[Discussion] The Donald Trump Administration

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits.

Serious D&D question here. What was done previously and what should be done now? I don’t think “family concentration camps” sounds any better, but how do you process someone seeking asylum while also not just waving them into the country indefinitely? What’s the process? Did we previously give them temporary papers and then allow them to find housing or did we provide housing. Serious question, because even if you were doing this humanely and without abject malice or racism there would be a logistical problem of how someone is half in the country, but not fully allowed in.

I’m admitting that I have no clue how things used to work.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

The idea that a reasonable solution is to detain families together indefinitely is both utterly maddening and baffling.

That report didn't say anything about indefinitely, but it wouldn't surprise me if that language was in the order.

edit: Oilyhausered

I missed whatever 'deal' you are talking about in this context.

This specific new version of a horror movie is him signing something to undo something he ordered. The fact that it tries to put a smiley face on indefinite holding of families vs separating them isn't a deal, it's just his trying to find some way out of the situation he created. And hopefully it won't because from what I've read, it sounds like the new plan is to keep the families together until they can be convicted of a crime at which point the policy is to again rip the kids from the now convicted parents.

DSGamer wrote:

Serious D&D question here. What was done previously and what should be done now? I don’t think “family concentration camps” sounds any better, but how do you process someone seeking asylum while also not just waving them into the country indefinitely? What’s the process? Did we previously give them temporary papers and then allow them to find housing or did we provide housing. Serious question, because even if you were doing this humanely and without abject malice or racism there would be a logistical problem of how someone is half in the country, but not fully allowed in.

I’m admitting that I have no clue how things used to work.

Honestly, you release them with a court date. That was what has been done in the past. Asylum, seekers are better off going to the court and getting their status certified than skipping the case.

And the reality is, illegal immigration is on the downturn. There was no actual crisis, it was manufactured by Trump to get his base motivated to vote. And you know how his base feels about brown people.

The more I look at the situation, the more I would prefer opening the doors much wider. Make it easier to get a green card and work in this country. Educate their children so they become productive members of society. Collect taxes from them to support their needs.

Every terrorist and drug smuggler that wants in is getting in. The crackdown is only hurting families and children. It's time we, as a nation, stop acting like frightened, cornered animal when it comes to immigration, and look for ways to embrace them. We need to stop letting leaders that dehumanize immigrants with their words scare us into treating them as less then us. They are us.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/QlST6tI.png)

Here's the text of the executive order, via Vox.

It doesn't say anything about indefinite detention, but it does mention modifying the Flores settlement to detain families until their cases are completed. That can take years.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Under our laws, the only legal way for an alien to enter this country is at a designated port of entry at an appropriate time. When an alien enters or attempts to enter the country anywhere else, that alien has committed at least the crime of improper entry and is subject to a fine or imprisonment under section 1325(a) of title 8, United States Code. This Administration will initiate proceedings to enforce this and other criminal provisions of the INA until and unless Congress directs otherwise. It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order, the following definitions apply:

(a) “Alien family” means

(i) any person not a citizen or national of the United States who has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States, who entered this country with an alien child or alien children at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained; and

(ii) that person’s alien child or alien children.

(b) “Alien child” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States who

(i) has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States;

(ii) is under the age of 18; and

(iii) has a legal parent-child relationship to an alien who entered the United States with the alien child at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained.

Sec. 3. Temporary Detention Policy for Families Entering this Country Illegally. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.

(b) The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child’s alien parent would pose a risk to the child’s welfare.

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

(d) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, make available to the Secretary, for the housing and care of alien families pending court proceedings for improper entry, any facilities that are appropriate for such purposes. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.

Sec. 4. Prioritization of Immigration Proceedings Involving Alien Families. The Attorney General shall, to the extent practicable, prioritize the adjudication of cases involving detained families.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 20, 2018.

BadKen wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

The idea that a reasonable solution is to detain families together indefinitely is both utterly maddening and baffling.

That report didn't say anything about indefinitely, but it wouldn't surprise me if that language was in the order.

From the executive order:

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.

The Flores settlement is the court order that protects children from mistreatment, including a 20-day limit on how long they can hold the children. Note the language about "present resource constraints" and "throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings". These things can stretch on for years.

We're going down the route of an entire generation of children being raised in concentration camps on American soil. The government will be trying to deport them, often to places where they'll be killed (remember, many of these people are claiming asylum).

Next step is lawsuits. Remember the Muslim ban lawsuits? Expect a repeat of that, only this time with thousands of families in already in custody without much access to legal representation.

Rahmen wrote:

I missed whatever 'deal' you are talking about in this context.

This specific new version of a horror movie is him signing something to undo something he ordered. The fact that it tries to put a smiley face on indefinite holding of families vs separating them isn't a deal, it's just his trying to find some way out of the situation he created. And hopefully it won't because from what I've read, it sounds like the new plan is to keep the families together until they can be convicted of a crime at which point the policy is to again rip the kids from the now convicted parents.

Senate democrats didn't deal.

Trump reversing his policy is the fastest way to put a stop to the policy. It also limits what points he scores with his deplorables because he was pressured to back down.

Is the problem solved? No. But AT THE MOMENT, the international embarrassment caused by our president is as managed as it can be.

The senate needs to take ALL ambiguity out of the 97 ruling without sending money for a stupid f*cking wall.
ICE needs dismantled.
Some process needs put in place to reunite those children with their parents.
After reading the actual ruling, we need to keep families from being put into concentration camps for years for the crime of wanting a better life.

Lot of work to do still.

oilypenguin wrote:
Rahmen wrote:

I missed whatever 'deal' you are talking about in this context.

This specific new version of a horror movie is him signing something to undo something he ordered. The fact that it tries to put a smiley face on indefinite holding of families vs separating them isn't a deal, it's just his trying to find some way out of the situation he created. And hopefully it won't because from what I've read, it sounds like the new plan is to keep the families together until they can be convicted of a crime at which point the policy is to again rip the kids from the now convicted parents.

Senate democrats didn't deal.

Trump reversing his policy is the fastest way to put a stop to the policy. It also limits what points he scores with his deplorables because he was pressured to back down.

Is the problem solved? No. But AT THE MOMENT, the international embarrassment caused by our president is as managed as it can be.

The senate needs to take ALL ambiguity out of the 97 ruling without sending money for a stupid f*cking wall.
ICE needs dismantled.
Some process needs put in place to reunite those children with their parents.
After reading the actual ruling, we need to keep families from being put into concentration camps for years for the crime of wanting a better life.

Lot of work to do still.

This was a good first step. But, yeah, there is a lot of work to do. The insanity is, we paying a ton of money to house and feed thousands of people that would prefer to work and pay taxes while awaiting their court hearing. It's insanity.

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Oh, and note this bit. The EO is moving the housing from DHS to Defense. We're going to put them on military bases and build military-run concentration camps.

Gremlin wrote:
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Oh, and note this bit. The EO is moving the housing from DHS to Defense. We're going to put them on military bases and build military-run concentration camps.

This is, i suspect, a response to the significant number of DHS civilians quiting over this, something military personal are less prone (or able) to do.

thrawn82 wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Oh, and note this bit. The EO is moving the housing from DHS to Defense. We're going to put them on military bases and build military-run concentration camps.

This is, i suspect, a response to the significant number of DHS civilians quiting over this, something military personal are less prone (or able) to do.

Pretty scary when you consider the long term effects of the fanatics being the only ones left in DHS.

The policy problem with letting refugees work while awaiting processing is the floodgates argument - that it will undermine the actual foreign work visa pathways and everyone will claim refugee status for the free work permit. Australia had the same issue a few years ago when many Afghan and Sri Lankan refugees were arriving by boats. It cost over a billion annually to imprison thousands of asylum seekers but the government viewed it as a deterrent (notwithstanding it's illegality under international law). It's not an easy problem to resolve.

Bfgp wrote:

The policy problem with letting refugees work while awaiting processing is the floodgates argument - that it will undermine the actual foreign work visa pathways and everyone will claim refugee status for the free work permit.

I'm not following you here...the issue is that they're locking up asylum seekers unnecessarily, working doesn't have much to do with it that I can see?

I mean, for a lot of these people there was no particular reason to lock them up at all. Their only 'crime' was to follow the government-mandated procedures for applying for asylum in the United States.

Spoiler:

As a side note, I'd be perfectly fine expanding work visas because the US's current system is actually a mess and we can probably absorb way more people than we are currently letting in. Unemployment is so low that we're currently discussing raising the fed rate. Yeah, wages have stagnated, but that's completely unrelated to the labor force.

All of which is beside the point.

Bfgp wrote:

The policy problem with letting refugees work while awaiting processing is the floodgates argument - that it will undermine the actual foreign work visa pathways and everyone will claim refugee status for the free work permit. Australia had the same issue a few years ago when many Afghan and Sri Lankan refugees were arriving by boats. It cost over a billion annually to imprison thousands of asylum seekers but the government viewed it as a deterrent (notwithstanding it's illegality under international law). It's not an easy problem to resolve.

Except that this was no crisis. We had been doing this for years and years. Immigration to the US was on the downturn, and more than 2/3 of the people showed up for their hearings with no troubles.

To be honest, I don't know about the other 1/3, so you can make an argument that, hey, baddies may be getting through. But compared to the number of "baddies" already in the country, it's a small number. Oh, and those are OUR baddies. Our white baddies, so we are okay with them.

My point is that arguing this will open the floodgates has been proven wrong since we've been releasing these folks to await court dates since George W Bush was in office.

Also, the asylum process doesn't give them the right to work, so they're not even taking American jobs.

National Enquirer Publisher Subpoenaed in Michael Cohen Investigation

The Wrap wrote:

American Media Inc., the publisher of National Enquirer, has been subpoenaed by federal authorities for records pertaining to the Enquirer’s $150,000 payment to former Playboy model Karen McDougal for her story about an alleged affair with Donald Trump, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The subpoena is seeking the information as part of its criminal investigation into former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

The investigation seeks to determine any possible efforts to quash information that might have been damaging to Trump during his presidential campaign. Those potential efforts would include Cohen working with American Media to pay McDougal for her story and not publish it.

McDougal has alleged that she had an affair lasting nearly a year, starting in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with McDougal.

Prosecutors are looking into whether American Media’s payment to McDougal ran afoul of campaign-finance laws or other types of laws, according to the Journal.

David Pecker, the CEO of American Media, Inc., is a long-time friend of Trump. There's been multiple reports that Pecker promoted stories during the campaign that made Trump's rivals look bad and that he spiked negative stories about Trump. He also paid $30,000 to a former Trump security guard for exclusive rights to a story that Trump knocked up a Trump Organization employee and then killed it.

oilypenguin wrote:

2018 and I find myself agreeing with Gerlado Rivera.

And this is why we need to demand the policy ends outright prior to congress changing the '97 ruling. The outrage is there, the outrage is real, the outrage is bi-partisan. We should be in the streets.

(R) Portman is on board now as well.

Do NOT read the comments.

Ok f*ck this. f*ck him and f*ck this and we still need to march.

No plans to reunite the thousands already separated.

And a Health and Human Services official said that more than 2,300 children who have already been separated from their parents under the president’s “zero tolerance” policy will not be immediately reunited with their families while the adults remain in federal custody during their immigration proceedings.

“There will not be a grandfathering of existing cases,” said Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Wolfe said the decision about the children was made by the White House, but he added, “I can tell you definitively that is going to be policy.”

Gremlin wrote:

Also, the asylum process doesn't give them the right to work, so they're not even taking American jobs.

Also, nobody can "take" a job. They're given by employers, unless I've just been interviewing all this time like a sucker.

Otherwise, is it just a Mexican thing, or can I show up at work tomorrow and say I'm now the CEO?

IMAGE(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Look-At-Me.jpg)

Nimcosi wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

2018 and I find myself agreeing with Gerlado Rivera.

And this is why we need to demand the policy ends outright prior to congress changing the '97 ruling. The outrage is there, the outrage is real, the outrage is bi-partisan. We should be in the streets.

(R) Portman is on board now as well.

Do NOT read the comments. :(

Sometimes I wish that in order to comment, you had your picture and phone number posted right there beside it. Wouldn’t need a comment section anymore. Comment sections are 100% useless.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

Also, the asylum process doesn't give them the right to work, so they're not even taking American jobs.

Also, nobody can "take" a job. They're given by employers, unless I've just been interviewing all this time like a sucker.

Otherwise, is it just a Mexican thing, or can I show up at work tomorrow and say I'm now the CEO?

