|
Lightning Knight posted:Instant Sunrise, you should post that Twitter thread you made about American colonialism in the Americas. So the context for this is that Mike Pence made a pretty dumbass comment with a straight face: "Just as the United States Respects Your Borders and Your Sovereignty, We Insist That You Respect Ours." Now, anybody who has ever read a single thing about US History can see that was a pretty loving dumb thing to say, because the US has basically never respected Latin American borders / sovereignty. So i put together a twitter thread that tried to be as comprehensive as possible in terms of listing every single time the US hosed around with a Latin-American country. So this is the twitter thread here: https://twitter.com/InstantSunrise/status/1011991108371410944 quote:Texas: 1836
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Fionordequester posted:So, because of the latest controversy regarding how Trump is handling immigration, I chose to start trying to do research. I've tried reading the Immigration and Nationality Act, I've tried talking with folks I've known to be interested in politics...I've tried a lot of things. But, this is all still very confusing to me; and it's been very hard finding a source of knowledge that wasn't either clearly biased, or written in a way that I couldn't understand. Basically all modern US immigration law is directly descended from the isolationist upsurge around the turn of the 20th century. Border controls, quotas and caps, deportation authority, immigration prisons, literacy and citizenship tests...they were all thought up by white supremacists and eugenicists who believed that the US was being polluted by "inferior races". The connection is often distressingly direct - for example, the head of the Eugenics Record Office was brought in as an "expert eugenics agent" for the House Immigration Committee when they were crafting the Immigration Act of 1924, which established the basic structure of today's immigration system. The immigration authorities were tied directly to Japanese internment, too. Although it was done by military order, the internment was handled by INS (the predecessor to ICE) and the camps were guarded by the Border Patrol, even though they were often nowhere near the border. The use of immigration authorities to enforce explicitly race-based policies against American citizens showed pretty clearly what all this "immigration" enforcement is really about. And the Border Patrol today is the very same Border Patrol that guarded the racist internment camps. Our immigration system has always been very abusive, and that was true even under the Obama administration. Pretty much every piece of misconduct you've heard about in immigration detention facilities also happened under Obama but simply didn't get as much attention - Trump has done a lot to drag formerly-bipartisan immigration policies under the media spotlight. This isn't to say that the two administrations are the same, as under the Obama administration, immigration authorities often chose to exercise discretion in not always carrying out abuses that were available to them. For example, the Obama administration had a policy of tending to ignore illegal immigrants already in the country with no criminal record. But ICE was simply less abusive under Obama, rather than not abusive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Thanks IS. I followed you on Twitter, I hope you don’t mind. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1013104124559331328?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Thanks IS. I followed you on Twitter, I hope you don’t mind. Abolishing ICE is just the start of what needs to happen. EOIR, the immigration court system, needs massive restructuring and to be moved under the judicial branch of govt., if not outright abolished. But more importantly, after ICE is abolished, every single person in ICE needs to be barred from future public service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Well, thanks a lot for answering that question, guys. Now for the next question; "what's this about children being separated from their families"? What's that all about? Family Unit: From what I can tell, the reasons given by the ICE (according to the "National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search" manual, found on their site) is included in how they define a "family unit"... quote:A group of detainees that includes one or more non-United States citizen juvenile(s) accompanied by his/her/their parent(s) or legal guardian(s), whom the agency will evaluate for safety purposes to protect juveniles from sexual abuse and violence. This is supposedly in reference to domestic abuse cases, and the idea that not every child is actually related to the adults that bring them. Rather, there are some criminals that traffick children and women across the border; they do so by claiming that they and their victims are "family". Hence, if they choose to apply for asylum, there's some screening that needs to be done to determine whether their claims are true, or false (I hear at least one politician is pushing for blood tests? Don't remember who that was). In the meanwhile, the children have to wait somewhere while their folks wait for their case to be determined in whichever courts are employed by ICE. At least, that's what ICE will tell you. Does that sound about right? Any nonsense that needs to be cut through when reading that? Just trying to understand all sides of the issue before I engage others in debate about it. Fionordequester fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jul 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
