Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

User avatar
Gaybutton
Site Admin
Posts: 14435
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 520 times

#51 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby Gaybutton » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:16 pm

Xenophobia prevails. Remember Trump's travel ban? The Supreme Court just upheld it.

What next?

I guess if you want to travel to the USA, you had better have been born there.
__________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban

June 26, 2018

The Supreme Court has upheld President Trump's travel ban on Tuesday by a 5-4 vote, saying in its opinion that the order is "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority."

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court's first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy. The president reacted to news of the ruling, tweeting "wow."

Mr. Trump later hailed the ruling as a "tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution."

"This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country. As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens," he added.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the ruling was "critical to ensuring the continued authority of President Trump – and all future presidents – to protect the American people."

Image

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four conservative colleagues. Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. "The sole prerequisite," Roberts wrote, is "that the entry of the covered aliens 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.' The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here." Roberts pointed out that Mr. Trump had ordered an evaluation of every country's compliance with the risk assessment baseline and then issued the findings.

"Based on that review, he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest," Roberts wrote.

Roberts also rejected the challengers' claim of anti-Muslim bias. But he was careful not to endorse either Trump's provocative statements about immigration in general and Muslims in particular.

"We express no view on the soundness of the policy," Roberts wrote.

However, CBS News' Jan Crawford cautioned on CBSN that it "would be a mistake to read this ruling as, Trump can say whatever he wants." The next case, the next issue -- perhaps Russia -- is a different case, and he could make remarks that could show insight into a different area of law.

The court may have signaled its eventual approval in December, when the justices allowed the policy to take full effect even as the court fight continued and lower courts had ruled it out of bounds.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that based on the evidence in the case "a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus." She said her colleagues arrived at the opposite result by "ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan also dissented.

In a tweet from the ACLU, the advocacy group said "this is not the first time the Court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it."

They added, "History has its eyes on us — and will judge today's decision harshly."

Ryan Mace of Amnesty International USA said in a statement following the ruling that the policy is "a catastrophe all around."

"Some of the people banned from this policy are fleeing conflicts that the United States has had a direct hand in creating or perpetuating, as is the case in Yemen and Syria. In those cases especially we are essentially lighting a house on fire and locking the escape door shut. This ban, and the anti-Muslim sentiment in which it originated, has no place in a country that claims to value human rights," Mace added.

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said at a press conference that the Court's ruling was "extremely disappointing" to Muslims and "all people who believe in equal protection and equality."

Awad said the ruling now gives the Trump administration a "free hand to re-inject discrimination against a particular faith back into our immigration system."

Travel ban decision

In April, Mr. Trump appeared likely to win his argument, when the case was heard by the high court in April. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy both signaled support for the travel policy in arguments. The ban's challengers almost certainly needed one of those two justices in order to strike down the ban on travelers from several mostly Muslim countries.

The justices voted in December to allow the policy to take full effect pending their full consideration.

The Trump administration asked the court to reverse lower court rulings that would strike down the ban.

The Supreme Court also considered whether the president can indefinitely keep people out of the country based on nationality, and it also looked at whether the policy is aimed at excluding Muslims from the United States.

Kennedy challenged lawyer Neal Katyal, representing the challengers, about whether the ban would be unending. He said the policy's call for a report every six months "indicates there'll be a reassessment" from time to time.

The travel ban was the first Trump policy to undergo a full-blown Supreme Court review. The justices examined the third version of a policy that Mr. Trump first rolled out a week after taking office, triggering chaos and protests across the U.S. as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. The first version was blocked by courts and withdrawn. Its replacement was allowed to take partial effect, but expired in September.

The current version is indefinite and now applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority-Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving "its identity-management and information sharing practices," Mr. Trump said in a proclamation.

The administration argued that courts have no role to play because the president has broad powers over immigration and national security, and foreigners have no right to enter the country.

The challengers argued that his policy amounts to the Muslim ban that Mr. Trump called for as a candidate, violating the Constitution's prohibition against religious bias.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-co ... ravel-ban/

User avatar
Gaybutton
Site Admin
Posts: 14435
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 520 times

#52 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby Gaybutton » Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:29 am


fountainhall
Posts: 1265
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:45 am
Location: Bangkok
Liked: 110 times
Been liked: 329 times

#53 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby fountainhall » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:23 am

With Harley Davison to make more bikes outside the USA as a result of Trump's actions and now attracting Trump's verbal firepower and the travel ban now approved by the Supreme Court, I wonder when will tourists generally start to feel that the USA is not somewhere they wish to visit? One of the most economically sensitive businesses is that of putting on Broadway shows. In 2016/17 that industry generated income of $1.45 billion. During the same season, the Broadway League surveyed 22% of all the 13.27 million who attended all Broadway shows. 15% of all attendees came from overseas. Since the failure rate on Broadway is somewhere up near 85% - 90%, most producers would immediately see an effect on their meagre profits if some of those 1.99 million overseas tourists vanished.

