#Michael McAleenan | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

New Rule Would Let U.S. Hold Migrant Families Indefinitely https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/flores-migrant-family-detention.html

Migrant Families Would Face Indefinite Detention Under New Trump Rule

By Michael D. Shear and Zolan Kanno-Youngs | Published Aug. 21, 2019 Updated 10:55 a.m. ET | New York Times | Posted August 21, 2019 11:20 AM ET |

Leer en español

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration unveiled a regulation on Wednesday that would allow it to detain indefinitely migrant families who cross the border illegally, replacing a decades-old court agreement that imposed a limit on how long the government could hold migrant children in custody and specified the level of care they must receive.

The White House has for more than a year pressed the Department of Homeland Security to replace the agreement, known as the Flores settlement, a shift that the administration says is crucial to halt immigration across the southwestern border.

The new regulation , which requires approval from a federal judge before it can go into effect and was expected to be immediately challenged in court, would establish standards for conditions in detention centers and specifically abolish a 20-day limit on detaining families in immigration jails, a cap that has prompted President Trump to repeatedly complain about the “catch and release” of families from Central America and elsewhere into the United States.

“This rule allows the federal government to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress,” Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary of homeland security, said in a statement. He called it a “critical rule” that would allow the government to detain families and maintain the “integrity of the immigration system.”

The administration proposed the rule last fall, allowing the public to comment on the potential regulation. It is scheduled to be published this week in the Federal Register and would take effect 60 days later, though administration officials concede that the expected court challenge will probably delay it.

Under the new rule, the administration would be free to send families who are caught crossing the border illegally to a family residential center to be held for as long as it takes for their immigration cases to be decided. Officials said families cases could be resolved within three months, though many could drag on much longer.

Trump administration officials — who briefed reporters on Tuesday night on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plans — said that many of the families would be detained until they were either released after being awarded asylum or they were deported to their home countries. Some families might be awarded parole to leave the facilities while the courts decide their fate.

The 20-day limit has been in place since 2015, a legal outgrowth of a 1997 court-ordered consent decree after a federal class-action lawsuit alleged physical and emotional harm done to immigrant children held for extended periods of time in the detention facilities.

Previous administrations tried to change the rules for detaining children in efforts to reduce surges of migrants crossing the border. Mr. Trump’s homeland security officials have repeatedly said that limiting the detentions of entire migrant families has driven the surge of Central American families who crossed the border this year.

The officials said on Tuesday that enacting the new regulation would send a powerful message that bringing children to the United States was not “a passport” to being released from detention.

They predicted that the rule would cause a significant decrease in the number of families trying to cross into the United States illegally, reducing the need for more family residential centers.

Withdrawing from the consent decree has also been a personal objective for Stephen Miller, the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration policy. Delays in finishing the new regulation had prompted Mr. Miller to lash out at senior homeland security officials, who were ousted from the department.

The New York Times reported in April that Mr. Miller berated the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ronald D. Vitiello, for not finishing the new rule. Mr. Vitiello later had his nomination withdrawn by Mr. Trump, who said he was not tough enough for the job.

The Flores settlement has also been at the root of partisan debates on immigration. Democrats have said the rules, are imperative to ensuring the well-being of detained children, especially after reports of children being kept in overcrowded cells and sometimes going without showers, toothpaste or hot meals.

Mr. McAleenan told the House Homeland Security Committee in May that the Flores settlement had incentivized migration to the United States, saying that “if an adult arrives with a child, they have a likelihood of staying in the United States.”

Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee, reminded Mr. McAleenan of the original purpose of the court-ordered regulations.

“It was about prolonged detention of children had proven to be harmful to their health,” Mr. Thompson said. “I think the court looked at it from that perspective rather than a punitive decision on the department.”

The Trump administration’s regulation, which is several hundred pages long, eliminates a requirement that federal detention centers for immigrant families be licensed by states, most of which had no such licenses.

Instead, under the regulation, the three centers built to house hundreds of immigrant families — in Dilley and Karnes City, Tex., and Leesport, Pa. — would have to meet standards set only by ICE, which runs them.

The administration officials insisted Tuesday that the facilities were, and would continue to be, maintained at high standards for the immigrants who were detained there. They said the facilities provided health care, education and “top notch” food.

But critics of the administration have long argued that the facilities were unsuitable for children to be held for long periods of time. And the recent examples of horrible conditions at overcrowded Border Patrol detention centers have underscored their concerns about the residential centers.

“We don’t disagree with detaining children when it’s necessary — namely, if they’re a flight risk or they’re a danger to themselves or others, we agree,” said Peter Schey, a lawyer who filed the original case and has continued to defend the settlement terms in court since. “It’s the unnecessary detention of child that this settlement sought to end. So these regulations really reflect a flagrant disregard on the part of President Trump and his administration for the safety and the well-being of children in the care of the federal government.”

Last summer, the Trump administration began separating children from their parents as a way to get around the Flores agreement. The children were sent to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services while the adults were imprisoned while awaiting trial on their violation of immigration laws.

A fierce political backlash forced Mr. Trump to publicly abandon the separation policy, though immigration advocates said some families continued to be separated after that announcement.

Administration officials said Tuesday that the effort to allow families to be detained indefinitely was an attempt to avoid having to either separate families or release them while they waited for their cases to be heard.

Even before the final rule was announced on Wednesday, immigration advocates said it amounted to a cruel effort to imprison families — some with infants or young children — many of whom are fleeing violence and corruption in their home countries.

Under the terms of the 1997 consent decree, the regulation must be approved by the judge in the original case, Judge Dolly M. Gee of United States District Court for the Central District of California. The government will have seven days to file a brief in her court seeking her approval of the regulation.

If she refuses, the administration is expected to appeal her decision in a case that could drag on for months or even years, legal experts said.

Caitlin Dickerson contributed reporting from New York.

The Flores Agreement Protected Migrant Children for Decades. New Regulations Aim to End It.

By Miriam Jordan | Published Aug. 20, 2019 Updated 9:52 a.m. ET | New York Times | Posted August 21, 2019 |

LOS ANGELES — Nearly 35 years ago, long before the current mass influx of Central American families making their way to America’s southern border, a different and more brutal migrant crisis was unfolding.

In El Salvador, government death squads were stalking suspected insurgents. Farmers, human rights activists and even priests were being caught in the crossfire. The widening civil war would leave more than 75,000 people dead, and send tens of thousands of people fleeing to the United States.

One of them was Alma Yanira Cruz, a 12-year-old girl who made her way north to join her mother in Los Angeles after her grandfather and uncle were killed.

What happened to her after she arrived in 1985 violated nearly every principle of today’s standards for protecting migrant children — an ordeal that even now, she said recently, is “too painful to remember, to discuss.”

And yet it had become shockingly routine.

A barricade of razor wire surrounded an old motel in Pasadena, Calif., north of Los Angeles, where migrants were locked in overcrowded rooms, children and adults jammed in together. For weeks, the girl remained there — offered no schooling, no recreation, no doctors, no visits with relatives.

“Alma suffered too much. She felt unsafe. She was mixed with all kinds of people and was afraid,” said her mother, Anna Aldana, who had come to the United States in 1979 and was working as a housekeeper in Los Angeles. “She told me they didn’t give her enough food. She told me she fell out of a high bunk bed.”

The Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday unveiled a sweeping new set of regulations for detaining migrant children, replacing more than two decades of protections that were put into place as a result of what happened to Alma and her fellow detainees in 1985. The new standards, set to be published later this week, would allow the government to detain children and families indefinitely, revise the minimum standards of care and, if they stand up in court, end the 22-year-old consent decree, known as the Flores agreement, that has protected the nation’s youngest and most vulnerable new arrivals.

A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Ms. Cruz, one of the other young Salvadorean girls being held in Pasadena; Jenny Lisette Flores, 15; and two other adolescent girls paved the way for one of the most important changes in immigration policy in half a century. When it was finally settled in 1997, the litigation transformed the way migrant children all across the southwest border were treated after arriving in the United States.

No longer could they be held indefinitely in hard-core detention facilities: They had to be released quickly to a family member or guardian or, if that was not possible, transferred speedily to a licensed care facility that did not operate like a jail. A subsequent interpretation of the agreement limited the time most migrant children could spend in detention, generally to no more than 20 days.

The Obama administration, which battled a new surge in migrant families arriving on the border in 2014, tried and failed to get out from under the strict limits. The Trump administration railed against the “legal loopholes” in the consent decree and tried mightily to upend it. The Flores agreement, the administration argued, helped create the current chaos at the border by providing an incentive for migrant parents to bring their children with them — the equivalent, under the current legal framework, of a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Administration officials said that the new regulations maintain the underlying purpose of the Flores agreement, and all children will be “treated with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors.”

But those who spearheaded the long-running litigation disagree.