This is from about a million years ago (one month by Pre-Reckoning Time), before the first round of pictures hit the news, but here's an interview with one of the ACLU's major Immigration Rights lawyers: Why Is This Happening? Fighting a dehumanizing U.S. immigration system, with Lee Gelernt It goes through the history back to 9/11, when a lot of the current system was set in place. Very much worth a listen. There have also been some very good write-ups in the Trump thread, if you're willing to dig through several thousand pages worth of posts. There's one that was shared a few times, but I'm giving up looking for it tonight. But the (very) short answer is that you're essentially right, the difference is that they're treating every crossing as an arrestable offense, and preventing asylum seekers from the legal means of entry. After The War fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jul 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
After The War posted:It goes through the history back to 9/11, when a lot of the current system was set in place. Very much worth a listen. There have also been some very good write-ups in the Trump thread, if you're willing to dig through several thousand pages worth of posts. There's one that was shared a few times, but I'm giving up looking for it tonight. Huh...so basically, a lot of the grievances towards Trump's policies are happening NOT because of arguments over whether or not the U.S. have the right to enforce their borders...rather, it's because the system is so needlessly harsh, thoughtless, and inefficient in how it goes about it (for example, the story relayed in that article about that 2-second blood test that was never carried out for the 4 months that the child was separated from the Brazilian mom). Plus, there's the issue of whether or not many immigrants are even aware of the "correct" way of entering the U.S. (which itself is a mighty big assumption). There are already good, pragmatic ways of dealing with exactly the concerns many anti-Immigration folks are concerned about; so really, ICE has no excuse for how it's been handling things. That sound about right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
Just a quick update that it is getting worse for immigrants who are here under completely normal, documented, situations like mine. My anxiety over this interview is shooting thru the roof at this dot-every-i poo poo. Two new memos from the neginning of this month. New USCIS Policy Will Needlessly Push Thousands More Cases into the Deportation Machinery A quiet change in US policy threatens immigrants who apply for a change in status
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
augias posted:Just a quick update that it is getting worse for immigrants who are here under completely normal, documented, situations like mine. My anxiety over this interview is shooting thru the roof at this dot-every-i poo poo. It's not an exaggeration to say that this USCIS policy change is a step towards purging non-US citizens. Any legal immigrant can be jailed in advance of a deportation hearing following a failed immigrant petition, which is a big problem given the number of mistakes USCIS makes for even straight-forward cases. This is on top of the immediate loss of employment authorization (and hence job+livelihood) that can take months to regain, once again even if USCIS is in error. Obviously this doesn't compare to the horror-show that undocumented immigrants and asylum-seekers face. However it's worth highlighting that even completely legal immigration is increasingly risky. I'd hesitate to have an immigrant hold a critical role in an organization, given that their ability to work can be arbitrarily rescinded by USCIS. I suppose this is the goal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Apparently the State Dept is moving to revoke transgender citizens their passports. https://twitter.com/MattBaume/status/1022934116000518145
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
I was going to make a big post here about the steady rate of attack on legal immigration, but it hasn't quite come together. augias posted:New USCIS Policy Will Needlessly Push Thousands More Cases into the Deportation Machinery One of the things that isn't strongly discussed about this is that once you receive an NTA, you cannot simply leave the country - if you just get on a plane and go, you will fail to appear for your hearing, and the result is that you will be barred from returning to the US, possibly forever. Once the NTA is issued, you have to either wait for your hearing, or make arrangements for Voluntary Departure. The thing is, we have no idea how this is going to be implemented. It's possible that cases will be denied, and there will be weeks for someone to leave the US before an NTA is issued. But they could be processed immediately, meaning that you get your denial and the NTA the same day. Now, even though you just found out your out of status, you can't simply leave without bearing severe consequences. Why not just wait for your hearing? Well, there is a backlog of 700,000 cases in courts. If you wait for your hearing, you would probably be waiting for months - or longer! - just to the first hearing. That entire time, you have no work authorization or other status in the US. So you have people who have been following our legal process as carefully as they can, and are suddenly thrust into a Catch-22 - do you remain in the US without status, probably working without approval, so that you can have the hearing they want you to attend? Or do you leave (which is what they want, presumably) but risk being barred from ever returning if your departure isn't processed before that NTA is issued? People will have to be very, very careful about their filing, but not everyone can avoid the risk of this happening. This is coupled with the fact that USCIS has another