Member since: Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:09 PM
Number of posts: 251
Number of posts: 251
President Trump(!) signed an executive order on Jan. 25 that vastly expanded the number of undocumented immigrants whose deportation is considered a priority for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Under Obama, ICE prioritized "those who had been convicted of serious crimes, were considered national security threats or were recent arrivals," in the New York Times' words. The Trump order targets criminals but also—among others—those who've been accused of crimes but not convicted, those who have engaged in document fraud, and those who "in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security."
Now, in the past two days, reports have begun to emerge of what seems to be a suddenly increased volume of crackdowns against undocumented immigrants across the country. From the Washington Post:
Immigration activists said Friday that they had documented ICE raids of unusual intensity in the last 48 hours in Vista, Pomona and Compton, Calif.; Austin, Dallas, and Pflugerville, Texas; Alexandria and Annandale, Va.; Charlotte and Burlington, N.C.; Plant City, Fla.; the Hudson Valley region of New York; and Wichita, Kan.
There were also reports of ICE checkpoints, targeting immigrants for random ID checks, in North Carolina and in Austin.
Both immigration activists and the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that some of the individuals who've been detained do not have criminal records.
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/10/ice_deportation_raids_of_undocumented_immigrants_reported_across_u_s.html
The raids against undocumented immigrants we've anticipated have now begun...Sorry if this is a duplicate.
Posted by onetexan | Fri Feb 10, 2017, 08:15 PM (22 replies)
"Austin has become the first battleground in that conflict, where the governor and a local sheriff are now locked in a standoff over the issue. A liberal enclave in the heart of conservative Texas, the capital city lies a little more than three hours from the Mexican border. About 35 percent of its 931,000 residents are Hispanic, according to U.S. Census estimates, and the city is home to a vibrant sanctuary movement that sprang to life during President Barack Obama’s first term, when his administration carried out a record number of deportations.
In November, voters in Travis County, which includes Austin, elected a new sheriff, who campaigned on a promise not to detain people based solely on their immigration status. Hours after Trump took office, Sheriff Sally Hernandez (D) posted an eight-minute video on her official website explaining the new policy, which took effect Wednesday. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), a Trump supporter and immigration hard-liner, quickly fought back, accusing Hernandez of playing “a dangerous game of political Russian roulette — with the lives of Texans at stake... This week, Abbott made good on a threat to withhold $1.5 million in state criminal justice grants, money that funds services for veterans, parents struggling with drug addiction and victims of family violence. He also asked state agencies by Friday to prepare a full list of all state funding provided to Travis County, suggesting that additional punishment may be forthcoming.
Abbott called on lawmakers to act urgently to ban sanctuary cities. A measure drafted by state Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), an Abbott ally, would withhold state funding from cities, counties and colleges that do not comply with immigration detainers. It also would require county jailers to determine and record the immigration status of every arrestee. Supporters and protesters of the legislation crammed into the Texas statehouse Thursday for a hearing of the bill, which, as Perry acknowledged under questioning, does not actually define “sanctuary city.”
Last week, Abbott threatened to oust Hernandez, who was elected with 60 percent of the vote. Legislation to permit him to do so has yet to be filed, but a spokesman for Abbott noted that the threat to cut off state funding was sufficient to persuade the Dallas County sheriff to abandon sanctuary policies last year. Austin, however, is standing firm. Mayor Steve Adler, a Democrat, and other city officials have vowed to support Hernandez, arguing that most undocumented immigrants do not pose a threat to the community and that deportations have ripped local families apart."
I'm waiting for someone like Julian Castro to run for Texas governor or a dynamic woman like Ann Richards. Abbott is disgracefully blinded by his far right ideologies.
Posted by onetexan | Thu Feb 2, 2017, 07:17 PM (2 replies)
Source: Huffington Post
The Commonwealth of Virginia asked a federal judge late Wednesday night to force President Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and top government officials to show why they shouldn’t be held in contempt for failing to obey a lawful court order.
The temporary restraining order issued Saturday night by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia required Customs and Border Protection to allow attorneys access to legal permanent residents that CBP had detained at Dulles International Airport as a result of Trump’s executive order blocking people from seven Muslim-majority nations from traveling to the U.S. Saturday’s court order also forbade CBP from deporting any of the legal permanent residents ― also known as green-card holders ― detained at Dulles for seven days. When federal judges rule against the government, any official implicated in the order, including the president, is supposed to obey ― even if they believe the court’s order is incorrect.
But as The Huffington Post reported this weekend, CBP did not comply with the court’s order. The border agency never let attorneys near the people it was detaining. And when Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and at least four other members of Congress tried to get CBP to comply at various points over the weekend, CBP defied them.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/virginia-trump-contempt_us_5892bb6ae4b070cf8b80b621?