“These regulations issued under orders from the White House show President Trump’s decision to politicize the detention of migrant children as part of his re-election campaign and his callous indifference to their safety and well-being,” said Peter Schey, who along with his co-counsel, Carlos Holguin, filed the original lawsuit.

When the Trump administration last year tried to get around the Flores agreement by separating children from their parents in order to detain the parents alone, the policy created such an uproar that it was soon rescinded, at least officially. Then, administration lawyers went to court to try to win permission to keep children with their parents in detention-type facilities for longer than 20 days.

Judge Dolly Gee of Federal District Court in Los Angeles, who oversees the agreement, denied the government’s request, blaming more than 20 years of congressional inaction and “ill-considered executive action” for the “current stalemate.” Three months later, in September, the administration published the proposed new Flores regulations for comment in the Federal Register.

After the final rule is published later this week, the plaintiffs’ lawyers will have one week to file a brief with the court if they believe the regulations fail to implement the terms of the settlement. If not rejected by the court, the regulations would take effect 60 days after publication.

The two plaintiffs’ lawyers have returned to court dozens of times to force the administration to abide by the agreement’s provisions and made repeated visits to detention centers to inspect them or interview children. Most recently, the legal observers in the case reported on a border facility in Clint, Tex., where they said migrant children were being held in filthy conditions with inadequate food.

“If someone had told me in 1985 that our work to protect children would continue into 2019,” Mr. Holguin said, “there is no way I would have believed it.”

Mr. Holguin was a 30-year-old lawyer working with Mr. Schey at a public-interest law firm when the two lawyers first got drawn into the case. It started with a phone call from the actor Ed Asner, who had heard about Ms. Cruz’s case and wanted someone to intervene.

Mr. Holguin’s father, the son of a Mexican immigrant, had been a public school teacher in East Los Angeles who had supported the 1968 Latino student walkouts across the city protesting racism and substandard education for Mexican-Americans. After college, Mr. Holguin enrolled in the People’s College of Law, an unaccredited law school in Los Angeles, convinced that the quickest way to a more equitable society was through the courts.

Mr. Schey was the son of a German gentile mother and a communist Jewish father who had escaped on a boat to South Africa during World War II. The family immigrated to United States when Mr. Schey was a teenager.

By the 1980s, Los Angeles was ground zero in the immigrant-rights movement. “The key national organizations were based in Los Angeles. The most vocal immigrant defenders worked in L.A.,” Mr. Schey said. The two lawyers were working together out of a 1920s-era Craftsman house with bad plumbing and a warped roof when the call about the girls being held in Pasadena came in.

Los Angeles was absorbing thousands of war refugees. “Back then, it was guerrillas, not gangs making people leave,” said Ms. Aldana, sitting recently in her modest one-bedroom apartment in a middle-class Los Angeles neighborhood adorned with photographs of her teenage grandchildren — the twins her daughter would go on to have.

Guerrillas who rampaged through her neighborhood in El Salvador had forced her children to procure and prepare food for them, she recalled. “I had to get them out of there.” After her son, Luis Alberto, crossed the border undetected, she decided Alma should come.

But Alma was apprehended by border agents at San Ysidro, and transferred to the detention facility in Pasadena. Ms. Aldana feared she would be deported if she came forward to claim her daughter, and the authorities would not allow anyone else to take her. So the girl languished in custody.

“I wept and wept. I felt helpless,” recalled Ms. Aldana.

At about the same time, Jenny Lisette Flores, whose mother was also undocumented and living in Los Angeles, had arrived at the border and been sent to the Pasadena motel. Her mother, too, was afraid to pick up her daughter because of her immigration status.

“Children were being indefinitely detained. The government was using them as bait to arrest their parents,” said Mr. Holguin.

With an army of law students and volunteer lawyers, the pair began visiting facilities and documenting what they witnessed.

The most serious thing they found was that immigration agents were doing body cavity searches on migrant children, said John Hagar, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, a co-counsel in the case. “They would look up a boy’s anus and a girl’s vagina,” he said.

The lawsuit filed on July 11, 1985, argued that the government needed to meet basic child-welfare standards, with education, recreation and medical examinations. It also said the authorities should release children to competent and available adults, rather than indefinitely detaining them until a parent or legal guardian could come forward.

On the day that the suit was filed, Ms. Aldana appeared at a news conference alongside Mr. Schey and the actor, Mr. Asner. To hide her identity, she tied a bandanna around her face, leaving only her forehead and eyes exposed.

“I was on TV, and I said that I had brought my daughter because I didn’t want her kidnapped by guerrillas,” Ms. Aldana said.

A few weeks later, a judge ordered the girls released to people appointed by their mothers who were American citizens. Ms. Cruz was handed over to a family friend who represented her in the lawsuit; Ms. Flores was released to an uncle.

The lawyers sought a nationwide injunction to apply the same principles to all children in federal custody. The parties began discussing a settlement and reached the now-famous consent decree in 1997.

“At the time, we didn’t realize it would be seminal,” said Doris Meissner, the immigration chief in the Clinton administration who signed off on the settlement. She said she had advised addressing the problems head-on. “If there are real issues surrounding the detention of minors, and the government is being held accountable for poor conditions, why are we litigating in favor of what we are doing wrong? Why don’t we settle the lawsuit?”

Complying with the standards in the settlement, she said, was “the right thing to do for kids.”

Little did the plaintiffs’ lawyers know that holding the government to the consent decree would become their life’s work.

“By and large, there was substantial compliance,” recalled Mr. Schey.

Then, in 2014, Central American families and unaccompanied children began pushing across the border in ever-larger numbers, fleeing horrific gang violence, domestic abuse and entrenched poverty. Most of them were seeking asylum. As the numbers climbed, the Obama administration responded by erecting large detention centers for families.

Mr. Holguin and Mr. Schey sprang into action in early 2015, filing a motion in federal court to enforce the Flores agreement. Judge Gee ruled that the settlement applied even to a child apprehended with a parent — meaning that the de facto 20-day limit on detentions applied not just to children, but to parents who were detained with their children.

The numbers of children in detention began rising again late last year, and Mr. Holguin and Mr. Schey enlisted dozens of lawyers and health professionals to inspect facilities like the one in Clint where they were being kept.

What they found was a constant pattern: One facility would be fixed. Then there would be problems at a different one.

“It’s like we are playing Whac-a-Mole. Done with that, then another violation comes up,” Mr. Holguin said.

Today, both Ms. Cruz and Ms. Flores live in Southern California, with children of their own. Though Ms. Cruz spoke briefly to The New York Times, neither wanted to be interviewed. Mr. Schey, who called the women “the Rosa Parks of the civil rights movement for immigrant children,” said he had not seen them in years.

“I’d love to see them,” he said, “to tell them that their willingness to be lead plaintiffs has provided protections for more than a million immigrant children.”

Michael Shear contributed reporting from Washington and Jack Healy from Denver. Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

#politics #president donald trump #donald trump #donald trump jr #u.s. immigration and customs enforcement #immigration reform #immigration #immigrants #homeland security #u.s. news #u.s. department of justice #u.s. government #u.s. border patrol #ice #abolish ice

6 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 5 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Americans opposed to President Trump are constantly asking some version of this question: “Why won’t Republicans break with Trump?”

The personalities on Fox News are largely standing with the president amid the controversy over the Trump administration pushing Ukrainian officials to investigate the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son. So are Republicans in Congress. Vice President Mike Pence and others inside the Trump administration are also defending the president’s actions involving Ukraine (a shift from when one-time Trump advisers like Dan Coats would sometimes signal disagreement with the president’s stances).

But looking at Trump’s standing only among people currently inside of powerful Republican-controlled spaces — the party itself, Fox News, the White House, etc. — presents an incomplete picture and understates opposition to Trump among Republican politicians and activists. Almost by definition, that opposition can’t happen within the obvious GOP spaces — the president and his acolytes have accumulated enough power that it’s increasingly hard to be both be anti-Trump and a Republican in good standing at a major conservative institution.

So Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan left the GOP and became an independent. Former Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina lost in a primary last year to an opponent endorsed by Trump after speaking out against the president. And just last Friday, Fox News anchor and occasional Trump critic Sheppard Smith resigned,1 as did Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, who had occasionally clashed with the president.

Indeed, widen your lens and you can find all kinds of anti-Trump sentiment in conservative and right-leaning circles. This anti-Trump bloc, in addition to Republicans still supporting the president, might have lots of sway as impeachment unfolds — if they can reach GOP voters.

The media

You could create your very own conservative, anti-Trump TV network if you hired all the Trump-skeptical Republicans who regularly appear as talking heads on CNN and MSNBC. CNN, for example, has Amanda Carpenter, Charlie Dent, John Kasich, and Mia Love. MSNBC boasts Carlos Curbelo, Susan Del Percio, Elise Jordan, Mike Murphy, Jennifer Rubin, Joe Scarborough, Michael Steele, Charlie Sykes, Nicole Wallace, George Will and Rick Tyler.2

Yes, most conservative pundits on Fox News are heartily pro-Trump, but not all conservative pundits are on Fox News.

Elected officials

There were 241 Republicans in the U.S. House in early 2017, at the start of Trump’s tenure. Since then, more than a quarter have either been defeated at the ballot box, in last November’s elections (29), or retired (36).3 Some of them, such as former Rep. Mia Love of Utah, blame Trump’s unpopularity for their defeats. Others, such as Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, hint that they are leaving Congress in part because they are uncomfortable with the direction Trump is taking the GOP, as the Washington Post recently reported in a story detailing the exodus of House Republicans.

There is also a group of Trump-skeptical governors and senators — most notably former Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona and former Gov. John Kasich of Ohio — who left their posts after 2018. And then you have figures like former Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois , ex-Gov. William Weld of Massachusetts and Sanford, all of whom are running long-shot primary challenges to Trump. Former Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who has publicly come out against Trump, is suing his state’s Republican Party in an effort to overturn its decision to cancel next year’s Republican primary, a move designed in part to boost the president.

So, in addition to that conservative, anti-Trump cable channel, you could also piece together a Senate majority (51 people) from Republicans who have previously served in either the House or the Senate but who have been publicly wary of Trump.

Senior Republican staffers

OK, if you’re going to have a shadow, anti-Trump GOP Senate, you need some experienced Republican operatives to staff it. You won’t have to look too hard.

In a clear and public rebuke to Trump, chiefs of staff for Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush recently told the New York Times that the presidents they served would never have asked for help winning an election from a foreign government. A group of conservative lawyers, many of whom served in top positions in the Department of Justice under Reagan or one of the Bushes, are supporting the impeachment inquiry.

Moreover, plenty of people who served in senior roles in the Trump administration itself, including H.R. McMaster (national security adviser), Anthony Scaramucci (communications director) and Rex Tillerson (secretary of state) have distanced themselves from the president.

Again, the Republican staffers currently in the White House are defending the president, but that might mask some broader disagreement among senior-level Republican staffers.

Conservative institutions

Many organizations on the right, such as the Heritage Foundation, are in lockstep with the president. But others — the Cato Institute, the Niskanen Center — are fairly critical of him

Or, take the white evangelical conservative movement as a whole. It is often portrayed as totally behind the president, and news stories often cite people like Jerry Falwell Jr. who are closely allied with the president to show that. But white evangelicals aren’t completely aligned with Trump — a generational gap has begun to open up. And really, people like Falwell, who runs a small Christian college (Liberty University), are more accurately described as evangelical leaders who support Trump, rather than evangelical leaders. overall. J.D. Greear, head of the Southern Baptist Convention, is more clearly a “leader” of America’s evangelicals — and he is kind of lukewarm about Trump.

So it’s important to understand that many conservative organizations and power centers on the right are strongly behind Trump, but also that increasingly “conservative” has come to mean “pro-Trump,” a narrative that writes out of the story organizations and people who had what were considered fairly rightly-leaning views pre-Trump.

OK, I admit this is an imprecise exercise. What overall percentage of elite Republicans — conservative media figures, current and former members of Congress, current and former administration officials, etc. — oppose Trump? That’s basically impossible to quantify.

But I think it’s higher than often portrayed — because some opposition lives in non-GOP spaces where people aren’t looking, and because much of it is also hidden from view, as elected Republicans face strong incentives to stand by Trump publicly.

All of this helps explain why Republican voters are among the most loyal-to-Trump constituencies in the Republican Party. Surveys have long suggested that between 85 and 90 percent of Republican voters approve of the president. Only about 13 percent of people who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 said that they disapproved of Trump in a poll conducted in late 2018 and early 2019 by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. According to FiveThirtyEight’s average of impeachment polls, about 14 percent of Republicans support impeachment.

I wrote recently about how rank-and-file voters often follow cues from elites, noting that impeachment support increased among Democrats after the party unified around the idea. So maybe if we had full data on the views of all Republican elites, we’d find that about 10 to 15 percent oppose Trump, perfectly in line with voters.

But I think that the safer assumption is this: Trump has in many ways successfully purged his critics from the power centers of the GOP. So a potential resistance to him among Republican elites doesn’t just face the obvious challenge that he’s the president and popular among GOP voters. Republican elites who are wary of Trump are also not well situated to make their case to rank-and-file Republican voters. They are working in lobbying shops or boardrooms instead of on Capitol Hill, speaking to audiences on CNN and MSNBC instead of Fox News, and outside of the administration instead of inside it.

The facts of the Ukraine case, or its politics, could open more doors for those anti-Trump voices in those pro-Trump spaces. That would likely have profound effects on the views of GOP voters.

For now, though, the Trump-skeptical bloc in Congress remains a small part of the overall Trump-skeptical conservative coalition.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

1 note · View note

meetnategreen · 5 years

Link

Here are some senior figures who have been fired, quit or otherwise changed roles in the administration.

2019

Randolph "Tex" Alles -- the head of the U.S. Secret Service -- left in May as part of a broader shake-up of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The White House tapped James Murray, a career Secret Service agent, to take over.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. She resigned in April amid Trump's rising anger at a surge in migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Kevin McAleenan, who had led the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner, was chosen as acting DHS secretary.

Linda McMahon - The Republican fundraiser was one of Trump's first Cabinet picks. She served as director of the Small Business Administration until March, when she resigned to join Trump's re-election campaign. Trump nominated U.S. Treasurer Jovita Carranza to the position in April.

Clete Willems - A key figure in trade talks with China and a deputy to Trump's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, Willems said in March he wanted to spend more time with his family.

Heather Wilson - The U.S. Air Force secretary, once considered a top candidate to become defense secretary, decided to return to academia.

Bill Shine - Eight months after being hired as the White House communications director, he resigned to work on Trump's re-election campaign. A source close to Trump said the president had lost confidence in the former Fox News executive.

2018

Jim Mattis - In a candid resignation letter that laid bare his growing divide with Trump over Syria and Afghanistan policies, the defense secretary abruptly quit, shocking allies and Congress. Trump named Mattis' deputy, Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive, to the role in an acting capacity soon afterward.

Ryan Zinke - Trump's first interior secretary left at the end of 2018 amid investigations into his use of security details, chartered flights and a real estate deal.

John Kelly - A retired Marine Corps general, Kelly was hired as White House chief of staff to bring order to the chaotic Trump White House, but ultimately fell out with his boss. Trump named his budget director, Mick Mulvaney, to the job on an acting basis on Dec. 14.

Jeff Sessions - The Republican former U.S. senator from Alabama was finally forced out as attorney general on Nov. 7 after months of being attacked and ridiculed by the president for recusing himself from a special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He was replaced briefly by Matthew Whitaker until William Barr was confirmed to the job.

Nikki Haley - The former South Carolina governor stepped down at the end of 2018 as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Trump first put forward State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert as her successor, but she later withdrew. Trump has since nominated Republican donor and U.S. Ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft for the position.

Don McGahn - Trump said in August the White House counsel would leave, amid strains between the two over the Russia probe.

Scott Pruitt - The Environmental Protection Agency chief quit in July under fire over a series of ethics controversies.

David Shulkin - White House officials said in March that the Veterans Affairs secretary would resign.

H.R. McMaster - The national security adviser was replaced in March by John Bolton.

Rex Tillerson - The secretary of state was fired by Trump in March after long-standing tension between them.

Gary Cohn - The National Economic Council director and former Goldman Sachs president said in March he would resign. Trump picked Larry Kudlow to replace him.

Hope Hicks - The White House communications director, a long-serving and trusted Trump aide, resigned on Feb. 28.

Rob Porter - The White House staff secretary resigned in February after accusations of domestic abuse from former wives.

2017

Omarosa Manigault Newman - The former reality TV star was fired as assistant to the president in December.

Tom Price - The Health and Human Services secretary quit under pressure from Trump on Sept. 29 over travel practices.

Stephen Bannon - Trump's chief strategist was fired by Trump in mid-August after clashing with White House moderates.

Anthony Scaramucci - The White House communications director was fired by Trump in July after 10 days on the job.

Reince Priebus - Replaced as chief of staff by Kelly, Priebus lost Trump's confidence after setbacks in Congress.

Sean Spicer - Resigned as White House press secretary in July, ending a turbulent tenure.

Michael Dubke - Resigned as White House communications director in May.

James Comey - The FBI director, who led the Russia probe before the special counsel was appointed, was fired by Trump in May.

Michael Flynn - Resigned in February as Trump's national security adviser. Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Sally Yates - Fired in January by Trump as acting attorney general.

(Reporting by Washington Newsroom; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, and Alistair Bell)

All of the appointees of President Putin’s Apprentice share certain things in common; They’re either Corrupt, Incompetent or BOTH.

They may think they’re the smart ones for jumping of his sinking garbage barge, but all of them will be tainted with his foul stink for the rest of their wasted and unredeemable lives.