recent memo freeing up a lot of discretion for an officer to outright deny cases. Until now, there has been fairly strict guidance that officers should issue RFEs of NOIDs (notice of intent to deny) and give the applicant a chance to respond - this protects people from suffering due to simple omissions on a form, missing items (maybe you forgot your photos) and allow them to respond to specific concerns. It also provides a warning for people - your case might be in trouble, consider whether you need to leave now instead of battling on. With this change, officers will be able to simply deny some applications without any request or notice. Combined with the above, it means that people can suddenly be facing serious consequences over relatively simple errors and oversights, even though they're following all the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
My wife has a conditional permanent residence. She’s going to remove the condition as soon as possible, but all these changes are coming so fast. Is it time to get a lawyer? I was born lucky enough to never be scared in the US, but I am terrified of something happening and her getting deported. This is keeping me up at night. My heart goes out to all immigrants and undocumented workers. These are terrifying times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:This is coupled with the fact that USCIS has another recent memo freeing up a lot of discretion for an officer to outright deny cases. Until now, there has been fairly strict guidance that officers should issue RFEs of NOIDs (notice of intent to deny) and give the applicant a chance to respond - this protects people from suffering due to simple omissions on a form, missing items (maybe you forgot your photos) and allow them to respond to specific concerns. It also provides a warning for people - your case might be in trouble, consider whether you need to leave now instead of battling on. With this change, officers will be able to simply deny some applications without any request or notice. Combined with the above, it means that people can suddenly be facing serious consequences over relatively simple errors and oversights, even though they're following all the rules. Thanks for laying out the insanity of the new rules so clearly. Something I've been wondering about is that while these changes are clearly coming from above, are individual officers really going to stop issuing RFEs etc. Is there any evidence of widespread anti-immigrant sentiment among USCIS officers? I can't believe anyone would enjoy want to deport someone over a minor error. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
The civil unrest in Nicaragua has caused about 200 people a day to flee into Costa Rica to claim asylum for the past month. If things don’t settle down that’s going to start spilling over into the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Thanks for laying out the insanity of the new rules so clearly. Something I've been wondering about is that while these changes are clearly coming from above, are individual officers really going to stop issuing RFEs etc. Is there any evidence of widespread anti-immigrant sentiment among USCIS officers? I can't believe anyone would enjoy want to deport someone over a minor error. Outside of actual animosity though, my understanding is that officers are under a lot of pressure to meet certain benchmarks. That means that they're expected to go through a certain number of cases every week, and it's also possible they're expected to issue a certain quota of RFEs - I can't support that directly, but it's notable that RFEs were up 45% in 2017, that's enough to make you think there is a drive to get them issued. Outside of the USCIS memos, what we'll also see is suddenly USCIS start issuing a particular kind of RFE that wasn't common before. Like last year, we say tons of RFEs on H-1Bs questioning the assignment to a Level I wage, and requiring a lot of documentation that was appropriate. That wasn't something we saw previously, and it started coming out in volume all at once. This year, the thing seems to be challenging the underlying occupation as a Specialty for H-1Bs. So it often seems like there are internal directives pushing this, or that the quotas are high enough the officers have to push a certain number of RFEs and that makes them act antagonistically. It's always been the case that USCIS would sometimes issue what seemed like spurious or trivial RFEs on some cases - we used to call these 'Friday Afternoon RFEs', because it really seemed like it was an officer reaching the end of their week and just hammering an RFE to get a case off their desk and their quota filled. Things like RFEs for documents you already submitted, or requests for better photocopies of documents, or ones that didn't seem to actually match the case at all. So the concern is that instead of that, you're going to see spurious denials, which are much harder to address. One other thing is that the top-down directives and changes really do affect the environment at the centers. The people who joined a decade ago and maybe thought of themselves as helping immigrants get tired of the changing feel and the increased push to scrutinize and punish everyone, and they move on to other jobs. And the new people that join are trained up in this environment to consider it adversarial. The longer it persists, the more that becomes the established culture of the organization. The uptick is particularly bad now, but there has been a long arc toward making the structure this way through centralizing and formalizing processes and reducing discretion and real communication between officers and applicants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
