>President Donald Trump on Friday confirmed that the White House is considering a plan to release detained immigrants in cities that have said they will shelter immigrants living in the country unlawfully.
>"Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only," the president wrote in a post on Twitter.
>"....The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!" the president wrote in a second tweet.
http://archive.is/SmXjX
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 423B1B1E548CC1052ED754ACC9874360-34745.jpg (33.9 KB, 799x418, $TW96OAL2.jpg)
>>216460
I think the reasoning is like this. The House and Senate have put a limit on number of illegals that can be held at any given time. So to get that limited number to best use he chooses not to keep illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities under control. Let the sanctuary cities handle them and house them and feed them. Also one a illegal gets into the US and claims asylum there is a process where a judge has to review the case. And if that judge says there is no grounds for asylum the illegal immigrant can appeal the decision and in the end it takes years. And if you also take into account that each year more illegals come than what the immigration courts can handle the backlog of cases just keeps on growing.
I think the reasoning is like this. The House and Senate have put a limit on number of illegals that can be held at any given time. So to get that limited number to best use he chooses not to keep illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities under control. Let the sanctuary cities handle them and house them and feed them. Also one a illegal gets into the US and claims asylum there is a process where a judge has to review the case. And if that judge says there is no grounds for asylum the illegal immigrant can appeal the decision and in the end it takes years. And if you also take into account that each year more illegals come than what the immigration courts can handle the backlog of cases just keeps on growing.
File (): B1003054668F45DD9CB832AB7F60B63F-182591.jpg (178.3 KB, 1493x1300, 1494531667085-0.jpg)
This is ridiculous. It's basically the same as letting them in. Just fucking deport them already for fuck's sake.
>>216473
Agree. But once they get in it is not easy to get rid of them without the UN starting to bitch about international treaties and muh human rights. Only effective way is to prevent them getting in in the first place. 2nd most effective way is to burn the UN building to the ground and deport them.
Agree. But once they get in it is not easy to get rid of them without the UN starting to bitch about international treaties and muh human rights. Only effective way is to prevent them getting in in the first place. 2nd most effective way is to burn the UN building to the ground and deport them.
File (): 9825103BA410EACFA5D564EBF9B87FB1-42966.jpg (42.0 KB, 799x449, $R4VN4GKJ.jpg)
>Trump proposal for sanctuary cities infuriates Dems
>Democrats are fuming over President Trump's consideration of a plan to move asylum seekers to "sanctuary cities" as a form of political retribution.
>President Trump on Friday confirmed the proposal in a tweet, saying, "we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities."
>"This reflects how much policymakers at the highest level of a government don't understand what they're dealing with," Correa said before Trump's tweet. "When they say they're going to punish sanctuary states, don't they understand these workers are needed in this economy?"
>Correa said he would consult with House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on how the panel could respond to the proposal.
>Thompson accused the administration of "playing politics with the country's homeland security."
>"The fact that this idea was even considered - not once but twice - serves as a reminder that the Trump Administration's reckless immigration agenda is not about keeping the country safe, but about partisan politics and wantonly inflicting cruelty," said Thompson in a statement Friday before Trump weighed in on the matter.
>Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Matthew Albence, then the acting deputy director of the agency, flatly rejected the proposal in November, arguing the expenditure of shuttling immigrants set for release was unjustified, according to the Post.
>"Why did Secretary Nielsen get fired? She disagreed with the president on following the law," said Correa. "Does that mean that whenever people at Homeland want to follow the law, they get fired?"
>Correa also praised the individuals who leaked documents about the White House's consideration of the proposal.
>"We want whistleblowers in government because we want our concerned workers, our concerned citizens, to stand up and say, 'something is going wrong,'" said Correa. "Whoever it is that leaked this stuff, I just want to thank them."
http://archive.is/BzGx9
>Democrats are fuming over President Trump's consideration of a plan to move asylum seekers to "sanctuary cities" as a form of political retribution.