4 notes · View notes

streetofficialmedia · 2 years

Photo

The Team Motorsport USA McLaren 570S GT4 entering the paddock.. 🚗 Motorsport USA 🏁 Dan Rogers 🏁 Jerold Lowe 🏁 Michael McAleenan #streetofficialcars #motorsportusa #mclaren570s #mclarenracing #gtamerica #roadamerica #gtworldchallenge #carphotography📸 #canonphotooftheday #canoncarphotography #motorsportphotography #promotingmotorsport #racingphotography #motorsportsphotography #carspotted #carweek #carsunlimited #racingclub #carsoninstagram #carshot #cargasm #cars247 #awesomecars #newcardealer #sellcars #usedcarsales #newcarsales #ncphotographers #carphotoshoot (at Road America) https://www.instagram.com/p/CbXy9EYLASP/?utm_medium=tumblr

0 notes

newsboys-of-1899 · 6 years

Quote

They put up prices to six papes for a dime when the war began. Then the war quit and there wasn’t no such sale for the papes, and we wanted to get them two for a cent again, but they wouldn’t. That’s what we’re going on strike for now. We’re doing it now because the cops is all busy, and we can do any scab newsboy that shows his face without police interference. We’re here for our rights, and we will die defending them. At the rates they give us now we can’t make only four cents on ten papes, and that ain’t enough to pay for snipes.

Michael “Boots” McAleenan, explaining the reasons behind the strike to the New York Sun, June 20, 1899

#boots #speeches and quotes #newsies #newsboy strike of 1899 #history

41 notes · View notes

musicalcuriosity · 6 years

Text

List of Newsies

Literally just a list of some of the newsboys mentioned in various articles, including known names or nicknames (and ages in 1899 if possible). Eventually, I’ll add links to tags of other things people have discovered about them. If anyone has a name or information to add, let me know!

*= I couldn’t determine if this was the nickname of a previously mentioned boy within an article, or an entirely seperate person

bolded= a character featured in the ‘92 movie/stage musical

Newboys

Louis Balletti (Louis Ballat, Kid Blink, Red Blink, Blind Diamond, Muggsy McGee, Mug Magee); aged 16-18 in 1899

Ed Higgins (Racetrack)

Nick Myers (Young Myers, Young Mush); I’ve seen “Nick” in quotes, so I’m not sure that if that’s really his first name?

Dave or David Simons/Simonds/Symonds; 21

Bob “Indian” Stone (or Bob Indian)

Joe Kernan/Kiernan (Hungry Joe)

Mickey Myers (possibly the same as Nick? can anyone confirm?)

Edward Rowland, 16

Mikki Fischler, 12

John Falk; a black newsie

John Charge

Toby Duck; leader of the Trenton newsboys

Johnny Driscoll

Seadsy (?) McGuire

Thomas Donegan/Donnegan/Dunnigan (Niney, Nine-Fingered Tom [age 14], Nine-Eyed Donegan [age 18]); 12 in 1899?

Joe Lipman

“Tow-Head” Halligan; I think he is actually from Troy, but I liked his name

“Foxey” Osborne

“Dinky” Bateman

Mugsy McGrath; another name for Kid Blink?

Dope

John J. Foley

Socks

Jimmy the Goat

James Lahey, 20

Michael Lamadica, 14

Walter Briggs, 14

Little Mike

Jim Gaiety/Gady

Morris (Young Monix/Manix, Yeller, Hunch Maddox, Skinney (?))

Barney Peanuts

“Crutch” Morris (Crutchie, Crutchy)

George Thompson (Micky)

Eddy/Eddie Murphy

Walter Murphy

Timmy Kelly

The Black Wonder

Lewis Miller

Emil Kuehn/Kahune (H.H.); 15

Skaggs (Skaggsy)

Tiny Tim

Yak Egg

Moses Burns; 11; I’ve also seen “Burrie” for a last name

John Gallupo/Aleppo/Alleppe; 13 or 15;

Louis Kirlow/Kerlow/Kerllow; 13 or 16

Milo Green, 15

Spot Conlon, 14

Edward Fitzgerald

Henry Butler (Butts, Major Butts, Puts [?])

“Jack” Harney

Jack Seeley

Peter Peglies, 22

William Gibbons, 23

Albert Smith, 15

Cornelius Boyle (Grin); 13 or 14

Abraham Greenhause, 14

Issac Miller (Ike); 13

Joseph Mulligan (Thimblefinger); 17

Frank Dresso/Glasso (Juicy); 17

Donato Carolucci (Mushy Pip); 17

Jim Seabook (Scabutch, Scabooch)

Rubber*

Michael Romeo

Samuel Wolkinsky; 13

John Armstrong; 14

“Yell” Meyers; its possible/probably that this is the same person is Mush

“Kid” Fischer

“Young” Gal

Kid Fishbein

Sol/Charles Levy

“Buck” Farley

Abe Cutler

Solomon Levy

David Ruben

Simon Levy (Yellow)

John Mason/Masin; a Brooklyn Newsie

Charles Schrott; from Newark, New Jersey

George J. Fabian

Mike McAleenan/McAleen (Boots); 11; possibly the same as LIttle Mikey/Little Mike

James Hefferenan

Pie-Faced Jim

Jack Sullivan (Gass House)

The Squealer

Richard Crocker

Edward Herbert, 21

__Williams (Half-Dollar)

__Ford

__George Thompson

__Gallagher (Johnnie)

Steamboat Mike

John Wilson

Barney Peters (Barney Peanuts)]

Samuel Eisenberg; 14

Abe Newman

Sam Keeler; son of Annie Kelly?

Louis Mendick, 14

Louis/Lewis Hass

The Colonel

Cross-Eyed Joe

Cross-Eyed Peters; I think this may be the same guy as Cross-Eyed Joe?

McBinn or McLinn; the article in which I found his name is difficult to read

James Tobin

Friedman Frockets

Newsgirls/Newswomen

Annie Kelly; owned a newsstand

Mrs. Shea; sold papers and turned agains the union

Mrs. Corcoran; sold papers and turned agains the union

Mrs. Cry Baby; German; loyal to the strike

Jennie; scares off scabs

Rosie Corcoran: Mrs. Corcoran’s daughter, and a well known newsgirl

Others

Warhorse Brennan (a former newsboy who came out in support of the boys- sold at W. Broadway and Chambers St. for 20 years)

Jack Tietien (not sure if that’s his name)- owned a newsstand on Church st.

Joe Bernstein (a prizefighter)

Leonard A. Snitkin (a lawyer)

Charley Adler (assemblyman)

Phil Wissig (assemblyman)

Frank P. Wood (a baseball player in support of the boys)

Timothy Sullivan (political figure/gangster); “Dry Dollar”

Abraham Lippman (owner of a newsstand)

James G. Neill; 50; was the (new) elected president of the union following the (a suggestion was made by Mr. Lippman)

William Reese; a black man who sold lemonade, and was a friend to the newsies

“Crazy” Arborn; sold pretzels & donated food to the boys, and was given a seat on the union (thanks to @thevioletsunflower for the info!)

A.J. Klock; 23

Bertha Saffe; 23

Mr. Dufty

James “Jim” Lavelle (”Scotty”; the King of Chinatown): local saloon owner

#newsies #ref: newsies #newsboys strike of 1899 #newsie names

59 notes · View notes

techcrunchappcom · 4 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://techcrunchapp.com/trump-cabinet-officials-voted-in-2018-white-house-meeting-toseparate-migrant-children-say-officials-nbc-news/

Trump Cabinet officials voted in 2018 White House meeting to separate migrant children, say officials - NBC News

WASHINGTON — In early May 2018, after weeks of phone calls and private meetings, 11 of the president’s most senior advisers were called to the White House Situation Room, where they were asked, by a show-of-hands vote, to decide the fate of thousands of migrant parents and their children, according to two officials who were there.

President Donald Trump’s senior adviser Stephen Miller led the meeting, and, according to the two officials, he was angry at what he saw as defiance by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

It had been nearly a month since Jeff Sessions, then the attorney general, had launched the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, announcing that every immigrant who crossed the U.S. border illegally would be prosecuted, including parents with small children. But so far, U.S. border agents had not begun separating parents from their children to put the plan into action, and Miller, the architect of the administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, was furious about the delay.

Those invited included Sessions, Nielsen, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and newly installed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to documents obtained by NBC News.

Nielsen told those at the meeting that there were simply not enough resources at DHS, nor at the other agencies that would be involved, to be able to separate parents, prosecute them for crossing the border and return them to their children in a timely manner, according to the two officials who were present. Without a swift process, the children would enter into the custody of Health and Human Services, which was already operating at near capacity.

Two officials involved in the planning of “zero tolerance” said the Justice Department acknowledged on multiple occasions that U.S. attorneys would not be able to prosecute all parents expeditiously, so sending children to HHS was the most likely outcome.