I’d just like to step in here and put a good word in for an orginization that has been a HUGE help to a lot of people either in or leaving the Aurora center Casa de Paz https://www.casadepazcolorado.org Most notably, they have been posting bond for the separated parents. Also, they are providing a sort of halfway house for anyone released. It may not seem like much to most of us but a hot homemade meal and some clean clothes can go a long way towards recovering from detention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
I didn't see another obvious place to ask this, but I can't grasp the legal status of DACA. So this was essentially an executive order/memo telling federal prosecutors to take priority away from immigrants who were taken to the U.S. as minors, and give priority to other violations of the law. In one case, Texas was suing to halt DACA, saying that the order is illegal. The judge opined that it is illegal. But he ruled that a temporary, emergency halt wasn't justified, that a full process of appeals would be okay at some unspecified time in the future. This was widely considered a win for DACA. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=.ea259b5bbc1a That case had nothing to do with this one, which was about whether the president's power to make an executive order includes the power to rescind an older executive order(?) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-ruled-trump-administration-must-keep-daca-alive-n897601 So the judge is striking down the new executive order because it is arbitrary and without a rational basis. I had no idea people could sue in court to stop the president from sending an order down the chain of command, on the grounds that the reasoning for the order wasn't convincingly explained. You'd think that there would be lawsuits constantly on those grounds. And if the ruling instead means that rescinding DACA is illegal, does it also mean that Obama (and every previous president) was in violation of the law by not immediately instituting a policy like that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:That case had nothing to do with this one, which was about whether the president's power to make an executive order includes the power to rescind an older executive order(?) Executive orders have no legal force - they're just the president writing a memo that says "I want to do a thing". The article you linked has literally nothing to do with executive orders, and in fact doesn't mention them at all. What it's about is an administrative move by the Department of Homeland Security in an attempt to terminate the program. The thing is that administrative moves by government agencies are theoretically supposed to be based on facts, not political or personal ideology. For example, if the head of the EPA rules that something is too toxic for human consumption and bans it, and then a new administration comes in and replaces the EPA's leadership, and then the new EPA head quietly revokes the ban, that's not kosher. After all, the underlying facts and studies haven't changed, so in that case, a judge might (not always, but sometimes) reinstate the ban and demand that the new EPA head at least provide a plausible excuse for why the determination of "this is too toxic" is no longer valid. The EPA has the authority to ban things, and it also has the authority to unban things...but it's not allowed to arbitrarily do those things. It has to provide some decent not-obviously-political reason for making the moves it makes. And that's pretty much what's happening here. The judge is saying that it's perfectly legal for DHS to end the DACA program...but that they have to provide a reasonable rationale for doing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Trump wants to get rid of jus soli citizenship and the New York Times is just like “maybe he can do that by executive order????” So let’s talk about jus soli. Prior to the civil war the law governing citizenship had restricted it to “free white men” on a federal level, but states generally could play fast and loose with citizenship. In fact it was just generally accepted but never formally codified into law that people born in the United States were automatically citizens, which had been the precedent at the time from English common law. In 1844, the courts ruled in Lynch v. Clarke about a woman named Julia Lynch. She had been born in New York City to parents who were in the US temporarily and had gone back to Ireland after. Though she had been living in Ireland for 20 years, the courts found that she was a US citizen by birth. That changed in 1857 with the rather infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, which was a massively overreaching decision that said that “actually black people aren’t really people or citizens and also states can’t actually block slavery.” As you can imagine, this wasn’t a very popular decision. In fact it kinda caused a civil war. So after said civil war, the 14th amendment was passed as a way of giving the middle finger to the Taney Court and overturning that decision by explicitly making everybody who had been born in the US citizens. So that’s all well and good until 1873 when the inherently unstable capitalist system did what it normally does and completely poo poo itself, dragging the US into an economic depression that lasted for a good decade. A think to realize is that when you have an economic downturn like that, people like to point fingers, so the early socialists blamed the capitalists, and the capitalists tried to convince people that it was Chinese immigrants stealing jobs and driving down wages were causing the problem. Which worked actually. So in 1882 Chester A. Arther signed into law the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was a “total and complete shutdown of Chinese entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” to quote a more recent president. With this law giving tacit approval to racists, you started seeing instances of violence against Chinese immigrants in the US, in places like Rock Springs WY, you had literal massacres because people believed that Chinese immigrants were “stealing jobs.” In the background to this was a second-generation Chinese-American named Wong Kim Ark, who had been born in San Francisco in 1873. Mr. Wong had been making a living in SF by working as a cook. In 1890, he decided to go visit China for a vacation. He most likely had a good time there, and came back in without issue because he was a US Citizen. So in 1894 he saves up his money and goes on another visit to China from November of 1894 to August of 1895. Upon his return though, he was denied reentry into the United States, by a customs officer citing the Chinese Exclusion Act. Well, Mr. Wong did what any American in the 19th century would do, he filed a lawsuit. (as an aside, 19th century americans were way more litigious than modern americans) Wong Kim Ark argued that he was a US Citizen because he was born in the United States and he had previously reentered the US without issue. The customs officer who had denied him entry argued that he was not a citizen because his parents were Chinese, thus subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1898 that WKA was in fact, a US Citizen because he had been born in the US and his parents were subject to US law (in other words, they still had to follow it). Now, US v. Wong Kim Arc pretty definitively settled jus soli citizenship for the children of immigrants, but since I can already hear the chud objections about how US v. WKA only applies to “legal” immigrants. Also in 1982, Texas tried to deny education to the children of undocumented parents, they were sued over it and lost in the case Plyler v. Doe. In that case the Supreme Court ruled pretty definitively that undocumented immigrants were still subject to the jurisdiction of US law, and thus the children born in the US to undocumented parents were automatically citizens of the US. This is what Trump is trying to override with this executive order. Over a hundred years of settled law because it doesn’t say what the immigration hardliners think it says. And with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the bench, we should be cognizant to the fact that the Roberts Court is probably going to come up with a convoluted legal reasoning why absolutely none of that precedent matters and that the president should just be able to do whatever. This post is also available as a tweet thread: https://twitter.com/instantsunrise/status/1057274796990296064
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
I'm extremely here for this high quality posting content. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:This is what Trump is trying to override with this executive order. Over a hundred years of settled law because it doesn’t say what the immigration hardliners think it says. And with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the bench, we should be cognizant to the fact that the Roberts Court is probably going to come up with a convoluted legal reasoning why absolutely none of that precedent matters and that the president should just be able to do whatever. I hadn't thought about this horrible, horrible consequence of appointing a sexual predator to the Supreme Court. I've got a brother and sister in-law whose citizenship depends on having been born here. I'd assumed that the whole thing was just Trump being horrible and ineffectual as usual because the 14th very clearly says people who are born here are citizens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
LLSix posted:I hadn't thought about this horrible, horrible consequence of appointing a sexual predator to the Supreme Court. I've got a brother and sister in-law whose citizenship depends on having been born here. I'd assumed that the whole thing was just Trump being horrible and ineffectual as usual because the 14th very clearly says people who are born here are citizens. Ultimately, remember that the text of the law is just part of the equation - what matters is what the other branches of government (as well as the actual agency employees who carry out the work) are willing to enforce and what they're willing to let slide. While the law and legal interpretations have a massive amount of impact on those things, they're not the final word by any means. Even if the Supreme Court says "no, stop, that's unconstitutional", it doesn't have any enforcement power if Trump decides to ignore the Constitution - it's up to Congress to take action by defunding the unconstitutional programs in that case. If they refuse to act, then the only way the unconstitutional behavior could stop is if government employees refuse to follow those orders (unlikely) or if state and local agencies and populations act to obstruct the orders so badly that Trump gives up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