In general the tourist trade is one of the USA's largest industries, contributing $1,5 trillion to the economy in 2015. Yet the USA is now seeing fewer international visitors, the first decline since the 2008 recession nd the first in a time of rising economic prosperity.

The Commerce Department said international traveler spending dropped more than 3 percent in the first 11 months of 2017. U.S. Travel said this equals the loss of $4.6 billion and 40,000 jobs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/17/interna ... he-us.html

User avatar
Gaybutton
Site Admin
Posts: 14435
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 520 times

#54 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby Gaybutton » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:22 pm

Federal judge orders families separated at border to be reunited within 30 days

June 27, 2018

McALLEN, Texas -- A judge in California on Tuesday ordered U.S. border authorities to reunite separated families within 30 days, setting a hard deadline in a process that has so far yielded uncertainty about when children might again see their parents. If children are younger than 5, they must be reunified within 14 days of the order issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego.

Sabraw, an appointee of President George W. Bush, also issued a nationwide injunction on future family separations, unless the parent is deemed unfit or doesn't want to be with the child. It also requires the government to provide phone contact between parents and their children within 10 days.

More than 2,000 children have been separated from their parents in recent weeks and placed in government-contracted shelters -- hundreds of miles away, in some cases -- under a now-abandoned policy toward families caught illegally entering the U.S.

The lawsuit in San Diego involves a 7-year-old girl who was separated from her Congolese mother and a 14-year-old boy who was separated from his Brazilian mother.

Amid an international outcry, President Trump last week issued an executive order to stop the separation of families and said parents and children will instead be detained together. But so far, relatively few families have been reunited, and the Trump administration has disclosed almost no information on how the process will be carried out or how long it will take.

Officials on Tuesday wouldn't say whether the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is still receiving children as a result of the child separation policy. When pressed about the issue by reporters on a conference all, they didn't answer the question.

Also Tuesday, 17 states, including New York and California, sued the Trump administration Tuesday to force it to reunite children and parents. The states, all led by Democratic attorneys general, joined Washington, D.C., in filing the lawsuit in federal court in Seattle, arguing that they are being forced to shoulder increased child welfare, education and social services costs.

"The administration's practice of separating families is cruel, plain and simple," New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said in a statement. "Every day, it seems like the administration is issuing new, contradictory policies and relying on new, contradictory justifications. But we can't forget: The lives of real people hang in the balance."

In a speech before the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Los Angeles, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the administration for taking a hardline stand on illegal immigration and said the voters elected President Donald Trump to do just that.

"This is the Trump era," he said. "We are enforcing our laws again. We know whose side we are on -- so does this group -- and we're on the side of police, and we're on the side of the public safety of the American people."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for a comment on the multistate lawsuit.

Juan Sanchez, chief executive of the nation's largest shelters for migrant children, said hours before the California judge's ruling that he was "ready now" to start reuniting hundreds of babies and young kids with their families.

Sanchez, of the nonprofit Southwest Key Programs, said his nonprofit had located many of the parents who have been arrested for trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border so -- if the opportunity arose -- they could move quickly to reunite the families.

"We're ready today," said Sanchez, who had been fearful of a long, drawn out process.

Sanchez earlier said parents' cases would likely have to first make their way through the legal system. Only then could the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement give the go-ahead to put families back together. He said there appeared to be a lack of urgency on behalf of the government, and worried that the process could take months.

HHS Secretary Alex Azar told Congress on Tuesday that his department still has custody of 2,047 immigrant children separated from their parents at the border. That is only six fewer children than the number in HHS custody as of last Wednesday.

Democratic senators said that wasn't nearly enough progress.

"HHS, Homeland Security, and the Justice Department seem to be doing a lot more to add to the bedlam and deflect blame than they're doing to tell parents where their kids are," Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said.

Under questioning, Azar refused to be pinned down on how long it will take to reunite families. He said his department does extensive vetting of parents to make sure they are not traffickers masquerading as parents.