As Nielsen had said repeatedly to other officials in the weeks leading up to the meeting, according to two former officials, the process could get messy and children could get lost in an already clogged system.

Miller saw the separation of families not as an unfortunate byproduct but as a tool to deter more immigration. According to three former officials, he had devised plans that would have separated even more children. Miller, with the support of Sessions, advocated for separating all immigrant families, even those going through civil court proceedings, the former officials said.

While zero tolerance ultimately separated nearly 3,000 children from their parents, what Miller proposed would have separated 25,000 more, including those who legally presented themselves at ports of entry seeking asylum, according to Customs and Border Protection data from May and June 2018.

The Morning Rundown

Get a head start on the morning’s top stories.

That plan never came to fruition, in large part because DHS officials had argued it would grind the immigration process to a halt. But after Sessions’ announcement that all families entering illegally would be prosecuted, the onus had fallen on DHS to act.

At the meeting, Miller accused anyone opposing zero tolerance of being a lawbreaker and un-American, according to the two officials present.

“If we don’t enforce this, it is the end of our country as we know it,” Miller said, according to the two officials. It was not unusual for Miller to make claims like that, but this time he was adamant that the policy move forward, regardless of arguments about resources and logistics.

No one in the meeting made the case that separating families would be inhumane or immoral, the officials said. Any moral argument about immigration “fell on deaf ears” inside the White House, one of the officials said.

“Miller was tired of hearing about logistical problems,” one of the officials said. “It was just ‘Let’s move forward and staff will figure this out.'”

Frustrated, Miller accused Nielsen of stalling and demanded a show of hands. Who was in favor of moving forward? he asked.

A sea of hands went up. Nielsen kept hers down. It was clear she had been outvoted, according to the officials.

In the days immediately following the meeting, Nielsen had a conversation with Kevin McAleenan, then the Customs and Border Patrol commissioner, in her office at the Ronald Reagan Building and then signed a memo instructing DHS personnel to prosecute all migrants crossing the border illegally, including parents arriving with their children.

Nielsen did so despite her stated reservations in the Situation Room and her having been warned in a legal memo by DHS General Counsel John Mitnick — which was also sent to her chief of staff at the time, Chad Wolf, who is now the acting secretary of DHS — that the decision would result in separation of families. Of the practice, Mitnick wrote, “a court could conclude that the separations are violative of the INA, Administrative Procedure Act, or the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause.”

Less than two months later, Trump signed an executive order halting family separations and a federal judge in California ordered family reunifications on the grounds that the separated families’ due process rights were violated.

At the time, no plan was in place to track the children who had been separated or to create a system to reunite thousands of separated families, according to the two former officials.

According to an invitation list obtained by NBC News, those expected to be in attendance at the meeting included: Sessions, Nielsen, Miller, Pompeo, Azar, Undersecretary of Defense John Rood, then-White House chief of staff John Kelly, White House deputy chief of staff Chris Liddell, then-White House counsel Don McGahn and Marc Short, who was then director of legislative affairs and is now chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence.

Asked about the show-of-hands vote, Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, said, “This is absolutely not true and did not happen.”

In response to a request for a comment about the meeting and the show of hands, HHS spokesman Michael Caputo said, “This never happened.”

The State Department and DHS referred NBC News to the White House. Sessions, Nielsen, Kelly and Bolton did not respond to requests for comment. McGahn and Rood could not be reached for comment.

Before Trump ended zero tolerance by executive order on June 20, 2018, over 2,800 children had been separated from their parents. When a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to begin reuniting the families it had separated, it became clear that there was no method to track both parent and child as they moved through the system. As a result, some took months to reunite, and, in hundreds of cases, parents were deported from the U.S. without their children.

On May 4, Gary Tomasulo, who was then the senior director for border and transportation security on the National Security Council, sent an email to the deputies and lower-level staffers tasked with carrying out immigration policy, telling them that their bosses had agreed to the new zero tolerance prosecution and separation policy and that they needed to develop plans to support it.

At the time, some of the subordinates to the Cabinet secretaries who were responsible for carrying out zero tolerance had raised moral objections, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

In the email, obtained by NBC News, Tomasulo told the deputies and other subordinates that their bosses “acknowledged that there are no easy solutions, but remained committed to collectively do everything possible to develop innovative solutions that leverage the full resources, capabilities, and authorities of the U.S. government.”

He went on to say, “I ask that if you are unable to participate in these meetings, the message of commitment and resolve expressed by our principals is communicated and internalized by those that represent your departments and agencies.”

#cabinet #house #meeting #officials #trump #voted #white #Politics

0 notes

myattorneyusa · 4 years

Photo

Supreme Court DACA Oral Argument Recap

Introduction

On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Docket No. 18-587. The Court is reviewing two issues:

Whether the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) decision to wind down DACA is judicially reviewable; and

Whether the DHS's decision to wind down the DACA program is lawful.

The DHS initially rescinded the memorandum implementing DACA in 2017, arguing that the program itself was illegal and that the rescission of DACA was in accord with DHS policy. This attempt to end DACA was enjoined by several Federal district courts. These injunctions remained in place despite DHS's attempt to subsequently provide a more detailed explanation for its decision in a second rescission memorandum issued by former Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. The Supreme Court agreed to review the issue on appeal from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court consolidated the case with McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 18-589 (Second Circuit) and Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588 (District Court for the District of Colombia), which involve similarly adverse decisions for the Trump Administration.

The Petitioner's oral arguments (the government) were presented by Noel J. Francisco, the Solicitor General of the United States. The oral argument time for the Respondents was split between the private Respondents and the state Respondents. Theodore B. Olson represented the private Respondents while Michael J. Mongan, the Solicitor General of San Francisco, California, represented the state respondents.

In this article, we will examine the key points from the oral arguments in the DACA recession cases. To learn more about DACA and the DACA rescission generally, please see our updated article on the subject [see article].

You may read the entire oral argument for yourself here [PDF version]. We will include page cites to the transcript in our discussion of the oral arguments in order that you may follow along and find the original quotes from the oral arguments.

Petitioner's Oral Argument: Solicitor General of the United States, Noel J. Francisco

The Solicitor General began his oral arguments by articulating the Government's position on the two questions presented by the Supreme Court. First, he argued that the DHS justifiably terminated DACA based on its position that DACA itself is illegal and its implementation had exceeded the DHS's authority (4-5). He added that the rescission of a policy involving the discretionary decision to not enforce the immigration laws against a class of aliens did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (4-5). Second, he argued that the decision to rescind DACA, which he described as a “stopgap measure,” was effectively the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and thus was not reviewable by the Courts (5-6).

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the first question of the Solicitor General. She suggested that his arguments were at tension: If the rescission of DACA is not reviewable because it is a matter of agency discretion, than how could the Solicitor General simultaneously argue that the Government has no discretion to maintain DACA because DACA itself is illegal (6)? She suggested that the decision to rescind the program can only be discretionary if the Government's position is that it had the authority to implement the program and thus the authority to continue the program.

The Solicitor General respondent to Justice Ginsburg by pointing to the Supreme Court 's decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) [PDF version]. The issue in Chaney was whether the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) decision to not regulate drugs used by states in carrying out the death penalty was reviewable. The Court ruled in favor of the FDA in that case, holding that there is a presumption of nonreviewability when an agency makes a non-enforcement decision committed to its discretion under the APA. The Solicitor General took the position that the DACA rescission was similar to Chaney in that the Government advanced alternative legal and policy arguments for its decision (6-7). The Solicitor General additionally took the position that even if the Government had only advanced a legal argument and not also a policy argument for the rescission, judicial review was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in I.C.C. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987) (“BLE”) [PDF version].

Chief Justice John Roberts followed this exchange with a hypothetical question: Were the government to decide not to enforce the immigration laws at all, would that be reviewable (8-9). The Solicitor General suggested that this would be reviewable under an exception from the presumption of non-reviewability articulated in Chaney for the complete abdication of authority (8-9). The Solicitor General distinguished the instant matter from the hypothetical, however, on the basis that the Government was actually trying to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by rescinding the DACA policy (8-9).

Justice Elena Kagan tried to ascertain the Solicitor General's position on the reviewability of the decision to implement DACA versus the decision to rescind it after it had been implemented. The Solicitor General took the position that the decision to implement DACA in the first place is reviewable, but the decision to rescind DACA is not (16-17). In support of this position, he explained that it was the Government's position that application of the holding of BLE renders the rescission of DACA reviewable because the INA does not limit the government's authority to enforce the immigration laws against the class of aliens eligible for DACA (16-17).

Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that, while individual exercises of prosecutorial discretion may not be reviewable, a broad-based policy of prosecutorial discretion is reviewable (14). In light of this, Justice Breyer asked why the decision to rescind DACA, a broad prosecutorial discretion policy, was not reviewable (14). The Solicitor General again cited to Chaney, explaining that the exercise of discretion entailed by DACA was on all fours with the Court's earlier precedent and committed to the discretion of DHS — making its rescission un-reviewable.