I'm a first generation American. My parents were here on temporary visas, had me, and then left with me when they were done studying/working. Moved here in 2010 to stay. I am only a citizen due to birthright, if they suddenly start making restrictions based on what status my parents have, that's going to hit me. I knew it was coming eventually, like, a long time ago (at least as early as the first Muslim Ban), but I guess they're really making the arguments, so he's going to loving do it. I already started taking my passport on even domestic flights just on the off chance some immigration rear end in a top hat at an airport decides my name sounds too foreign and they insist I should prove my citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ultimately, remember that the text of the law is just part of the equation - what matters is what the other branches of government (as well as the actual agency employees who carry out the work) are willing to enforce and what they're willing to let slide. While the law and legal interpretations have a massive amount of impact on those things, they're not the final word by any means. Even if the Supreme Court says "no, stop, that's unconstitutional", it doesn't have any enforcement power if Trump decides to ignore the Constitution - it's up to Congress to take action by defunding the unconstitutional programs in that case. If they refuse to act, then the only way the unconstitutional behavior could stop is if government employees refuse to follow those orders (unlikely) or if state and local agencies and populations act to obstruct the orders so badly that Trump gives up. that hasn't worked for donald trump so far (see, most notably, the muslim ban, but also family separations and a chunk of smaller / lesser known things) partly because individual government employees are not, as a general rule, interested in going to jail for contempt because the president wants to revoke green cards courts can, in fact, actually do things unless none of the institutions, including the US marshals, decide to cooperate I think the odds of the Supreme Court - yes, even this Supreme Court - ruling that birthright citizenship is gone are essentially nil. I'd say they're actually, literally nil, but none of the people on Plyler are current justices, so I dunno, maybe the 9-0 decision somehow turns into a 5-4 even though literally all precedent and also the actual originalist reading are against that. Instant Sunrise posted:
This is overall a very good post, but I disagree extremely strongly with that last sentence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:that hasn't worked for donald trump so far (see, most notably, the muslim ban, but also family separations and a chunk of smaller / lesser known things) Families are still separated and Muslim Ban 3: Return of the Muslim Ban did go through. Meanwhile the people affected were left in uncertainty and doubt at best, or in loving cages waiting for a resolution to come at worst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Families are still separated and Muslim Ban 3: Return of the Muslim Ban did go through. Meanwhile the people affected were left in uncertainty and doubt at best, or in loving cages waiting for a resolution to come at worst. sure, it's unlikely but possible that some nonzero number of people might get screwed over in the hours between implementing the policy and courts telling them to knock it off (I think it's really unlikely since there are a lot of moving parts, but hey, maybe the parents really need the social security card urgently or... something?) and that was bad when it happened the other times, too but I was responding to a post that Donald Trump can go "lol john roberts has made his decision, let him enforce it" and it'll stick and whoops no citizens will be born to unauthorized resident parents until January 2021, and yeah, no. Parents are not currently being separated from their children as a matter of policy, and the eventual muslim ban was much narrower and non-retroactive unlike the illegal bullshit they tried to pull. Things matter, courts can do things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
Yeah, I said this in the Trump thread but they would have to break kayfabe to overturn birthright citizenship -- just full on go "gently caress it, the law is what we say it is " -- and I don't see even this court doing that. Maybe you get 7-2 or even 6-3 but you don't get 5-4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
If they actually try to push this through, it would essentially have to be only a forward-facing program - meaning applying to people born in the US moving forward. Trying to implement it to revoke the citizenship of people who are already here/have claimed it would be a completely insane legal move that would be exceptionally hard for even political appointees to justify. You could probably get moderate support for a policy of denying the children of undocumented people citizenship from now on, but having the government actively stripping citizenship from people would be a much harder sell. Particularly because there almost certainly be people effectively left stateless and they would have to come up with someone to do with them. People like dreamers are already pretty sympathetic, having people who were literally legal citizens and have lived their entire lives in the US suddenly destated would be horrific. Not to mention the sheer difficulty of trying to identify who those people are and actually implementing any sort of revocation. The side effect of this is that it would have considerably less impact while it was being challenged because everyone actually effected would either be eligible for a dependent status (if their parents have one) or would be an infant likely to be leaving the US with their undocumented parents if they're in the system and being processed in any way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:If they actually try to push this through, it would essentially have to be only a forward-facing program - meaning applying to people born in the US moving forward. Trying to implement it to revoke the citizenship of people who are already here/have claimed it would be a completely insane legal move that would be exceptionally hard for even political appointees to justify. You could probably get moderate support for a policy of denying the children of undocumented people citizenship from now on, but having the government actively stripping citizenship from people would be a much harder sell. Particularly because there almost certainly be people effectively left stateless and they would have to come up with someone to do with them. People like dreamers are already pretty sympathetic, having people who were literally legal citizens and have lived their entire lives in the US suddenly destated would be horrific. Not to mention the sheer difficulty of trying to identify who those people are and actually implementing any sort of revocation. They are already stripping citizenship from people who have them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