I hope this is the beginning of the unraveling...
Posted by onetexan | Thu Feb 2, 2017, 05:26 AM (11 replies)
1 - Not divesting his businesses: http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/trump-impeachment-campaign-begins-20170126
2 - Defying federal judges' order to cease immigration ban of Muslims: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317282-dem-lawmaker-congress-should-consider-impeaching-trump-if-he
Posted by onetexan | Wed Feb 1, 2017, 02:47 PM (3 replies)
"The situation has forced observers to reckon with a question that has little or no precedent in American history: What happens when the federal government or its agents refuse to honor a court order handed down by a federal judge? By definition, it has to be different from what happens when, say, a state lawmaker flouts the word of a federal judge, since in the past, such cases have involved the president himself sending in the U.S. Marshals to enforce the law. But who will be on what side if things escalate, and the executive branch itself explicitly and continuously refuses to follow the rulings of the judiciary? At what point does the conflict turn into a full-blown constitutional crisis?
“If the reports are true, there are a couple paths to escalate,” said University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Before it gets to that point, though, attempts will have to be made by the judges in question to clarify what they intended with their orders and how exactly officials might be in violation of them. “Most likely,” Baude said, “there will be several rounds of brinksmanship before this rises to the level of a constitutional crisis.”
According to Doug Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, the likelihood that we would see fines or jail time even if a contempt order did come down is very slim—in large part because neither the judge, nor the government, has any interest in having the situation devolve to that point. “Judges are much more likely to threaten sanctions than to actually impose them,” Laycock wrote in an email. What typically happens instead—and it’s worth noting that “typically” here refers to much less fraught circumstances than the ones we face today—is that the judge “tries to keep ramping up the pressure, but tries to avoid reaching the point where he has no choice but to send someone to jail.”
What happens if Trump and his people simply decline to back down, even after a judge gives them an opportunity to comply? According to Waldman, that’s when a judge could call the U.S. Marshals in to enforce the order. In the case of Dulles, that could mean pitting U.S. Marshals against armed agents at airports. “This,” Waldman wrote, “is what sets us up for a darker, dangerous turn.”
Posted by onetexan | Tue Jan 31, 2017, 03:22 PM (3 replies)
Source: Huffington Post
Two journalists arrested while covering President Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington have been charged with felony rioting, an accusation one of their employers called an “affront to the First Amendment.”
Evan Engel of Vocativ and Alexander Rubinstein of RT America were among more than 200 people arrested during anti-Trump demonstrations Friday, The Guardian reports. Most of those people face felony rioting charges, according to CBS.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/journalists-inauguration-protests-felony-riot-charges_us_5887ca89e4b0441a8f71888b?yipmegevaw2ep14i&
Holy crap the crackdown on reporters began inauguration day.
Posted by onetexan | Tue Jan 24, 2017, 07:42 PM (2 replies)
"The FBI is an investigative arm of the Department of Justice. Nothing more, nothing less. An extremely small minority are lawyers, or even have basic legal training. They do not—thank God—decide who gets indicted and who doesn’t. Prosecutors run criminal cases and direct the agents. As many prosecutors have told me over the years, there is almost never an instance where agents who have been investigating a case for months do not recommend for prosecution. Tunnel vision is one reason; the fact that agents rise in the ranks by delivering cases that lead to prosecution is another. That is why prosecutors—and through them, grand juries—make the decision to charge or not. They both serve as a backstop to agents who don’t know the law and have no ability to objectively review their own evidence... What that means is, if the FBI does not even conclude it has enough evidence to write a memo recommending prosecution to the Justice Department, there is simply nothing there. Assuming someone committed a crime when the FBI concludes the evidence obtained in the investigation is not worth turning over to prosecutors is like assuming it must be raining when the skies are clear.
The FBI is never supposed to comment on ongoing investigations and, except in exceptional circumstances, never disclose whether it has or has not recommended prosecution. Instead, on indictment, prosecutors stand up at a press conference, announce the charges, then thank the agents and offices of the FBI who conducted the investigation. If the bureau does not develop enough evidence to merit even a recommendation for prosecution, in those exceptional circumstances where it says anything, those are the words officials use: We have not developed evidence that merits a recommendation for prosecution.
In the last few months, unfortunately, Comey has demonstrated he understands none of this. He has broken these rules time and again, leaving himself in the position where he decided he had to break them a couple of more times. He has acted with a lack of accountability that has not been seen since J. Edgar Hoover held the post. It is unforgiveable."
Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-director-james-comey-unfit-public-service-517815
Egregious abuse of power by Comey...'nough said.
Posted by onetexan | Mon Nov 7, 2016, 02:24 PM (13 replies)
Go to Page: 1