Justice Samuel Alito inquired whether the rescinding of benefits granted to DACA beneficiaries — including employment authorization and eligibility for driver's licenses — made the rescission of DACA reviewable (17). Justice Alito's question relied on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) [PDF version], wherein the Fifth Circuit upheld an injunction against the DHS's attempt to implement the former DAPA program [see article], which was similar to, albeit broader than, DACA [see article]. One reason that the Fifth Circuit found that DAPA was reviewable was because, like DACA, it rendered beneficiaries eligible for ancillary benefits. An equally divided Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Texas, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016) [PDF version] [see article]. The Solicitor General took the position that rescinding benefits granted along with DACA did not make the rescission of DACA reviewable. He reasoned that because these benefits were merely a “collateral consequence” of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, their revocation as a result of the rescission did not make the underlying exercise of discretion itself reviewable (17-18).

The discussion next shifted to whether reliance interests weighed against rescinding DACA — in reference to the fact that many DACA beneficiaries and affected entities had made decisions based on the existence of the DACA policy. In response to a question by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Solicitor General explained that even if reliance interests weighed against the DHS's decision to rescind DACA, those interests are nevertheless limited by the fact that DACA was intended, by its own terms, to be a stop-gap measure (20). Furthermore, he argued that former Secretary Nielsen took those reliance interests into account by providing for the orderly wind-down of DACA (20).

Justice Breyer appeared skeptical that the Government had adequately considered the reliance interests — noting that DACA has over 700,000 beneficiaries (24), as addressed in the numerous amicus briefs submitted by a variety of organizations representing different constituent groups. The Solicitor General again asserted that these reliance interests were accounted for by former Secretary Nielsen (25-26). He also countered that under the theory suggested by Justice Breyer, one would have to conclude that DACA was illegal from the start because the previous administration did not consider the reliance interests implicated in creating the DACA program (25-26).

Justice Kagan noted that in her memorandum, former Secretary Nielsen weighed the loss of the reliance interests that would result from rescinding DACA against her conclusion that DACA was illegal (26-27). Secretary Kagan asked whether this balancing test would be affected by a conclusion that DACA was not illegal (26-27). The Solicitor General explained that the ultimate decision would not be affected because Secretary Nielsen provided three separate and distinct reasons for rescinding DACA, had explained that each reason would stand on its own as a basis for the rescission, and had concluded that any one of the reasons would outweigh the reliance interests in favor of rescission (27). While the first two grounds concerned DACA's legality (first that Nielsen believed the program was illegal, second that Nielsen believed there were serious doubts that the program was legal), the third ground concerned only DHS's policy to avoid broad-based non-enforcement policies, thus not implicating DACA's legality at all (27).

Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her skepticism with regard to the government's position that DACA was illegal and that the reliance interests had been considered in the rescission decision. Regarding legality, Justice Sotomayor stated she was unsure how DACA was illegal when the Government has to make discretionary decisions on how to allocate limited resources to enforce the immigration laws all the time (28-31). Regarding reliance issues, she specifically suggested that the Government had failed to consider the reliance interests created by the previous administration's assurances to those who came forward for DACA benefits that they would be safe (28-31). She added that rescinding DACA would destroy the lives of the individuals who had relied on those assurances (30).

Justice Sotomayor suggested that, under administrative law, the pertinent reasons for the Court to consider were those provided at the time the decision was made — thus the reasons provided in the original rescission memorandum published by former Acting Secretary Elena Duke, and not the reasons relied upon by the Solicitor General in the subsequent and more detailed memorandum published by former Secretary Nielsen (28-31). In light of this, Justice Sotomayor asked when the decision was really made that the rescission could be solely justified on policy grounds, phrasing the DHS's decision as “[t]hat this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives” (28-31).

The Solicitor General briefly addressed both lines of Justice Sotomayor's questioning. First, regarding legality, the Solicitor General stated that there was no need to reach the question of whether DHS's legal assessment was correct because the rescission could stand entirely based on discretionary policy justifications (32). Regarding reliance, the Solicitor General stated that the previous administration never presented DACA as being a program that would be effect in perpetuity, but rather as a stop-gap measure (32).

Justice Sotomayor's questioning led to further questions from the bench about DHS's underlying conclusion that DACA is illegal. Justice Ginsburg asked how prosecutorial discretion could be exercised without some degree of prioritization (33). The Solicitor General stated that DACA is materially distinguishable from traditional exercises of prosecutorial discretion because it provides advance forebearance of violations of the law along with legal benefits to beneficiaries (33-34).

Justice Kagan asked whether it was the Government's position that DACA violates a specific provision of the INA (35). The Solicitor General again stated that the merits of DACA itself are not dispositive to the legality of the decision to rescind DACA because the rescission could stand on other grounds (35). He added, however, that it was the Government's position that due to DACA's breadth in the number of people covered and the ancillary benefits offered, it would have to have been expressly authorized by the INA in order to be legal (36).

Justice Breyer returned to another point raised by Justice Sotomayor about whether the Court should consider the Nielsen memorandum for rescinding DACA at all. He stated that under Chaney, it would seem that the Court should look at the explanation provided at the time the decision to rescind DACA was made — the Duke memorandum — rather than an ex post de facto explanation (39). In light of this, Justice Breyer asked why the Solicitor General opposed remanding the case to the lower courts for further proceedings (39). The Solicitor General explained that former Secretary Nielsen had ratified the original rescission decision, meaning that it was and is the official agency position (40). He added that it would have made no sense to require DHS to reinstate DACA only to rescind it again on similar grounds (40). Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed that, in ratifying the original decision, former Secretary Nielsen stated that she would have rescinded DACA even if it were legal, a characterization with which the Solicitor General agreed (42-43).

Private Respondents' Oral Arguments: Theodore B. Olson

Olson opened his argument with two points. First, he stated that DHS has not explained its conclusion that DACA is unconstitutional (43-44), and that DHS could not overturn a policy that has been in place for five years and has over 700,000 direct beneficiaries based on an unsupported and erroneous legal conclusion (44). Second, Olson noted that the Government did not cite to any statutory limitation in support of its argument that the DHS's rescission of DACA was not subject to judicial review (45).Citing to the Supreme Court decisions in Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc., 549 U.S. 312 (2007) [PDF version], Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 476 (2011) [PDF version], and Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S.Ct. 1645 (2015 [PDF version], Olson argued that there is a presumption of reviewability of an agency's decision absent some express limitation in the law (45).

Justice Alito asked whether the decision to narrow the scope of a non-enforcement prosecutorial discretion policy would generally be reviewable (46-48). Olson stated that it would not (46-48). However, Olson distinguished DACA from typical exercises of non-enforcement prosecutorial discretion in two respects. First, he stated that Congress has directed the Administration to allocate limited resources in enforcing the immigration laws. Second, he noted that DACA comes with certain associated benefits — although he stated that benefits incident to DACA are not decisive to the issue and that those benefits, such as employment authorization, are covered by statutes (46-48). Chief Justice Roberts also engaged in this line of questioning (49-50).

Justice Gorsuch expressed concern that Olson did not articulate a limiting principle on reviewability in his response to Justice Alito (51-53). Olson responded by stating that DACA is categorical and involves a large number of beneficiaries (51-53). Justice Gorsuch, however, responded that many instances of prosecutorial discretion in the criminal context could be described similarly (51-53).

Olson distinguished DACA from Justice Alito's broad example by noting the scope of DACA and its substantial reliance interests, emphasizing that the Government had invited DACA beneficiaries to affirmatively step forward and join the program (53-56). Justice Gorsuch asked Olson what the Government would have to say about the reliance interests in order for rescission to be valid (58-59), while noting that the Government was concerned that remand would lead to the case dragging on for several more years (58-59).

Olson responded that with regard to the matter of the substantial reliance of DACA recipients on its benefits, Nielsen was bound by the original Duke rescission decision (58-59) which was both insufficient and flawed, and that the Nielsen memorandum did not rectify the issue because it was not an independent decision (58-59). Olson suggested that the Government would have to start the DACA rescission process over, articulating all the reliance concerns and then providing a rational explanation for rescinding DACA (58-59).

Justice Kavanaugh asked Olson to address the fact that the Nielsen memo expressly stated that the DACA rescission was justifiable purely on policy grounds (59-61). Olson asserted that because the Nielsen memo was not issued contemporaneously with the decision to end DACA, it should not be the focus of the Court's review (59-61). Olson again argued that the Nielsen memo did not represent an independent decision, notwithstanding language in the memorandum stating otherwise (59-61).

Justice Kavanaugh asked whether Olson believed that the Executive has the authority to end DACA at all (61). Olson acknowledged that the Government could, under certain circumstances, terminate DACA (61).

Justice Kavanaugh asked if the Court were to consider the Nielsen memorandum on its own, whether the reasoning for rescission articulated would be sufficient, and specifically asked Olson to explain his position on the Nielsen memorandum's treatment of reliance interests (61-63). Olson stated that it would be insufficient and that the Nielsen memorandum failed to address specific reliance interests (61-63). When Justice Kavanaugh asked Olson what explanation would be sufficient Olson suggested that DHS could have analyzed the cost and benefits of rescinding DACA and why it was overturning a prior Office of Legal Counsel opinion on DACA's legality (61-63).

Justice Sotomayor followed up on the delay point addressed by Justice Gorsuch. She asked Olson whether the DACA rescission was distinguishable from other deferred action decisions in that the Executive here had provided both legal and policy grounds for ending DACA rather than only policy grounds (63-64). Olson agreed with this suggestion (63-64).

Regarding the possibility of remand, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito asked whether a detailed explanation by the Solicitor General of the three grounds provided by Nielsen in that clearly articulated why each ground independently supported terminating would satisfy judicial review requirements (65-66). Olson stated that this type of explanation could satisfy judicial review requirements (65-66).

State Respondents' Oral Arguments: Michael J. Mongan

Mongan advanced three main arguments against the validity of the DACA rescission. First, because the Nielsen memorandum did not articulate a new rationale for rescinding DACA, the Government was bound by its original rational issued contemporaneously with the original decision (66-67). Second, the original rationale did not take into account the substantial reliance interests that weighed against rescission (66-67). Third, the premise of the original rationale that DACA is unlawful is incorrect (66-67).

Regarding reviewability, Mongan stated that the issue here is distinguishable from Chaney. Because the Government's own position is that DACA is unlawful, the Government's position is necessarily that DACA is not committed to agency discretion — since the Government has no discretion to implement an unlawful policy (66-67).

Mongan argued that the Government's rescission decision hinges on whether DACA itself is lawful (68-69). He noted that the Government did not deny that it has deferred action authority or that the population of DACA beneficiaries is a compelling population of individuals (68-69).

Mongan stated that the DHS Secretary's deferred action authority derives from 6 USC 202, which outlines the duties of the Secretary of Homeland Security (69). He argued that Congress codified the DHS Secretary's authorities after prior exercises of deferred action for classes of aliens (69). Chief Justice Roberts interjected, noting that DACA is far greater in scope than prior exercises of deferred action (69-70). Mongan responded that the Family Fairness Policy, which was implemented in 1990 and codified by Congress in 1991, applied to a similar percentage of the existing nonimmigrant population at the time to DACA today — a point raised by Justice Sotomayor (69-70).

Justice Kagan asked whether the rescission would have been reviewable under Chaney if it were based solely on policy grounds without any allusion to DACA's actual or potential illegality (71). Mongan stated that it would still be reviewable because it involves a broad policy for the exercise of deferred action rather than a concrete decision to not enforce a particular statute with respect to particular actions — which was the issue in Chaney (71). Mongan made this distinction again in response to questions from Justice Alito (72).

Justice Breyer asked Mongan where he would draw the line between reviewability and non-reviewability in the deferred action context (73-74). Mongan declined to engage in this line-drawing, suggesting in the alternative that the Court should focus on the facts presented in this particular case, and that the decision to terminate DACA was reviewable based on those facts (73-74). Mongan further clarified in his exchange with Justice Breyer that the decision to enforce a deferred action policy is distinguishable in the reviewability context from the decision to not enforce a particular law regarding particular actions (75).

Justice Gorsuch expressed confusion over whether Mongan believed that DACA would not have been reviewable if it was based solely on policy grounds or if there was something about DACA itself that made it distinguishable from Chaney (76-77). Mongan agreed with the latter suggestion — that it is the scope of DACA that places it outside the scope of Chaney (76-77). Justice Gorsuch suggested that this position would seem to implicate prosecutorial discretion broadly — and that it was unclear where Mongan would draw the line between reviewability and non-reviewability (76-77). Mongan again declined to draw a line, stating that the DACA rescission was reviewable based on the facts presented (76-77).

Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the DACA rescission would be reviewable had the Attorney General provided a legal opinion stating that DACA was more likely illegal than not, with reference to the Fifth Circuit's DAPA decision, which was affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court. Mongan stated that it would still be reviewable, and that the explanation suggested by the Chief Justice would be insufficient given the substantial reliance interests at stake (78-79).

Justice Kagan asked whether the plaintiffs would have challenged the DACA termination in a similar way had the Government balanced its legal concerns against specific reliance interests in a more detailed way (79). Mongan stated that they would have likely presented a similar challenge to the DACA rescission — although the conceded that courts may find such a hypothetical justification sufficient (79). Mongan returned to the instant case, however, noting that the Government did not justify its decision with the sort of detailed balancing test described by Justice Kagan (79).

Chief Justice Roberts asked that if the Court were to remand, whether a legal explanation based on the Fifth Circuit DAPA decision would be sufficient (79). Mongan stated that this would be insufficient — and that the Government would have to articulate its own specific legal theory supporting rescission (79-80).

Justice Breyer asked — in light of Mongan's answers — what the point of remanding the case would be (82-83). Mongan stated that we cannot be sure what the DHS would decide if it was presented with a decision that DACA is lawful (82-83).

Justice Kavanaugh noted that the District Court for the District of Colombia remanded to the DHS to explain its DACA rescission, and that then-Secretary Nielsen had done so (83-85). He noted that in elaborating on the decision, both Nielsen and the Solicitor General had stated that they would have rescinded DACA solely on policy grounds even if they believed that the underlying policy was legal (83-85). Thus, Justice Kavanaugh was unclear what would be accomplished by another remand. Mongan reiterated that he did not consider Nielsen's memorandum to represent an independent decision — but Justice Kavanaugh appeared unconvinced by this argument (83-85). In the alternative, Mongan took the position that, notwithstanding the Nielsen memorandum's statements to the contrary, justification for rescission was ultimately tied to the DHS's view that DACA is illegal (84-86).

Rebuttal Argument of Solicitor General Francisco

Having heard the arguments of the respondents, the Solicitor General made clear that former Secretary Nielsen provided three distinct grounds for rescinding DACA, and stated that each ground outweighed any reliance interests separate from the others (87-88). The Solicitor General noted that the third of these grounds implicated only policy considerations (87-88).

Justice Ginsburg appeared unconvinced, stating that the Court cannot know for sure what former Secretary Nielsen's decision would have been had it been clearly recognized that DACA is legal (89). She suggested that the Nielsen memorandum was “infected by the idea” that DACA is illegal (89). The Solicitor General restated that the memorandum provided that each ground supporting rescission stands on its own (89-90). He stated that the decision fell under Chaney -noting that the FDA in that case had provided alternative legal and policy justifications for its non-enforcement decision (89-90). The Solicitor General argued that the decision to rescind DACA was reasonable regardless of one's views of the legality of the program (90).

Justice Kagan questioned whether former Secretary Nielsen had weighed the policy justifications for terminating DACA alone against reliance interests — the Solicitor General stated that she had (90-91). Justice Breyer stated that the Nielsen memorandum offered conclusions without reasons for those conclusions — but the Solicitor General responded that the decision to not facilitate further violations of the immigration laws is a reason for rescission in and of itself (91-92).

The Solicitor General concluded by stating that the Court need not consider the underlying legality of DACA if it concludes that any of the reasons for rescission presented by former Secretary Nielsen are sufficient. However, the Solicitor General stated that if the Court did not find the former Secretary's justifications for rescission, it should address whether DACA is legal rather than remanding. To support this conclusion, the Solicitor General stated that the Administration cannot be forced to maintain an illegal policy. The Solicitor General made clear that the Government's position is that DACA is illegal (92).

Conclusion

A decision in the DACA case is not expected for several months. Although oral arguments may provide clues as to where the Justices are leaning, they are not dispositive. Even if the Government prevails, DACA would still likely be wound down over a period of several months. DACA beneficiaries with case-specific questions should consult with an experienced immigration attorney. We will write about the Supreme Court's ultimate decision in the case when it is published.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

#immigration #immigrants #US immigration

0 notes

opelman · 6 months

Video

2015 Superlite SL-C by David G. Schultz Via Flickr: Michael McAleenan

3 notes · View notes

javierpenadea · 5 years

Photo

"Kevin McAleenan Resigns as Acting Homeland Security Secretary" by BY ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, MAGGIE HABERMAN AND MICHAEL D. SHEAR via NYT U.S. https://ift.tt/33qoJ5L

#NYT #news

0 notes

bloggerofworld · 5 years

Text

Kevin McAleenan Is Out as Acting Homeland Security Secretary

By BY ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, MAGGIE HABERMAN AND MICHAEL D. SHEAR from NYT U.S. https://ift.tt/33qoJ5L from Blogger https://ift.tt/2OHVUO2

#Blogger

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

Pence: Border facility conditions are unacceptable

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/12/politics/mike-pence-border-immigration/index.html

I seriously cannot believe how we are allowing this in the country that stands for “freedom and liberty.”