IMAGE(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Look-At-Me.jpg)

Yeah, this is always what drove me nuts. I grew up in a farm town and did farm labor in the 80s. Back when you could pay a kid to do farm work. And back before kids became so busy that farm labor wasn't a particularly great use of one's time. I remember personally being "displaced" from that kind of work as my grandpa decided I should get a job at the local pizza place, because he could hire an illegal immigrant for less money.

More importantly, he saw, the same as every American saw, what was coming. It made more sense for me to be in school, studying, doing extracurricular activities and getting ready for a competitive global work force, than it did for me to be doing farm labor. My mom was the first person in her family to graduate college. I was the second.

As much as this is a "problem" in the US, it's always started and ended with us, the Americans. There are studies, of course, about how immigration is not only a net good, but necessary depending on your growth rate. If we wanted to we could save all these jobs for Americans. It would still be a bad idea for growth, but it's possible. Employers would have to be willing to make less money. Consumers would have to be willing to spend more money.

Either way no one is taking the jobs. We gave them away. I was there and watched it first-hand.

thrawn82 wrote:

the significant number of DHS civilians quiting over this, something military personal are less prone (or able) to do.

Curious, do you have a source for this? I work for USCIS and haven't seen anything like it. Granted, we are geographically and jurisdictionally distant from the issues at hand.

Speaking generally: I apologize for the bosses that will likely never know I exist. This is my career and I am as compassionate as the law allows while we wait out the better bosses that are hopefully 3 years away.

DSGamer wrote:

Serious D&D question here. What was done previously and what should be done now? I don’t think “family concentration camps” sounds any better, but how do you process someone seeking asylum while also not just waving them into the country indefinitely? What’s the process? Did we previously give them temporary papers and then allow them to find housing or did we provide housing. Serious question, because even if you were doing this humanely and without abject malice or racism there would be a logistical problem of how someone is half in the country, but not fully allowed in.

I’m admitting that I have no clue how things used to work.

Something important to understand here is that most asylum seekers are already in the country, admitted on visitor or student visas. Generally they come, get supported by USC or LPR family or friends from their country.

The influx at the southern border being this heavy is a new thing. It's a new thing because the populations there do not meet the definition of asylee or refugee. Gang violence isn't generally targeted at particular social or political groups. People seem to be willing to risk getting denied asylum and remaining illegally, because things are getting rougher than ever in central America.

This is only true in the loosest sense. The immigration court backlogs are crazy and after 5 months asylum applicants can get work authorization.

Blind_Evil wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Serious D&D question here. What was done previously and what should be done now? I don’t think “family concentration camps” sounds any better, but how do you process someone seeking asylum while also not just waving them into the country indefinitely? What’s the process? Did we previously give them temporary papers and then allow them to find housing or did we provide housing. Serious question, because even if you were doing this humanely and without abject malice or racism there would be a logistical problem of how someone is half in the country, but not fully allowed in.

I’m admitting that I have no clue how things used to work.

Something important to understand here is that most asylum seekers are already in the country, admitted on visitor or student visas. Generally they come, get supported by USC or LPR family or friends from their country.

The influx at the southern border being this heavy is a new thing. It's a new thing because the populations there do not meet the definition of asylee or refugee. Gang violence isn't generally targeted at particular social or political groups. People seem to be willing to risk getting denied asylum and remaining illegally, because things are getting rougher than ever in central America.

Any insight into why Central America is getting"rougher"?

If an El Salvadoran woman (especially a teen) fleeing gangs of thugs who are taking slave "wives" at gunpoint doesn't meet the definition of refugee or asylum seeker, then we either need a new category, or one of those should be revised.

I don't have any unique perspective on it. I work with someone that worked at the DHS attache in the consulate in Guatemala and she gave me the impression it's a lot to do with ineffectual and/or corrupt government. They can't stimulate the economies, which leads to people making a living through elicit means. The police aren't well funded enough to combat the gangs (side note: the gang issue in the U.S. is, IMO, exaggerated by the administration, but does exist. Even as far north as Massachusetts I've seen a few 14-15 year olds who have admitted to committing murder in El Salvador.)

BadKen wrote:

If an El Salvadoran woman (especially a teen) fleeing gangs of thugs who are taking slave "wives" at gunpoint doesn't meet the definition of refugee or asylum seeker, then we either need a new category, or one of those should be revised.

Sessions issued a ruling about ten days ago saying that fear of gang violence or sexual assault wasn't enough to qualify for asylum anymore.