for people who don't feel like reading the article, they discovered an angle (midwives in South Texas in the later 1900s did, in fact, commit some birth certificate fraud) to deny passports and occasionally initiate deportation proceedings against anyone they feel like who was midwived in that area at that time, plus deliveries by one particular gynecologist who had an unsubstantiated accusation of fraud against him as with the other successful-ish Trump bullshit, it's a completely disingenuous expansion of an existing policy, ie, bears no particular resemblance to trying to retroactively declare people with accepted-by-the-feds-as-valid birth certificates non-citizens, especially since there's not, you know, a blanket court order against the passport-denial-because-midwives practice, which there absolutely, positively would be instantly if Trump moved forward with trying to abolish birthright citizenship bonus from the end of the article: quote:This remains true because, crucially, the people being targeted still have recourse to the legal system. Even the South Texans whose birth certificates are challenged, the Post says, typically end up winning their cases — they just have to appeal to the federal courts to do it, which takes money (in the thousands) and time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'm a first generation American. My parents were here on temporary visas, had me, and then left with me when they were done studying/working. Moved here in 2010 to stay. I am only a citizen due to birthright, if they suddenly start making restrictions based on what status my parents have, that's going to hit me. I knew it was coming eventually, like, a long time ago (at least as early as the first Muslim Ban), but I guess they're really making the arguments, so he's going to loving do it. I already started taking my passport on even domestic flights just on the off chance some immigration rear end in a top hat at an airport decides my name sounds too foreign and they insist I should prove my citizenship. I hope you have a US Passport Card. It's the best  you've ever spent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
So does this mean that a lot of us are going to be stateless soon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
This is substantively different, because revocation of immigration benefits gained through fraud is an existing and long-held standard- they are taking it an applying it in a reckless and vindictive way, but it has always been the case that if you obtained a benefit through some manner of fraud, it could be revoked because it was improperly given. I am not defending that policy, but the legal bedrock it's leaning on is at least valid and recognized. The argument is, those certificates were fraudulently issued, and if that information had been known at the time, they never would have received the benefits they did. This is different than if the certificates were legally, properly issued and recognized, and then at a later date someone comes to declare them invalid because of a post-fact revision in the laws. Trump isn't claiming that people received their certificates illegally or fraudulently, he's saying that he wants to change the law to something else that would prevent it. There isn't any claim that if some information had been known at the time, the certificates would not have been issued at all. I realize this is small comfort, but it is a significant difference. It's also true that sometimes ICE or CBP do things that are completely illegal, because they can act faster and without out immediate review; like deporting citizens. But these actions don't hold up under review and are not a matter of policy. Trump's administration has already raised the amount and severity of this sort of action, but it's still substantively different than trying to actually make it policy legally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:This is substantively different, because revocation of immigration benefits gained through fraud is an existing and long-held standard- they are taking it an applying it in a reckless and vindictive way, but it has always been the case that if you obtained a benefit through some manner of fraud, it could be revoked because it was improperly given. I am not defending that policy, but the legal bedrock it's leaning on is at least valid and recognized. The argument is, those certificates were fraudulently issued, and if that information had been known at the time, they never would have received the benefits they did. In this case the "fraud" would be that I "fraudulently" claimed to be a citizen because they suddenly decide to "interpret" the Constitution differently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In this case the "fraud" would be that I "fraudulently" claimed to be a citizen because they suddenly decide to "interpret" the Constitution differently. Yeah, there are gonna be a lot of citizens being ghosted. This is gonna be bad. E: and it's not like like ex pacto stuff is gonna matter. It's totally within the realm of governments to invalidate millions of people born past a certain date. Look at the Dominican Republic. Okuteru fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:It's also true that sometimes ICE or CBP do things that are completely illegal, because they can act faster and without out immediate review; like deporting citizens. But these actions don't hold up under review and are not a matter of policy. Trump's administration has already raised the amount and severity of this sort of action, but it's still substantively different than trying to actually make it policy legally. When the president is not only encouraging these illegal actions but frequently and loudly cheering them on, it is absolutely 'a matter of policy'. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, I said this in the Trump thread but they would have to break kayfabe to overturn birthright citizenship -- just full on go "gently caress it, the law is what we say it is " -- and I don't see even this court doing that. Maybe you get 7-2 or even 6-3 but you don't get 5-4. NPR was interviewing an impressively insistent and rather rude man today who said that they're going to try to use the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause in the 14th to justify their "totally reasonable and definitely for the good of real Americans" actions. from Cornell Law 14th amendment posted:Section 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In this case the "fraud" would be that I "fraudulently" claimed to be a citizen because they suddenly decide to "interpret" the Constitution differently. Given bad faith and sufficient malice (both of which the administration possesses in abundance), yes. like, it's a legitimate fear. All I can tell you is that the judicial system cannot overturn or remove birthright citizenship without breaking kayfabe in a way that they have historically never been willing to do. I can't promise you bad things won't happen but there are substantive and real legal differences between the administration's prior moves and this new proposal. I use the term "breaking kayfabe" deliberately because a decision overturning birthright citizenship would involve such blatantcy that it would, functionally, amount to abolishing the rule of law and replacing it with the rule of robes -- i.e., whatever the majority of the Supreme Court feels like the law should be is the law, regardless of anything else. I mean, maybe we're there. But if we are then the entire legal system is a fiction. LLSix posted:
That guy was either not an attorney or he was arguing in deliberate bad faith -- arguing a position he knows is false because he wants it to be true. The exceptions for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" have already been carved out in prior cases and it's basically only actual children born to foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity, children born on foreign hospital ships in US ports, and a few other extremely specific exceptions. The only way around "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is to claim that US courts don't have jurisdiction and if US courts don't have jurisdiction that is . . . functionally giving diplomatic immunity to all immigrants. There's no such thing as "partial" jurisdiction. Either courts have jurisdiction or they don't, it's binary*. If you are subject to US jurisdiction and here, your kids have citizenship; if you are not subject to US jurisdiction, US courts can't touch you for anything, not for crimes, not for lawsuits, etc. The Amendment was deliberately written that way to make it functionally impossible to take citizenship away from freed slaves -- southern states couldn't de-citizen the former slaves without giving them the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. Basically anyone trying to make a legal argument that birthright citizenship is overturnable short of a constitutional amendment needs a brick placed gently between their teeth so they stop polluting the airwaves with nonsense. It's sovcit-level gibberish. ------------- *technically you can have jurisdiction on some issues but not others but that's not a relevant distinction here. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:that hasn't worked for donald trump so far (see, most notably, the muslim ban, but also family separations and a chunk of smaller / lesser known things) US Marshals are executive branch employees, who serve under the Department of Justice and are personally appointed by the President of the United States. They're not a reliable check on executive power. Ultimately, I doubt Trump is going to pull a "and now let him enforce it" moment, but it's worth remembering that what the legislative and executive branches are willing to enforce has a significant impact on how much power court decisions actually have - and the courts know that and adjust accordingly. Sometimes people get too caught up in legal reasoning and ignore the practical aspects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, I said this in the Trump thread but they would have to break kayfabe to overturn birthright citizenship -- just full on go "gently caress it, the law is what we say it is " -- and I don't see even this court doing that. Maybe you get 7-2 or even 6-3 but you don't get 5-4. I'm paranoid but I think once we elected a WWE hall of famer to be our President, keyfabe is well and truly broken already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
With respect to retroactive changes of status, does anyone else remember someone in the Obama administration suddenly losing their clearance/job because the city they were born is was transferred from the US to Canada? I could swear there was a story like that, but it's hard to filter through all the recent bullshit to find it on Google, and I don't remember either the person's or the city's name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 13:55
|
|