"In McAllen, Pence did not engage directly with any of the men, but he did speak with some of the children and mothers in Donna, asking them if they were well cared for. They all nodded yes. Children told him their journey to the United States by foot took two and three months."

Evangelicals like @VP only care for children before they are born. Once they are born, they are separated from their mother and locked in cages. SAD #EmptyThePews 👇👇😭😭😭🤬🤬🤬

"Yazmin Juarez, a mother whose toddler died weeks after they were released from ICE custody in 2018, recalled the death of her child in emotional testimony before a House panel Wednesday."

"I watched my baby girl die, slowly, and painfully, just a few months before her second birthday," she said through an interpreter, later beginning to cry recounting her 19-month-old daughter being admitted to the ICU.

"Can we get #EmptyThePews trending today in honor of @VP’s disgusting response to our human rights violations at the border and the rape and sex trafficking scandals surrounding white evangelicals’ “chosen by God”" @POTUS? CREDIT: Chrissy Stroop @C_Stroop

#SaturdayMotivation

Pence: Border facility conditions are unacceptable

By Betsy Klein and Pamela Brown |

Updated 1 hour ago Jul 13, 2019 | CNN | Posted July 13, 2019 |

McAllen, Texas (CNN) - Vice President Mike Pence saw the overcrowded conditions facing migrant adults and children in Customs and Border Protection custody firsthand Friday, becoming the highest-ranking member of the Trump administration to visit two federal detention centers in Texas ahead of controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids targeting undocumented immigrants this weekend.

"To be honest with you, I was not surprised by what we saw," Pence told reporters Friday, citing the humanitarian crisis and congestion. "This crisis is real, the time for action is now."

Joined by a group of reporters, Senate Republicans and acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, Pence visited two facilities in the Rio Grande Valley: the Donna Processing Facility, temporarily housing families, and the McAllen Border Patrol Station, housing single adults who have been found crossing into the United States illegally.

In Donna, Pence saw oversized, air-conditioned facilities, with children and their parents lying on cots, watching animated movies and eating snacks.

In McAllen, it was a much different scene: Pence toured a swelteringly hot room called a sally port with hundreds of men, a strong smell of sweat and overcrowding so extreme there was no room for cots, the migrants left to sleep on concrete beneath mylar blankets.

"The Vice President's office specifically instructed CBP to not clean up or sanitize the facility beyond what is routine so the American people could see how serious the crisis at our border is (overcrowding, lack of resources, beds)," an administration official said in an email, noting that there were Secret Service concerns over Pence entering the sally port, but the Vice President's office pushed for press access.

'TIME FOR CONGRESS TO ACT'

Asked by CNN whether the conditions for the detained single adult immigrants were acceptable, Pence said no.

"No, it's not. That's the reason why we demanded that Congress provide $4.6 billion in additional support to Customs and Border Protection," the vice president said in an interview following both tours and a roundtable with Border Patrol officials. "The McAllen station, where our cells are overflowing ... ought to be a very clear message to every American that the time for action is now and the time for Congress to act to end the flow of families that are coming north from Central America to our border is now."

Pence's visit comes ahead of Sunday's scheduled ICE raids targeting migrant families with court-ordered removals that had previously been called off by President Donald Trump. The upcoming ICE operation is expected to target approximately 2,000 people and take place over several days in major cities across the nation.

Advocacy groups have been hosting "Know Your Rights" trainings and circulating fliers and social medial posts with guidelines about what they say immigrants should do if ICE agents show up at their door.

Pence would not answer four repeated questions from CNN on whether the Sunday ICE raids will separate families.

"The upcoming efforts are going to focus exclusively on individuals who have been fully adjudicated and ordered by a judge to be deported," he said.

Pence said ICE will prioritize immigrants with deportation orders who have also committed crimes in the US, though he was vague on whether those who had not committed crimes could be targeted as well.

"These will be individuals who are facing a deportation order, and the priority that Homeland Security and ICE will be placing will be on those individuals that have also committed crimes in this country, and represent a threat to our communities," he said.

In McAllen, Pence did not engage directly with any of the men, but he did speak with some of the children and mothers in Donna, asking them if they were well cared for. They all nodded yes. Children told him their journey to the United States by foot took two and three months. In Donna, there were rooms filled with health supplies, snacks and changes of clothes for the migrants, many of whom had arrived at the facility with shoes and pants crusted in mud from the journey.

Donna was one of the facilities built to accommodate the recent large increase of family crossings. Standing in a supply room in front of a wall stacked with Kool-Aid Jammers, Pence asked officials whether the children in custody are receiving adequate meals and snacks. They answered affirmatively. The level of care at Donna hasn't necessarily been the case for children at other facilities.

Yazmin Juarez, a mother whose toddler died weeks after they were released from ICE custody in 2018, recalled the death of her child in emotional testimony before a House panel Wednesday.

And in testimony from Elora Mukherjee, attorney and Clinical Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, at a House Oversight Committee hearing on the border on Friday, Mukherjee said that in her interviews with hundreds of immigrant children and families that many children in custody are embarrassed to use the toilets because "they are open" and have no privacy.

"In Clint, we talked to girls who were so embarrassed that boys could see them while they were using the toilet," she said. "We talked to a boy who tried not to eat because he was so embarrassed to use the toilet."

'THIS ISN'T HUMAN '

The men in the sally port in McAllen told CNN they had been in Customs and Border Protection custody for more than 40 days. They said they hadn't had access to showers or toothbrushes. They yelled before reporters that they were hungry.

"This isn't human. I'm not a terrorist," one man said.

Patrol agent in charge Michael Banks disputed some of those characterizations. He said a trailer with showers had arrived Thursday, though it was possible some of the men had not bathed yet. He said there were 88,000 disposable toothbrushes on site and that the migrants got three hot meals a day from local restaurants. He said the space, which, despite the heat, does have air-conditioning, was cleaned three times a day. He said none of the migrants had been there longer than 32 days.

The trip came weeks after unannounced inspections of Border Patrol facilities by an internal Department of Homeland Security watchdog found extreme overcrowding and children younger than 7 being held in custody for longer than two weeks -- far more than the allotted 72 hours -- among other "urgent" issues discovered. The watchdog found additional violations of detention policy, such as a lack of hot meals, inadequate access to showers and limited access to a change of clothes.

Additionally, images of squalid conditions and thinly stretched resources found in news reports and congressional Democrats' descriptions of their own visits have captured the nation's attention.

Pence said there should be the "same standard of care" for both families and single adults, defending the disparate conditions.

"What you saw today was a very clean facility where people were being detained indoors, and then you saw a temporary facility that was constructed because this facility is overcrowded. And we can't keep people in a cell beyond what the rules and regulations allow for, but everyone in that temporary facility is getting health care, they're getting hygiene and the Customs and Border Protection is doing their level best in an overcrowded environment and a difficult environment to address this issue, but Congress has got to act," he said.

The images of the vice president walking through the Donna facility Friday stand in stark contrast to photographs of overcrowded conditions facing families with children by DHS inspector general just weeks before. Overcrowded conditions have eased considerably following the movement of most migrant children to Health and Human Services facilities thanks to new funding from Congress. There was a 28% drop in numbers of migrants apprehended at the border in June, in part due to the season, but also, Pence said, because of support from Mexico.

Pence said he had read the report, but added, "I can't account for that," when pressed by CNN about images of conditions similar to those of the McAllen facilities for families with children featured in the DHS inspector general's report.

"The facility you saw today represents the level and the standards of care that we are working to bring to all those caught up in this crisis. Remember, it was just a few short weeks ago that Congress finally acknowledged the crisis and gave us an additional $4.6 billion in humanitarian aid. Now we're going to continue to improve, we're going to continue to provide care at the standard the American people expect," he said, calling on Congress to overhaul asylum laws and close what he characterized as legal loopholes.

Officials say the overcrowding among children has largely been alleviated because of the supplemental funding that Congress just passed. As a result, most have been moved out within the 72-hour time limit to HHS facilities.

Though Pence's office also extended invitations to Senate Democrats for the Friday visit, none were in attendance, underscoring the highly politicized situation as the humanitarian crisis at the US-Mexico border unfolds. A group of congressional Democrats will tour the area on Saturday.

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii had told CNN on Thursday that she did not want to be part of a politicized trip.

"I don't want to participate in what is basically the Trump show, the Trump-Pence show. What do you think they are going to see? You have a President saying, 'Everything's just fine. These facilities, these detention centers are just being run great.' Yeah, that's what they're going to see. But we know from all of the reports that things are not great," she said.

Hirono continued, "Believe me, when any of us visit, they will make sure that they see what they want us to see. And that's not real."

3 notes · View notes