the credible fear standard described in paragraph (g) and in 8 CFR 1208.30(g).
Sounds like it just raises the bar from credible fear to reasonable fear?
it seems to try to pull a sleight of hand with the "reasonable" language.
problem is, the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is statute, not regulation, explicitly sets the evidentiary standard applicable to asylum applicants:
"(ii) SUSTAINING BURDEN- The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant's burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant's testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant's burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.
(iii) CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION- Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant's or witness's account, the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal."
"reasonable" language is nowhere in the statute. the standard according to Congress is "credible" testimony. what Trump is trying to do here is ultra vires on its face, and a normal court should hold that Congress has explicitly spoken on this matter.
the other part where Trump is trying to restrict asylum applicants to applying only at port of entries and only if they've entered lawfully is also ultra vires on its face. the statute explicitly contradicts him:
"(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).
these are invalid on their face. Trump and DHS cannot promulgate the regulations as they've been written because they fly in the face of statute, which (pardon the word) trumps any regulation.
Trump is expected to announce an order tomorrow blocking anyone crossing the US border illegally from claiming Asylum if they are subject to "a travel ban like proclamation issued by The President."
Clara Jeffery is the Editor in Chief of Mother Jones
Basically, it looks like Trump wants permission for his travel bans to ban people requesting asylum too, which might be leading up to a travel ban on Honduras. The legal grounds for this order are tenuous at best.
Isn't this a bit contradictory as people that are seeking asylum at the border aren't doing anything illegal?
Trump is expected to announce an order tomorrow blocking anyone crossing the US border illegally from claiming Asylum if they are subject to "a travel ban like proclamation issued by The President."
Clara Jeffery is the Editor in Chief of Mother Jones
Basically, it looks like Trump wants permission for his travel bans to ban people requesting asylum too, which might be leading up to a travel ban on Honduras. The legal grounds for this order are tenuous at best.
Isn't this a bit contradictory as people that are seeking asylum at the border aren't doing anything illegal?
It's aimed at people who don't realize that.
He's also going to make it illegal to drive on the left hand side of all border crossings, and you have to get your passport marked by permanent ink if you enter our country.
I'm sure this order doesn't apply to white Christians seeking g asylum
I was going to make a comment about all the Christians fleeing persecution in various war-torn countries in the Middle East who are caught up in the Muslim ban, but then I noticed you had the qualifier of "white."
I'm sure this order doesn't apply to white Christians seeking g asylum
I was going to make a comment about all the Christians fleeing persecution in various war-torn countries in the Middle East who are caught up in the Muslim ban, but then I noticed you had the qualifier of "white."
Yes. The Republicans love to whine about how shops say "the Holidays" rather than "Christmas" and call it "oppression" but they have absolutely zero sympathy for Christians in places like Pakistan or Egypt who are genuinely in danger for their faith. No asylum for them, no sir.
99% of the time you hear a christian complaining about persecution, they have never been persecuted in their life, and 9 times out of 10 are trying to persecute others.
There is persecution of Christians in the world, but these Christians generally don't complain about it, because if they did, they'd get shot for being Christians.
99% of the time you hear a christian complaining about persecution, they have never been oppressed in their life, and 9 times out of 10 are trying to persecute others.
There is persecution of Christians in the world, but these Christians generally don't complain about it, because if they did, they'd get shot for being Christians.
Pfft, what about the war on Christmas? Fox tells.me about it all the time.
0
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
99% of the time you hear a christian complaining about persecution, they have never been oppressed in their life, and 9 times out of 10 are trying to persecute others.
There is persecution of Christians in the world, but these Christians generally don't complain about it, because if they did, they'd get shot for being Christians.
Pfft, what about the war on Christmas? Fox tells.me about it all the time.
The war on Christmas is long over. Coca Cola won, and they parade their captives around every year to remind us.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
+33
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
ICE and the Drug Enforcement Agency have been planting concealed cameras in streetlights across the US. Unknown locations, unknown numbers, so much how surveillance they have been doing is can't be known, as well as how legal any of this is, but secret police have never cared about such things as "laws."
So obligatory "Abolish ICE" here with bonus "End the war on drugs."
The US War on Drugs in many ways is over, at least in the sense that the outcome has been decided, and the US authorities have lost in pretty much every arena it's been fought in.
I feel like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror have both really, in many ways, been the Conservative cover and breeding ground for what is now the War on Immigrants. This current crisis where immigrants are being horribly persecuted is the logical result of decades of demonisation of Muslims, people from Central and South America... anyone coming into the country who isn't white really. They're either potential terrorists or potential drug gang members in the eyes of the right.
+16
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
I mean when you get down to it the 'War on Drugs' and the 'War on Terror' were basically race wars of the white power structure against nonwhite people. Now they're abandoning the dog whistles for Trump-branded foghorns.
ICE and the Drug Enforcement Agency have been planting concealed cameras in streetlights across the US. Unknown locations, unknown numbers, so much how surveillance they have been doing is can't be known, as well as how legal any of this is, but secret police have never cared about such things as "laws."
So obligatory "Abolish ICE" here with bonus "End the war on drugs."
Very illegal. They would need a permit from the municipality or county to touch any of those public streetlights. It's a big thing with the roll out of 5G wireless wanting to do basically the same thing bit with antennaes rather than panopticons.
moniker on
+11
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The short of it is that there is truth behind 7-Eleven having a lot of store managers / owners / employees that are immigrants. It's all above-board in that regard. Somewhere after the turn of the millennium the business started seeing less profits at the corporate end. Rather than take measures like every other company has to accommodate for rising wages and such (not that they're rising as much as they should be, as an aside), corporate started to increase penalties and demands on franchisees. And they fought back, including lawsuits.
So cut to now with ICE under the Trump administration going after anyone who is brown or doesn't have a Mike Johnson name. The current CEO of 7-Eleven, Joseph DePinto, has been calling ICE to his own company's locations as a new weapon against the franchisees he hates.
A federal judge pointed to President Donald Trump’s shockingly disparaging comments about immigrants and foreigners in his ruling that allows a lawsuit to proceed that seeks to block a census question on citizenship status.
U.S. District Judge George Hazel said in a ruling in Maryland on Friday that plaintiffs had properly supported their claim that a Trump administration decision to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time in 70 years was motivated at least in part by discrimination.
In reaching his decision he cited Trump’s widely reported comment in January at a private meeting with lawmakers “distinguishing immigrants of color— ‘these people from shithole countries’—from white immigrants from countries like Norway,” the judge wrote.
Hazel also noted Trump’s “degrading comparisons of immigrants to ‘animals’ who ‘infest’ the country.”
While “these statements were not made specifically in relation to the citizenship question, they are nonetheless relevant to understanding the administration’s motivations,” the judge wrote. “And while the use of racial slurs, epithets, or other derogatory language does not alone prove discriminatory intent, it is evidence that official action may be motivated by such an unlawful purpose.”
Posts
They're just pro-war and trying to make it sound sympathetic.
Playing army is way easier than joining the army
This sort of thing is the biggest reason I think the GOP would regret fucking with the 14th via administrative fiat. If you want to start making the argument that you can play fast and loose with definitions and interpretations of amendments via executive action, the 2nd is absolutely primed to eat shit.
That would require conservatives to have any sort of consistency with their justifications for their worldview, and the moral fortitude to actually stick to those consistencies.
Unbelievable.
There are a non-zero number of conservatives who didn't realize that Colbert was doing a bit at all.
I would bet that they are slow-walking it like with his stupid parade.
They won't directly countermand a legal order, the pentagon isn't about to stage a coup.
i also didn't think that the rollback would happen quite so quickly.
Only cowards cut and run!
Sending the military to the border to halt (some how) a bunch of mostly unarmed civilians was never a good look.
Court rules against Trump in ending DACA
Clara Jeffery is the Editor in Chief of Mother Jones
Basically, it looks like Trump wants permission for his travel bans to ban people requesting asylum too, which might be leading up to a travel ban on Honduras. The legal grounds for this order are tenuous at best.
Sounds like he got even more impatient about it and couldn't wait for Friday to kick it all off:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46147137
Short version: DoJ and DHS made a statement that Trump can just plain end asylum declarations coming from the southern border.
Sessions was already a lapdog in this regard. The only thing he disagreed with the President on is the existence of the Mueller investigation.
Ok, so, this is where they claim the authority to do it:
I'm looking at those sections.
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1687.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
And they both start with "aliens can apply anywhere, even if not at a POE" and the clause they reference says that they're allowed to make additional conditions or limitations 'consistent with this section'.
The existing exceptions have nothing to do with manner of entry, all pertain to whether the person in question is a danger or a former oppressor of others.
IANAL, but I don't see how "or crossed over an arbitrary line" is an exception or limitation consistent with those sections.
Technically it doesn't apply to anyone yet.
It sets up the premise that if Trump makes a proclamation regarding the US-Mexico border, after the effective date of this rule, that creates a condition forbidding entry via the US-Mexico border, then people who enter in contravention of it will not be eligible for asylum. (The proclamation may contain (racist, probably) exceptions)
...except when they still are?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-24594.pdf
Once you get into it, I'm a little confused as to what it actually does. Actual text is all the way at the end:
Sounds like it just raises the bar from credible fear to reasonable fear?
@fightinfilipino is that... What is that?
Is this more bark than bite?
Fun fact: This was signed by Sessions Nov 6th.
it seems to try to pull a sleight of hand with the "reasonable" language.
problem is, the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is statute, not regulation, explicitly sets the evidentiary standard applicable to asylum applicants:
"reasonable" language is nowhere in the statute. the standard according to Congress is "credible" testimony. what Trump is trying to do here is ultra vires on its face, and a normal court should hold that Congress has explicitly spoken on this matter.
the other part where Trump is trying to restrict asylum applicants to applying only at port of entries and only if they've entered lawfully is also ultra vires on its face. the statute explicitly contradicts him:
these are invalid on their face. Trump and DHS cannot promulgate the regulations as they've been written because they fly in the face of statute, which (pardon the word) trumps any regulation.
in short, Fuck Trump, he's fucking wrong.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Isn't this a bit contradictory as people that are seeking asylum at the border aren't doing anything illegal?
It's aimed at people who don't realize that.
He's also going to make it illegal to drive on the left hand side of all border crossings, and you have to get your passport marked by permanent ink if you enter our country.
I was going to make a comment about all the Christians fleeing persecution in various war-torn countries in the Middle East who are caught up in the Muslim ban, but then I noticed you had the qualifier of "white."
Yes. The Republicans love to whine about how shops say "the Holidays" rather than "Christmas" and call it "oppression" but they have absolutely zero sympathy for Christians in places like Pakistan or Egypt who are genuinely in danger for their faith. No asylum for them, no sir.
There is persecution of Christians in the world, but these Christians generally don't complain about it, because if they did, they'd get shot for being Christians.
Pfft, what about the war on Christmas? Fox tells.me about it all the time.
The war on Christmas is long over. Coca Cola won, and they parade their captives around every year to remind us.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
So obligatory "Abolish ICE" here with bonus "End the war on drugs."
I feel like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror have both really, in many ways, been the Conservative cover and breeding ground for what is now the War on Immigrants. This current crisis where immigrants are being horribly persecuted is the logical result of decades of demonisation of Muslims, people from Central and South America... anyone coming into the country who isn't white really. They're either potential terrorists or potential drug gang members in the eyes of the right.
Very illegal. They would need a permit from the municipality or county to touch any of those public streetlights. It's a big thing with the roll out of 5G wireless wanting to do basically the same thing bit with antennaes rather than panopticons.
The short of it is that there is truth behind 7-Eleven having a lot of store managers / owners / employees that are immigrants. It's all above-board in that regard. Somewhere after the turn of the millennium the business started seeing less profits at the corporate end. Rather than take measures like every other company has to accommodate for rising wages and such (not that they're rising as much as they should be, as an aside), corporate started to increase penalties and demands on franchisees. And they fought back, including lawsuits.
So cut to now with ICE under the Trump administration going after anyone who is brown or doesn't have a Mike Johnson name. The current CEO of 7-Eleven, Joseph DePinto, has been calling ICE to his own company's locations as a new weapon against the franchisees he hates.