>President Trump on Friday confirmed the proposal in a tweet, saying, "we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities."
>"This reflects how much policymakers at the highest level of a government don't understand what they're dealing with," Correa said before Trump's tweet. "When they say they're going to punish sanctuary states, don't they understand these workers are needed in this economy?"
>Correa said he would consult with House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on how the panel could respond to the proposal.
>Thompson accused the administration of "playing politics with the country's homeland security."
>"The fact that this idea was even considered - not once but twice - serves as a reminder that the Trump Administration's reckless immigration agenda is not about keeping the country safe, but about partisan politics and wantonly inflicting cruelty," said Thompson in a statement Friday before Trump weighed in on the matter.
>Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Matthew Albence, then the acting deputy director of the agency, flatly rejected the proposal in November, arguing the expenditure of shuttling immigrants set for release was unjustified, according to the Post.
>"Why did Secretary Nielsen get fired? She disagreed with the president on following the law," said Correa. "Does that mean that whenever people at Homeland want to follow the law, they get fired?"
>Correa also praised the individuals who leaked documents about the White House's consideration of the proposal.
>"We want whistleblowers in government because we want our concerned workers, our concerned citizens, to stand up and say, 'something is going wrong,'" said Correa. "Whoever it is that leaked this stuff, I just want to thank them."
http://archive.is/BzGx9
File (): 82BFAC19BBBE5C6F60870280CC2FC547-597210.png (583.2 KB, 3345x5000, vector__727___tempest_shadow_by_dashiesparkle-dbesftq.png)
>>216459
>Trump 'giving strong considerations' to releasing ICE detainees 'in sanctuary cities only
>releasing
I am done with him.
Every day is more clear the ZOG agenda, no matter the candidate, be to right or to the left; White Genocide is the common goal.
>Trump 'giving strong considerations' to releasing ICE detainees 'in sanctuary cities only
>releasing
I am done with him.
Every day is more clear the ZOG agenda, no matter the candidate, be to right or to the left; White Genocide is the common goal.
Keep in mind the asylum seekers are legally entitled to make their case in court. They are sitting around because their cases aren't being heard. (not citizens so no "right to a speedy trial") Allegedly they aren't being heard because Trump doesn't want some of them to be granted asylum. I don't know why he didn't just bite the bullet and hear the cases. I imagine most would be kicked out. They can't be kicked out any other way. I'm not sure if this is damage control (keeping them in camps looks bad) or if he hopes their presence will create negative press opinion on immigrants. Who knows where the issue will go next?
File (): 98E9B3D7F83ECC45B40F0F00E2829154-321762.png (314.2 KB, 1280x720, 89721234-CE0A-41C0-932F-7354EC6053F1.png)
>>216510
>>216473
>>216460
He literally can’t remove them. The US is legally forced to let them stay here long enough to have a hearing on whether they qualify for asylum. Thanks to leftist judges, they can’t be sent to Mexico during this period, and thanks to limited bedspace and leftist judges they can’t be detained. He is forced to release them by law. Donald a Trump is not a dictator with that much power.
>>216473
>>216460
He literally can’t remove them. The US is legally forced to let them stay here long enough to have a hearing on whether they qualify for asylum. Thanks to leftist judges, they can’t be sent to Mexico during this period, and thanks to limited bedspace and leftist judges they can’t be detained. He is forced to release them by law. Donald a Trump is not a dictator with that much power.
File (): 3F8E7B73A3E06BEE2B99CB1F54A74F64-331926.gif (324.1 KB, 712x564, 589845BC-0D9D-4295-AB34-43F2E887DD6C.gif)
>>216532
No one voted for those judges, yet they rule US immigration policies alongside the UN refugee treaty
No one voted for those judges, yet they rule US immigration policies alongside the UN refugee treaty
File (): C4B75BB024B489092DD1E8AF8CAA581E-114368.jpg (111.7 KB, 1600x1500, 1522269791299.jpeg)
>>216536
>>216532
>>216535
You do realize that there are legitimate reasons to use a court of law to determine if someone should be granted asylum or not? Not everyone who seeks asylum is just another form of immigrant. Not to mention voting for judges instead of appointing them makes them even more politicized. Judges may be left or right leaning but are still bound by laws, precedent, and strategic legal decision making (judges that make too many radical decisions are not likely to get promoted/appointed up so they generally don't go off the wall with policy like elected officials do sometimes). If anything we should just change how "asylum seeker" is defined by law instead of trying to shoot ourselves in the food dismantling our own court system.
>>216532
>>216535
You do realize that there are legitimate reasons to use a court of law to determine if someone should be granted asylum or not? Not everyone who seeks asylum is just another form of immigrant. Not to mention voting for judges instead of appointing them makes them even more politicized. Judges may be left or right leaning but are still bound by laws, precedent, and strategic legal decision making (judges that make too many radical decisions are not likely to get promoted/appointed up so they generally don't go off the wall with policy like elected officials do sometimes). If anything we should just change how "asylum seeker" is defined by law instead of trying to shoot ourselves in the food dismantling our own court system.
>>216461
I think it's also a PR move, although I don't know how effective it will be.
the democrats constantly shill how much they love these illegals but when Trump says he will send them there they completely freak out. it makes them look like total hypocrites.
it's too early to tell but Trump isn't looking good if you look at his numbers state by state. I think he's at a point where he's gearing up for 2020 and trying to win back some voters.
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&map=true
I think it's also a PR move, although I don't know how effective it will be.
the democrats constantly shill how much they love these illegals but when Trump says he will send them there they completely freak out. it makes them look like total hypocrites.
it's too early to tell but Trump isn't looking good if you look at his numbers state by state. I think he's at a point where he's gearing up for 2020 and trying to win back some voters.
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&map=true
File (): A2EAE13E12E6E24775DB559C497959EF-115490.jpg (112.8 KB, 754x799, 1297052428665.jpg)
>>216541
We should just stop giving people asylum in the first place so we don't have to process anyone's claim. Fuck these third world shitbags, I'm tired of them coming over here just to leech off of us.
We should just stop giving people asylum in the first place so we don't have to process anyone's claim. Fuck these third world shitbags, I'm tired of them coming over here just to leech off of us.
File (): 96F9F6E1A63386AA12FFB1F658F7016F-62847.jpg (61.4 KB, 1098x957, 4537C0F4-547C-4884-9701-47BE5D456B2E.jpeg)
>>216541
Nigger don’t give me that shit. I’ve argued asylum cases on behalf of DHS in immigration courts and won.
The law concerning refugees and asylees comes from the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and it’s codification into US law in the Refugee Act If 1980. It gives a right of asylum to those with a reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. Those grounds are Political opinion, Nationality, Race, Religion, and Membership in a Parricular Social group. Hearings to determine if an alien claiming asylum actually estsblishes a valid claim to asylum (after an officer has determined they have a credible fear) are held before special Immigration Judges in Immigration Courts under the Executive Offive for Immigration Review, a part of the US Department of Justice, and a right of appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and from there to the US Federal Circuit Courts and the United States Supreme Court. Aliens are said to have a right to a hearing.
The issue is that almost none of the asylum claimants can actually establish a right to asylum under the law as it is written. They cannot satisfy the “on account of a protected ground” part of the law, even with the meaning of “membership in a particular social group” being stretched. Fearing crime in Honduras is not grounds for asylum under the law as it is now. So aliens claiming asylum wait for years on end for a hearing that they are extremely unlikely to win. Wait times (for non-detained hearings) in Dallas were 2 years when I was working there, 4 years in Arlington Virginia, and 9 months in Orlando, Florida.