Tens of thousands of Central American migrants traveling with children - as well as children traveling alone - are caught on the Mexican border each year. Many are fleeing gang violence in their home countries.

At a Texas detention facility, immigrant advocates complained that parents have gotten busy signals or no answers from a 1-800 number provided by federal authorities to get information about their children.

Attorneys have spoken to about 200 immigrants at the Port Isabel detention facility near Los Fresnos, Texas, since last week, and only a few knew where their children were being held, said Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg of the Legal Aid Justice Center in Virginia.

"The U.S. government never had any plan to reunite these families that were separated," Sandoval-Moshenberg said, and now it is "scrambling to undo this terrible thing that they have done."

A message left for HHS, which runs the hotline, was not immediately returned.

Many children in shelters in southern Texas have not had contact with their parents, though some have reported being allowed to speak with them in recent days, said Meghan Johnson Perez, director of the Children's Project for the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project, which provides free legal services to minors.

"Things might be changing now. The agencies are trying to coordinate better," she said. "But the kids we have been seeing have not been in contact with the parents. They don't know where the parent is. They're just distraught. Their urgent need is just trying to figure out, 'Where is my parent?'"

Since calling for an end to the separations, administration officials have been casting about for detention space for migrants, with the Pentagon drawing up plans to hold as many as 20,000 at U.S. military bases.

At the same time, the administration has asked the courts to let it detain families together for an extended period while their immigration cases are resolved. Under a 1997 court settlement, children must be released from detention as quickly as possible, which generally has been construed to be within 20 days.

Outraged by the family separations, immigrant supporters have led protests in recent days in states such as Florida and Texas. In Los Angeles, police arrested 25 demonstrators at rally Tuesday ahead of Sessions' address.

Outside the U.S. attorney's office, protesters carried signs reading, "Free the children!" and "Stop caging families." Clergy members blocked the street by forming a human chain. Police handcuffed them and led them away.

Later, protesters gathered outside the hotel where Sessions gave his speech. As the attorney general's motorcade arrived, the crowd chanted, "Nazi, go home."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/separated- ... 018-06-26/

firecat69
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:29 am
Been liked: 35 times

#55 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby firecat69 » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:40 pm

Democracy in the USA is in Peril. If Dems fail to take back at least the House and hold their Ground in the Senate, US will go the way of Turkey.

Everybody is talking about the House but I feel the Senate is demolishing both Democracy and all the gains made in many areas over the last 25 years .

The Supreme Court will demolish all the advances made in the last 25 years if they get another appointee by Trump! If I did pray, it would be that Kennedy does not retire.

User avatar
Gaybutton
Site Admin
Posts: 14435
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 520 times

#56 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby Gaybutton » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:03 pm

firecat69 wrote:Democracy in the USA is in Peril.

"I love America. I love all the freedom we used to have."
- George Carlin



RichLB
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:13 pm
Been liked: 28 times

#57 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby RichLB » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:32 am

This is a useful video for those who are so swamped by Trump's malfeasance they can't keep them all straight.

https://www.facebook.com/thetrumpsterfi ... 898760018/

User avatar
Gaybutton
Site Admin
Posts: 14435
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 520 times

#58 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby Gaybutton » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:40 pm

RichLB wrote:This is a useful video for those who are so swamped by Trump's malfeasance they can't keep them all straight.

Here's another one, and there are plenty more.

And yet Trump's popularity is going up. Are people fucking stupid, gullible, or what?


User avatar
Gaybutton
Site Admin
Posts: 14435
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 520 times

#59 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby Gaybutton » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:09 pm


firecat69
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:29 am
Been liked: 35 times

#60 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5

Postby firecat69 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:00 am

Gaybutton wrote:And yet Trump's popularity is going up. Are people fucking stupid, gullible, or what?

I don't believe it. The one thing all the experts fail to take into account are all the people who fled the Republican Party and now consider themselves as Independents . Thus there are less Republicans and of course Trump's % of approval keeps going up.

We will see if I am right after the elections . Most people are not so stupid or uninformed. Trump keeps cheering the 2 million jobs created in 2017 and yet seldom do any of the experts on TV mention that is less then Obama created in 2016. People have short memories and Trump has a big mouth. But many have figured out there was no tax cut for the average person and gas prices are spiking by 20% for the summer. Oh and many agricultural states are about to get murdered by the stupid tariffs .

Sometimes all that seems Rosy is not so Rosy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it until the Election in 4 months tells me different.


Return to “Everything Else”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests