web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > immigration

William Barr’s Latest Immigration Decision Forces the Courts and Congress To Choose a Side

Westlake Legal Group william-barrs-latest-immigration-decision-forces-the-courts-and-congress-to-choose-a-side-1 William Barr’s Latest Immigration Decision Forces the Courts and Congress To Choose a Side william barr republicans Politics ninth circuit immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump Courts Cloward-Piven Strategy attorney general asylum seekers Asylum Abuse Allow Media Exception

Yesterday, Attorney General William Barr upped the ante in the combined crises of our southern border being overwhelmed by mass migration, a guerrilla war by the courts in the Ninth Circuit against any kind of enforcement of immigration laws, and the unwillingness/inability of Congress to act to resolve either of those problems.

A year ago, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions took control of the entire immigration legal system by exercising his right to be the final arbiter on all immigration cases. Other than leaving trousers befouled in the media, and among Democrats and Vichy Republicans, what this decision did was give the Attorney General a direct say in the interpretation of immigration law. This is not a revolutionary as it has been made sound, immigration judges are Article II judges, that is, employees of the executive branch. They are answerable to the Attorney General. But in the past Republican administrations have treated these bureaucrats as though they were actual Article III judges and let them run amok through the immigration process.

Some of the changes Sessions imposed were, as expected, blocked by liberal judges but these will inevitably end up before a Supreme Court that is very, very likely to say that unless you can prove the Attorney General is obviously wrong, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Now Barr has thrown a major wrench into the system.

The order issued by Attorney General William P. Barr was an effort to deliver on President Trump’s promise to end the “catch and release” of migrants crossing the border in hopes of escaping persecution in their home countries.

The order — which directs immigration judges to deny some migrants a chance to post bail — will not go into effect for 90 days. It is all but certain to be challenged in federal court, but immigrant rights lawyers said it could undermine the basic rights of people seeking safety in the United States.

“They want to send a message that you will get detained,” said Judy Rabinovitz, a deputy director of the Immigrants Rights’ Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. “We are talking about people who are fleeing for their lives, seeking safety. And our response is just lock them up.”

Mr. Barr’s order is the latest effort by the Trump administration to reduce the number of immigrants who are able to seek protection from violence, poverty and gangs by asking for legal status in the United States. It has slowed the processing of asylum requests at ports of entry, and it has ordered that some asylum seekers be required to wait in Mexico.

[Read the whole decision.]

Important points: this decision only covers illegals who are apprehended inside the United States and then make a claim of asylum; the decision does not cover families as they, under the Flores settlement, can’t be detained longer than 20 days. The decision seems to be a direct challenge to a decision by the Ninth Circuit that illegals were entitled to a habeas corpus hearing before being deported.

All of this is taking place in a a ecosystem that is stressed to the breaking point by sanctuary cities, hostile Democrat judges, restrictive court rulings, nationwide injunctions issued by single Democrat judges, and inadequate resources. So why, one could ask, is the administration creating another pain point by mandating the detention of people who where being released on parole.

I’d guess two things.

There is an election in 2020 and the administration is raising the visibility of issues, such as sanctuary cities, to use them as a campaign issue. At this stage, every administration policy that gets an injunction from the Ninth Circuit should be forced by the FEC to label itself as an in-kind donation to Trump-Pence 2020.

Despite numerous setbacks, the Trump administration had remained focused on border security and it has kept border security in the spotlight. Many of these short term defeats, like the “kids in cages” stuff, are ephemeral because the lead to some logical questions being asked by a large number of Americans. Wait, you mean if you cross into the US illegally but have a kid with you, you get a get-out-of-jail-free card? Hold on, all you have to do is say you felt threatened at home and you’re free to go until your hearing?

A lot of this is not and can never be made defensible. To understand how this plays electorally, let’s go to the

“Well, let me say, you’re referencing a comment because— And when we won this election, it wasn’t in districts like mine or Alexandria’s, however wonderful—she’s a wonderful member of Congress, I think all of our colleagues will attest. But those are districts that are solidly Democratic. This glass of water would win with a ‘D’ next to its name in those districts.

“And not to diminish the exuberance and the personality and the rest of Alexandria and the other members, but when I said three, they were talking about three that were getting a good deal of press on it. But the 43 districts – we won 43, net gain of 40 – were right down the middle, mainstream, hold the center victories.

How is this going to play in those 43 districts the Democrats managed to flip? How are those people going to defend doing nothing while the the administration can make the case that it is trying to secure the border but the Democrats are not serious?

The second issue is deeper. I’ve never credited the people who claims Trump plays multidimensional chess. He doesn’t. He plays checkers like my brother does. When he starts losing he knocks the board over and you can’t reset the pieces so you either start over or you play a different game. But he does have some very shrewd people working with him. I think we’re seeing the natural inclination of Trump to get mad and knock the board over combined with folks who are well acquainted with the Cloward-Piven Strategy–named after leftist social activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who advocated that the quickest way of getting universal income guarantee (and universal everything) was by overloading the current system until if failed and change was demanded–and they are doing it at the border.

What better way of changing the game than by actually enforcing the laws, placing the system under maximum stress, and communicating the impossibility of contending with the border crisis and with a hostile judiciary? How do you change visibly failing to staunch the flow of illegals from a negative to a positive? You create a nemesis in the form of the judges of the Ninth Circuit and the mayors of sanctuary cities who seem to have a greater affection for illegals than for citizens? What better way to do this than by interpreting the law as rigidly as possible and by getting rid of anyone in your organization who has any loyalty to the old way of doing things? And what better cover for a strategy of deliberately breaking the untenable status quo than President Trump’s angry tweets about illegal immigration and Democrat judges?

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post William Barr’s Latest Immigration Decision Forces the Courts and Congress To Choose a Side appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group illegal-aliens-in-detention-300x200 William Barr’s Latest Immigration Decision Forces the Courts and Congress To Choose a Side william barr republicans Politics ninth circuit immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump Courts Cloward-Piven Strategy attorney general asylum seekers Asylum Abuse Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Showdown: Barr halts bail for asylum seekers

Westlake Legal Group t-9 Showdown: Barr halts bail for asylum seekers william barr The Blog kirstjen nielsen immigration donald trump Department of Homeland Security bail asylum

That’s one way to end catch-and-release — in theory. In practice, William Barr’s decision to end bail for asylum seekers might turn the crisis at the border into a catastrophe. Or at least into a powerful disincentive:

Migrants who come to the United States seeking asylum may instead wind up jailed indefinitely while they wait for their claims to be processed, the Trump administration ruled Tuesday in its latest crackdown at the border.

Attorney General William P. Barr’s written decision, a policy reversal, applies to migrants who have already established “a credible fear of persecution or torture” in their home country.

Barr ordered immigration judges to stop allowing some asylum seekers to post bail while they wait the months or years for their cases to be heard — a system that President Trump has derided as “catch and release.”

But advocates criticized the policy change and said it would lock up people who are simply looking for safety.

In his letter to immigration judges, Barr argues that he’s only following the law as written. The consequences of the law are not within his purview:

Matter of X-K- was wrongly decided. The Act provides that, if an alien
in expedited proceedings establishes a credible fear, he “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(ii). The Act further provides that such an alien may be “parole[d] into the United States . . . for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” Id. § 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). There is no way to apply those provisions except as they were written—unless paroled, an alien must be detained until his asylum claim is adjudicated. The Supreme Court recently held exactly that, concluding that section 235(b)(1) “mandate[s] detention throughout the completion of [removal] proceedings” unless the alien is paroled. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 844–45 (2018). The Act’s implementing regulations support that interpretation.

The respondent here was transferred from expedited to full proceedings
after establishing a credible fear, and an immigration judge ordered his
release on bond. Because the respondent is ineligible for bond under the Act, I reverse the immigration judge’s decision. I order that, unless DHS paroles the respondent under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act, he must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude. …

In conclusion, the statutory text, the implementing regulations, and the
Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez all lead to the same conclusion: that all aliens transferred from expedited to full proceedings after establishing a credible fear are ineligible for bond. Matter of X-K- is therefore overruled.

In other words, the choice for parole has been taken out of the judges’ hands. That decision has to be made by DHS. It’s safe to say in the Trump administration that very few such paroles will be granted. There is some justification for that approach too, as very few of those who seek asylum (as opposed to economic opportunity) actually prevail on those claims, with percentages reported as low as single digits. Releasing asylum seekers on bond with those odds, Donald Trump has often argued, amounts to tacit approval of illegal entry into the country.

With detention facilities already strained to the breaking point, however, ordering the enforcement of this policy raises questions about how DHS can possibly cope with the problem. Trump has claimed that the border already constitutes a national emergency, which is also supported by reality, but denying bond will make that worse, at least in the short run. Perhaps it might disincentivize bogus asylum seekers from trying it in the first place, but that’s a mighty big if for later on. Right now, it will force DHS to house even more people.

The ACLU plans to file suit against Barr over his ruling:

“This is the Trump administration’s latest assault on people fleeing persecution and seeking refuge in the United States. Our Constitution does not allow the government to lock up asylum seekers without basic due process. We’ll see the administration in court,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. …

Under previous policy, those who seek asylum were granted a bail hearing if they claimed “credible fear” threats or threats of persecution in their home country while waiting for their cases to be heard.

Immigration advocates expressed shock at Barr’s action and promised to challenge it immediately in court. The decision, which doesn’t go into effect for 90 days, orders immigration judges to deny some asylum seekers from posting bail.

Barr’s order doesn’t deprive asylum seekers of due process. It only deprives them of bail, which is not a due-process issue especially for those crossing the border illegally. It might be an efficiency issue, it might even be a humanitarian issue, but it’s not a due process issue. If Barr is correctly interpreting the statutes and Supreme Court precedent, he might be facing a rule-of-law issue himself, one which would require Congress to address.

Coincidentally or not, that’s exactly what Trump urged this morning on Twitter:

This looks like part of hardball strategy from the Trump administration more than an unfortunate consequence of statutes and judicial precedents. It’s also curious that the White House took this step so soon after the departure of Kirstjen Nielsen and Claire Grady. Were they opposed to the policy? Or perhaps prepared to be too lenient with paroles?

The post Showdown: Barr halts bail for asylum seekers appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-9-300x153 Showdown: Barr halts bail for asylum seekers william barr The Blog kirstjen nielsen immigration donald trump Department of Homeland Security bail asylum   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City

Westlake Legal Group de-blasio-plans-to-sue-trump-to-keep-migrants-out-of-new-york-sanctuary-city De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City Trump sanctuary city Mayor Bill de Blasio immigration Illegal Immigrants Front Page Stories
Westlake Legal Group Approved-Gentiles-620x444 De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City Trump sanctuary city Mayor Bill de Blasio immigration Illegal Immigrants Front Page Stories

(Image: Wikimedia Commons)

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has taken a page from the Cher manual on backtracking and vowed to block Trump’s growing determination to send illegal immigrants from crowded detention centers to sanctuary cities like the Big Apple. And he says the law is on his side.

De Blasio made the statement on NY1 after Trump continued to threaten to send undocumented immigrants to so-called sanctuary cities on Monday.

“It’s illegal. It is just plain illegal. We will meet him in court. We will beat him in court,” de Blasio said.

There’s no doubt Trump’s idea — which he reiterated a desire to move on as late Monday —  is a political move; and, while savvy, is not without criticism, as Jason Riley writes at The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Trump regularly complains that apprehended illegal immigrants are released into society while awaiting their court dates. It’s a legitimate gripe, but shipping immigrants to sanctuary cities would only increase the odds that they don’t show up for their hearings. And it will make those cities even more of a magnet for fake asylum seekers and others who shouldn’t be in the country.

The frustration with cities that coddle illegal immigrants is understandable. Sanctuary policies make life easier for violent criminal immigrants and more dangerous for the law-abiding fellow immigrants on whom they prey most often. Yet the president seems more interested in punishing the Democratic politicians who typically run these cities, even if the results are counterproductive.

There’s also little doubt that the legality of such a move is questionable. Critics contend that the Department of Homeland Security is funded for certain actions — such as processing and detention of migrants — but that funds have not been appropriated for transporting illegals (which would be expensive) nor determining which cities would be be landing spots.

However, as the The Daily Signal suggests, ambiguity in the law works both ways.

Trump is bringing in new leadership for the Department of Homeland Security after forcing out Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on April 7.

Since the Times and others reported on the legal questions, Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a labor union, and former ICE acting Director Thomas Homan both have said the move would be legal.

A former Justice Department lawyer, Hans von Spakovsky, said no specific provision of law prevents it.

“There’s no restriction, there’s no legal limit in federal immigration law that says the Department of Homeland Security can only release detained illegal aliens in particular locations,” von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said Monday night on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Fox Business Network.

“I don’t see anything in the law that would prevent the president from doing this,” he said.

While it’s tempting to see Trump’s plan of moving illegal immigrants “to cities that say they want them,” as Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform told The Daily Signal, as nothing more than a game of political one-upmanship, there’s a practical reality to consider as well.

It’s known that the Obama administration was releasing illegal immigrants randomly and not tracking their movements, and were reticent to provide information as to how many were let go. Trump’s plan, at the very least, will lend itself to tracking how many illegals are being released and where exactly they go, at least initially.

And if de Blasio or any number of other lawmakers in sanctuary cities want to formally litigate the plan (if it ever even happens), they’ll be admitting on record that the situation at the border is more of a crisis than they’ve been pretending.

The good news is that while the White House says the sanctuary city release is an “option on the table,” they’re also adamant that cooperation with Democrats on immigration is preferred.

The bad news is that threatening a lawsuit is generally not a sign of a willingness to cooperate.

The post De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group De-Blasio-300x213 De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City Trump sanctuary city Mayor Bill de Blasio immigration Illegal Immigrants Front Page Stories   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Potemkin legislation

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-04-17-at-07.25.35 Potemkin legislation Work Women and equality Women wages Treasury ToryDiary Stella Creasy MP sport Sam Coates (The Times) Sajid Javid MP rent Public Sector Northern Ireland NHS Local government and local elections Local Elections (general) Liz Truss MP Julian Assange jobs James Brokenshire MP immigration housing Home and family Highlights healthcare Health football Family and relationships exports employment Elizabeth Truss MP Economy DUP divorce disability Diane Abbott MP David Gauke MP David Blanchflower Conservatives Abortion

The ten most recent subjects covered by the Conservative Party’s Twitter feed are as follows: record employment, the provision of free sanitary products in primary schools, Conservative councils recycling more than Labour ones, more statistics about work and wages, record women’s employment, workers’ rights, an exports increase, more disabled people in employment, an end to no fault evictions, Conservative councils fixing more potholes than Labour ones, banning upskirting, funding more toilets at motorway service areas to help people living with complex disabilities, Sajid Javid criticising Diane Abbott over Julian Assange, kicking out racism in football, and a new law to protect service animals.

One might pick out three main themes, local election campaigning aside.

The first is the vibrancy of Britain’s jobs market and the country’s robust recent record on employment.  The aftermath of the Crash and the Coalition’s slowing of public spending growth, a.k.aa “austerity”, didn’t bring the five million unemployed that David Blanchflower believed possible.  The Government has to keep shouting about our employment rates because people have got used to them.  A generation is growing up that cannot remember the mass unemployment of the 1980s.

Then there are a battery of announcements aimed disproportionately at younger women voters, who were more likely to switch to Labour at the last election.  Those of a certain disposition will argue that some of these are trivial, and that women and men both want government to get on with addressing big issues: Brexit, health, the economy, immigration, education and so on.  But part of the point of banning upskirting, say, or providing more free sanitary products is gaining “permission to be heard”, in order to make some voters, in this case younger female ones, more receptive to what Conservatives are doing more broadly and widely.

Which takes us, third, to law-making – not admitttedly the only means, or even necessarily the main one, by which government can act, but indispensable none the less.  Under which category we find a new law to protect service animals and the proposed end to no fault evictions, about which James Brokenshire wrote on this site recently.  The two may seem to have nothing in common but, on closer inspection, tell part of the same story.

Namely that, as Sam Coates keeps pointing out, the Government can’t get any plan which is remotely contentious through the Commons.  Only the most uncontested ideas, such as providing police and other service dogs with more protections, can make it through the House. And this new service animals measure isn’t even Government leglislation.  It came about through a Private Members Bill tabled by Oliver Heald and then backed by Ministers.

Meanwhile, the proposal to end no fault evictions isn’t contained in a Bill at all.  The headline on gov.uk about the plan refers to an “end to unfair evictions” and “the biggest change to the private rental sector for a generation”.  But the text of the announcement refers to “plans to consult on new legislation” and refers to an earlier consultation, on Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector, to which it has now published a response.

As with housing, so with divorce.  On ConservativeHome today, Frank Young makes the point, in his article on the Government’s plans to ensure that no fault divorce can take place more frequently, that “it remains to be seen if the Justice Department’s enthusiasm for new legislation will be matched by government business managers and the ability of the current government to get any legislation through”.  For David Gauke has unfurled not a new Bill, but a White Paper.

Ditto Liz Truss’s announcment on a £95,000 cap on exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs. “Six-figure taxpayer-funded public sector exit payments to end,” gov.uk’s headline declares.  The sub-heading is more candid than the one beneath the housing headline.  “A consultation has been launched outlining how the government will introduce a £95,000 cap to stop huge exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs,” it says.  The Treasury confirms that legislation will be required.

Now think on.  As Sam goes on to say, Theresa May’s successor may take against these ideas or indeed all of them.  In which case, they will doubtless be quietly put to sleep.  And that successor may be in place soon.  (Regretfully, we have to add: as soon as possible after European Parliament elections, assuming these happen, please.)

Conservative MPs don’t want a general election.  Nor do we.  But the more one ponders the state of this Parliament, the more one sees why one is the natural solution to this impasse – and would be knocking on the door, were it not for the Fixed Terms Parliament Act.  These recent announcements are Potemkin Legislation.  They cannot be put to the Commons without risk of them being amended out of their original intention.

Nor can the Government legislate easily elsewhere.  Consider any proposals affecting women – to take us back to near where we started.  Up would pop Stella Creasy, looking for a means of changing the abortion laws in Northern Ireland.  Which would further strain the Conservatives’ relationship with the DUP, such as it is.  Prepare, when Brexit isn’t before the Commons, for many more Opposition Days.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Potemkin legislation

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-04-17-at-07.25.35 Potemkin legislation Work Women and equality Women wages Treasury ToryDiary Stella Creasy MP sport Sam Coates (The Times) Sajid Javid MP rent Public Sector Northern Ireland NHS Local government and local elections Local Elections (general) Liz Truss MP Julian Assange jobs James Brokenshire MP immigration housing Home and family Highlights healthcare Health football Family and relationships exports employment Elizabeth Truss MP Economy DUP divorce disability Diane Abbott MP David Gauke MP David Blanchflower Conservatives Abortion

The ten most recent subjects covered by the Conservative Party’s Twitter feed are as follows: record employment, the provision of free sanitary products in primary schools, Conservative councils recycling more than Labour ones, more statistics about work and wages, record women’s employment, workers’ rights, an exports increase, more disabled people in employment, an end to no fault evictions, Conservative councils fixing more potholes than Labour ones, banning upskirting, funding more toilets at motorway service areas to help people living with complex disabilities, Sajid Javid criticising Diane Abbott over Julian Assange, kicking out racism in football, and a new law to protect service animals.

One might pick out three main themes, local election campaigning aside.

The first is the vibrancy of Britain’s jobs market and the country’s robust recent record on employment.  The aftermath of the Crash and the Coalition’s slowing of public spending growth, a.k.aa “austerity”, didn’t bring the five million unemployed that David Blanchflower believed possible.  The Government has to keep shouting about our employment rates because people have got used to them.  A generation is growing up that cannot remember the mass unemployment of the 1980s.

Then there are a battery of announcements aimed disproportionately at younger women voters, who were more likely to switch to Labour at the last election.  Those of a certain disposition will argue that some of these are trivial, and that women and men both want government to get on with addressing big issues: Brexit, health, the economy, immigration, education and so on.  But part of the point of banning upskirting, say, or providing more free sanitary products is gaining “permission to be heard”, in order to make some voters, in this case younger female ones, more receptive to what Conservatives are doing more broadly and widely.

Which takes us, third, to law-making – not admitttedly the only means, or even necessarily the main one, by which government can act, but indispensable none the less.  Under which category we find a new law to protect service animals and the proposed end to no fault evictions, about which James Brokenshire wrote on this site recently.  The two may seem to have nothing in common but, on closer inspection, tell part of the same story.

Namely that, as Sam Coates keeps pointing out, the Government can’t get any plan which is remotely contentious through the Commons.  Only the most uncontested ideas, such as providing police and other service dogs with more protections, can make it through the House. And this new service animals measure isn’t even Government leglislation.  It came about through a Private Members Bill tabled by Oliver Heald and then backed by Ministers.

Meanwhile, the proposal to end no fault evictions isn’t contained in a Bill at all.  The headline on gov.uk about the plan refers to an “end to unfair evictions” and “the biggest change to the private rental sector for a generation”.  But the text of the announcement refers to “plans to consult on new legislation” and refers to an earlier consultation, on Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector, to which it has now published a response.

As with housing, so with divorce.  On ConservativeHome today, Frank Young makes the point, in his article on the Government’s plans to ensure that no fault divorce can take place more frequently, that “it remains to be seen if the Justice Department’s enthusiasm for new legislation will be matched by government business managers and the ability of the current government to get any legislation through”.  For David Gauke has unfurled not a new Bill, but a White Paper.

Ditto Liz Truss’s announcment on a £95,000 cap on exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs. “Six-figure taxpayer-funded public sector exit payments to end,” gov.uk’s headline declares.  The sub-heading is more candid than the one beneath the housing headline.  “A consultation has been launched outlining how the government will introduce a £95,000 cap to stop huge exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs,” it says.  The Treasury confirms that legislation will be required.

Now think on.  As Sam goes on to say, Theresa May’s successor may take against these ideas or indeed all of them.  In which case, they will doubtless be quietly put to sleep.  And that successor may be in place soon.  (Regretfully, we have to add: as soon as possible after European Parliament elections, assuming these happen, please.)

Conservative MPs don’t want a general election.  Nor do we.  But the more one ponders the state of this Parliament, the more one sees why one is the natural solution to this impasse – and would be knocking on the door, were it not for the Fixed Terms Parliament Act.  These recent announcements are Potemkin Legislation.  They cannot be put to the Commons without risk of them being amended out of their original intention.

Nor can the Government legislate easily elsewhere.  Consider any proposals affecting women – to take us back to near where we started.  Up would pop Stella Creasy, looking for a means of changing the abortion laws in Northern Ireland.  Which would further strain the Conservatives’ relationship with the DUP, such as it is.  Prepare, when Brexit isn’t before the Commons, for many more Opposition Days.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Cher: So, Uh, We Really Can’t Take In The Migrants, Los Angeles Is Full

Westlake Legal Group AP_17244722082326-620x380 Cher: So, Uh, We Really Can’t Take In The Migrants, Los Angeles Is Full Trump sanctuary cities immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story Cher

Undocumented students join a rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program outside the Edward Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles Friday, Sept. 1, 2017. President Donald Trump says he’ll be announcing a decision on the fate of hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children in the coming days, immigrants he’s calling “terrific” and says he loves. Trump told reporters Friday, using a short-hand term for the nearly 800,000 young people who were given a reprieve from deportation and temporary work permits under the Obama-era DACA, program. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Has anything exposed the left’s hypocrisy quicker than Trump’s plan to send migrants to sanctuary cities? Love or hate the guy, as political strokes of genius go, that one ranks near the top.

But don’t take it from me. Let Cher show you why:

I’m pretty sure, without doing the math, that this is almost exactly the same argument the Trump administration has been making regarding the entire country. Look at it this way, Cher: you feel some responsibility for your city because you live there. Trump feels some responsibility for the entire country because it’s his job. So, unless you’re ready to start choosing which cities you believe can afford to absorb illegal immigrants — along with the logistical and ethical reasons why — perhaps you’ll take a minute and try to understand the argument for why the country struggles with a massive influx of immigrants unwilling to go through legal channels and therefore unable to be adequately planned for.

Additionally, there’s another strange, 180 degree turn Democrats are taking on this issue. They seem to have decided, following Trump’s pronouncement, that simply releasing migrants into American cities will make the country less safe. This is certainly a new twist for the open borders crowd.

In case you were unaware what fans Dems were of that kind of policy a few years ago (when it wasn’t going to land in their own backyards), here’s a really great thread on what the Obama administration was doing regarding redistributing illegal migrants throughout the country.

It’s a long thread (and you should definitely read all of it), but here are a few of the most telling entries:

It starts to look like some on the left don’t actually care about the migrants that much, and certainly don’t want to live among them if they don’t have to.  But they’re ok with the political game as long as most of the migrants are sent to Boise or Kansas City or someplace like that.

While some sanctuary city leaders are spitting fire over Trump’s idea, they’re still insisting — through clenched teeth — they’ll welcome migrants. But it’s likely only because they know Trump isn’t likely to follow through on the idea. But he did beat them at their own game. And boy did they show how they truly felt about immigrants and whether or not they believe the situation at the southern border is a crisis. And in record time.

The post Cher: So, Uh, We Really Can’t Take In The Migrants, Los Angeles Is Full appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cher-300x300 Cher: So, Uh, We Really Can’t Take In The Migrants, Los Angeles Is Full Trump sanctuary cities immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story Cher   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Julian Brazier: Yes, the Conservatives must engage with young people – but challenge their worldview, not concede it

Sir Julian Brazier is a former Defence Minister, and was MP for Canterbury from 1987-2017.

James Kanagasooriam’s interesting recent ConservativeHome article summarised polling and analysis by Onward which should alarm all Conservatives. His thesis is powerful: we have lost young people’s support, and even that of those in mid-life, to an extraordinary extent.

His conclusion however – that we should poll young people and, based on the findings, move policy towards their wishes – is less convincing. Clearly engaging with youth and, indeed, those in their twenties and thirties, is crucial. But simply analysing what young people want and offering as much of it as we can afford would lead, I believe, nowhere, for three reasons:

We have allowed the Left to dominate schools and universities to the point where traditional Conservative voices on everything, from free market economics to the dangers of transgender therapy for children, are being excluded. As a tweet quoting Roger Scruton recently put it: “Once identified as right-wing you are beyond the pale of argument; your views are irrelevant, your character discredited, your presence in the world a mistake. You are not an opponent to be argued with, but a disease to be shunned. This has been my experience”

Ironically, just days later, an unscrupulous New Statesman journalist stitched him up in an interview, which resulted in the government sacking him from his (unpaid) post chairing an advisory group on housing design. His response is worth reading .

The gay former chairman of Kent University Conservative Association reflected after the 2017 general election that it was harder to come out as a Conservative than as a gay man. Some Conservative students complain of biased marking in subjects like history, economics and politics by Marxist professors. A Canterbury A level student activist tells me that he does not dare let staff at his (academically strong) school know he is a Conservative. Across the country ‘safe spaces’ and ‘no-platforming’ of those with conservative views by student unions are widely reported. Last year, Nigel Biggar, an Oxford academic was vilified by a string of his colleagues for teaching that the British Empire had benefits as well as drawbacks, while Cambridge has recently banned the distinguished polymath, Jordan Petersen, from a visiting lectureship because he was once photographed with a student wearing an offensive tee-shirt.

Rather than swallowing the world-view of young people today, we need to challenge their ideas. More of us need to follow Jacob Rees-Mogg’s programme of speaking regularly in universities, and we need to introduce scrutiny of the syllabus and teaching materials in schools, using such levers as the new Office for Students and Ofsted. If those bodies prove supine, we could empower students to apply to a tribunal to have taxpayer funds cut off when their unions are promoting political safe spaces, no platforming or showing political bias in the allocation of funds.

Students are justifiably angry about a system of fees and loans which plunges them into levels of debt that the majority are likely never to fully repay. Yet, if we make comparisons with abroad, we see that the systemic problem is deeper than students – and the wider public – understand. In most countries, including other European countries, most students go to their local universities from home. In America, public sector tuition fees are usually lower than the UK and the private sector has built endowment funds to support the talented less-well-off. In Britain, almost uniquely, the vast majority of students go away to university, and rack up huge debts to cover both crippling accommodation costs and heavy tuition fees.

This is compounded by many universities packing their benches with people whose study is unlikely to benefit their careers. In November, the Education Select Committee published a report denouncing many universities as poor value and inflexible. While stressing the quality of our best institutions, the report highlighted that fact that almost half of recent graduates work in non-graduate roles.  Indeed, more widely far too many people are studying degrees in subjects for which they are clearly not qualified. What point is there in reading engineering, if you cannot pass a Maths A Level, for example?

Too many of our weaker universities are treating students as cash cows, who rack up debt without improving their prospects. This is producing an angry graduate underclass with shattered expectations, who are consigned to jobs they see as beneath them – and with no prospect of paying off their debts. Not surprising that the Onward study shows that those who qualify as apprentices are much more likely to vote Conservative than recent graduates.

The rise in interest rates has provided the final twist in the garrotte. That can and must – be reversed, but doing so will be expensive for the taxpayer. More important is that any serious (and affordable) reform must start from recognising that the design of our university sector is unaffordable: the traditional British residential model, which delivers some of the world’s best universities at the top end, is unsuitable for delivering affordable, job-enhancing teaching and training for those with lower attainment levels.

The second quartile of each cohort, broadly the bottom half of today’s university sector, needs a shift towards local availability of HE (or FE), avoiding crippling accommodation costs, as its counterpart in most of Europe does. Equally, we need to move towards a much higher proportion of vocational degrees, as in the USA and the Far East – and as the recent Select Committee report recommends. Loading the cost of the current behemoth onto young people whose earnings will never justify it – and ending up with the state paying because they cannot repay – is the worst of all worlds.

The third issue is the most difficult of all. The report shows attitudes on three critical and related subjects whose handling needs to involve explanation as well as listening. First, a high proportion of young people see us as racist – or at least as anti-diversity – which helps to explain why members of ethnic minorities are disproportionately unlikely to support us (they are also disproportionately young).

Furthemore, a bare majority of the young are in favour of controlling immigration, but by a much smaller proportion than in older age groups. Anecdotally, this reflects a widespread view among students and young graduates that immigration controls are racist, on the one hand, set against angry opposition to immigration among the less-educated, on the other.