Needless to say, aliens skipping out on their hearings or not leaving after an order of removal is issued is extremely common. This is the reason why detention for asylum seekers is preferred. And that is what this whole battle is about. Not about the right to asylum, but about detention of asylum seekers who won’t win in court anyways. The Trump administration has sought to increase the number of beds in detention centers, which as it is are overflowing. This has been blocked in Congress. So he has also tried to detain immigrants in Mexico as their claims are processed. This has been blocked by article 3 US Federal District Court judges. These are the judges I am taking about - Obama appointed federal district court judges holding up changes to detention laws. Not the Immigration Judges who hear asylum claims.
You say the judges are bound by law. The problem with this is that laws are just sets of words, and words are fickle things, which can mean whatever you want them to mean if only you squint hard enough. There are about 870 federal district court judges. Each of them has the power to single handedly stop any law of executive order. It literally takes only one of them to stop anything Trump does at least until an appeals court rules in his favor. 869 out of 870 can agree one of Trump’s executive order, and the 870th guy will ruin it. It really does not help that many of the legal issues in question actually do have some abiguity to them.
Again, this is not about asylum law because almost none of these asylees actually have a valid claim. It’s about their right to a hearing, the limited number of immigration judges available to hear these cases, and the limited ability to detain them so they don’t simply just stay in the US.
Nigger don’t give me that shit. I’ve argued asylum cases on behalf of DHS in immigration courts and won.
The law concerning refugees and asylees comes from the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and it’s codification into US law in the Refugee Act If 1980. It gives a right of asylum to those with a reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. Those grounds are Political opinion, Nationality, Race, Religion, and Membership in a Parricular Social group. Hearings to determine if an alien claiming asylum actually estsblishes a valid claim to asylum (after an officer has determined they have a credible fear) are held before special Immigration Judges in Immigration Courts under the Executive Offive for Immigration Review, a part of the US Department of Justice, and a right of appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and from there to the US Federal Circuit Courts and the United States Supreme Court. Aliens are said to have a right to a hearing.
The issue is that almost none of the asylum claimants can actually establish a right to asylum under the law as it is written. They cannot satisfy the “on account of a protected ground” part of the law, even with the meaning of “membership in a particular social group” being stretched. Fearing crime in Honduras is not grounds for asylum under the law as it is now. So aliens claiming asylum wait for years on end for a hearing that they are extremely unlikely to win. Wait times (for non-detained hearings) in Dallas were 2 years when I was working there, 4 years in Arlington Virginia, and 9 months in Orlando, Florida.
Needless to say, aliens skipping out on their hearings or not leaving after an order of removal is issued is extremely common. This is the reason why detention for asylum seekers is preferred. And that is what this whole battle is about. Not about the right to asylum, but about detention of asylum seekers who won’t win in court anyways. The Trump administration has sought to increase the number of beds in detention centers, which as it is are overflowing. This has been blocked in Congress. So he has also tried to detain immigrants in Mexico as their claims are processed. This has been blocked by article 3 US Federal District Court judges. These are the judges I am taking about - Obama appointed federal district court judges holding up changes to detention laws. Not the Immigration Judges who hear asylum claims.
You say the judges are bound by law. The problem with this is that laws are just sets of words, and words are fickle things, which can mean whatever you want them to mean if only you squint hard enough. There are about 870 federal district court judges. Each of them has the power to single handedly stop any law of executive order. It literally takes only one of them to stop anything Trump does at least until an appeals court rules in his favor. 869 out of 870 can agree one of Trump’s executive order, and the 870th guy will ruin it. It really does not help that many of the legal issues in question actually do have some abiguity to them.
Again, this is not about asylum law because almost none of these asylees actually have a valid claim. It’s about their right to a hearing, the limited number of immigration judges available to hear these cases, and the limited ability to detain them so they don’t simply just stay in the US.
File (): 4306A415226C2EC26769AD2A246D0621-373634.png (364.9 KB, 984x2064, canvas.png)
>>216518
>He literally can’t remove them.
Trump was elected to do a job that he said could do.
It is obvious now that he cheated us. Then he needs the same treatment he gave others for years: He Is Fired!
>He literally can’t remove them.
Trump was elected to do a job that he said could do.
It is obvious now that he cheated us. Then he needs the same treatment he gave others for years: He Is Fired!
>>216543
I think that's why he's showing renew interest in the Raise Act which goes completely contrary to that shit he was spewing at CPAC.
I think there is an overall plan which is why I haven't completely lost hope but it's basically flimsy at this point.
the citizenship question on the 2020 census. if it is upheld then the left's power will be absolutely broken for at least a decade. illegals and foreign born will rightfully avoid being counted. an under count will dramatically shift power away from the democrats. an under count will also cut federal funding to states with a lot of illegals/foreigners. this means democrats will have to choose between gibs for citizens or cut gibs for everybody in their states. it's going to be an absolute chimp out.
that gives me hope but not much.
if the Supreme Court allows the citizenship question to stand, I'll vote for him just for the chimp outs. at this point I don't believe much of anything he says. just a lot of talk otherwise.
I think that's why he's showing renew interest in the Raise Act which goes completely contrary to that shit he was spewing at CPAC.
I think there is an overall plan which is why I haven't completely lost hope but it's basically flimsy at this point.
the citizenship question on the 2020 census. if it is upheld then the left's power will be absolutely broken for at least a decade. illegals and foreign born will rightfully avoid being counted. an under count will dramatically shift power away from the democrats. an under count will also cut federal funding to states with a lot of illegals/foreigners. this means democrats will have to choose between gibs for citizens or cut gibs for everybody in their states. it's going to be an absolute chimp out.
that gives me hope but not much.
if the Supreme Court allows the citizenship question to stand, I'll vote for him just for the chimp outs. at this point I don't believe much of anything he says. just a lot of talk otherwise.
>>216475
> But once they get in it is not easy to get rid of them without the UN starting to bitch about international treaties and muh human rights
Don't fool yourself, no one gives a fuck about the UN. This is 100% internal US politics.
We are the UN, and we can kick that overpaid debate society out if we felt like it.
This is about making the libs choke on their own policies. It's a long article, but apropos, and a worthwhile read.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/witnessing-the-death-of-a-religion/
> But once they get in it is not easy to get rid of them without the UN starting to bitch about international treaties and muh human rights
Don't fool yourself, no one gives a fuck about the UN. This is 100% internal US politics.
We are the UN, and we can kick that overpaid debate society out if we felt like it.
This is about making the libs choke on their own policies. It's a long article, but apropos, and a worthwhile read.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/witnessing-the-death-of-a-religion/
>>216566
Trump really is playing 4D chess! By exposing the liberal hypocrites who are happy to have Rapefugees dumped in everyone ELSE's yards, he makes the "omg immigrashn good" tards lose their faith in the DNC elites!
And why would he do this, if his 4 more years are in the bag? He wants to GET SHIT DONE in those four years, so he wants to reduce the support the libshits have.
Genius!
Hey, what do you think of the "Trump isn't trying to save Assange because he wants to wait around and prove the fake news media won't call for Assange to be saved. He's going to try and save Assange as soon as he wants to, or as soon as the libtards insult him for not trying, meaning they now have to thank him for doing what they want" theory?
Trump really is playing 4D chess! By exposing the liberal hypocrites who are happy to have Rapefugees dumped in everyone ELSE's yards, he makes the "omg immigrashn good" tards lose their faith in the DNC elites!
And why would he do this, if his 4 more years are in the bag? He wants to GET SHIT DONE in those four years, so he wants to reduce the support the libshits have.
Genius!
Hey, what do you think of the "Trump isn't trying to save Assange because he wants to wait around and prove the fake news media won't call for Assange to be saved. He's going to try and save Assange as soon as he wants to, or as soon as the libtards insult him for not trying, meaning they now have to thank him for doing what they want" theory?
23 replies | 12 files | 14 UUIDs | Archived