Finally, access to accommodation – unaffordable housing to buy and rent – is a major concern, among the young and older groups right up into their forties.

This last point is hardly surprising given the cost and shortage of housing, but Conservatives have failed to explain the linkage between unaffordable housing and spiralling population, largely driven by heavy net migration. Last week, the ONS reported, according to the Daily Telegraph, that they are revising their population estimate for 2026 up by a further 700,000 over and above the three million increase over the next seven years they had earlier projected. These numbers, combined with ‘domestic’ growth (heavily increased by replacing emigrating pensioners with incoming young people) could absorb most or all of our new housebuilding, leaving little for the disappointed aspirants.

It will require a major effort to explain that the mathematics of supply and demand in our housing market is at the heart of the need to tackle net migration, not, crucially, racism.

James Kanagasooriam is right. We must address young people, or the Conservative Party will wither. Post-Brexit, it should be our highest domestic priority, but – like Iain Duncan Smith’s reforms on welfare – our response must seek to make the weather, not just respond to it.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rami Ranger: A hundred years on, the Amritsar massacre is a wound that has healed but will never be forgotten

Dr Rami Ranger CBE is a founder and Chairman of Sun Mark Ltd, and Sea, Air & Land Forwarding Ltd. He is the Co-Chairman of the Conservative Friends of India.

This week, our Prime Minister described the 1919 Amritsar massacre as a ‘shameful scar’ on Britain’s history with India – and it is just that. A scar, a past wound that has healed but will never be forgotten. The 100th anniversary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre will be marked by Sikh communities not only in this country but across the world on Saturday. On that day, 100 years ago, British Indian Army soldiers under the command of Brigadier-General Dyer fired into an unarmed crowd, killing hundreds of protestors in just 10 minutes, the majority of whom were Sikh.

As a proud Sikh and Chair of the British Sikh Associations it is an anniversary that I observe each year to remember all those who suffered and died as a result of this tragedy. Yet I also share the view of Foreign Office minister, Mark Field, who has said he believes what while we must always remember the past and learn lessons from it, the best way of all to honour the memory of all those who suffered and died at Jallianwala Bagh is to celebrate and build upon the partnership that Britain and India enjoy today.

While the UK is one of the world’s oldest democracies, India is the world’s largest which is why our continued collaboration is a force for global good. As Chairman of Conservative Friends of India, I am committed to continuing to build on UK-India relations and I am honoured to have received awards for my work promoting and enhancing our established business links. The strength of the Anglo-Indian partnership reflects India’s emerging stature and standing in the world as a positive economic, social and political force. Our partnership is based on shared values and a commitment to continued mutual prosperity and security.

As the owner of a global distribution business, I can attest to the close collaboration and business links we enjoy with India. In fact, trade and investment are growing rapidly and we are each among the top investors in the other’s economy. Not only that but UK exports to India last year amounted to around £7.6 billion and imports to the UK were over £12 billion. Indian-owned businesses like mine have created 110,000 jobs in the UK and in turn, talented Indian workers have come to Britain. In fact, this country has issued more skilled work visas to India that all other countries combined. What is more, the Indian contribution to the UK economy continues to grow with the numbers of Indian people working, studying and visiting the UK steadily increasing. In 2018, there was a 35 per cent increase in student visas, a six per cent increase in working visas and a ten per cent increase in visit visas. The Grant Thornton India meets Britain tracker for 2018 noted that there are 800 Indian companies operating in this country with their diverse range of investments demonstrating their long-term commitment to the UK.

However, despite this close economic partnership, our enduring connection to India is through people and the migrant communities which I am immensely proud to be part of. As a British Indian, I am part of the UK’s largest diaspora community. There 1.5 million Indians living in the UK from across the country’s Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities. My generation and the generation before us successfully integrated into this country and have prospered. But we have sustained our cultural and familial links to our ancestral home. That is why it is incredibly important that we remember and acknowledge the scars in our Anglo-Indian history such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. But I am determined that, while we mark the tragedies in our past, we focus on celebrating our current partnership and enduring friendship with India so we are able to continue to capitalise on our diaspora link to one of the world’s largest economies and most vibrant and diverse countries.

 

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Report: Trump told DHS official he’d pardon him if he got into legal trouble for blocking immigrants from entering

Westlake Legal Group report-trump-told-dhs-official-hed-pardon-him-if-he-got-into-legal-trouble-for-blocking-immigrants-from-entering Report: Trump told DHS official he’d pardon him if he got into legal trouble for blocking immigrants from entering Trump The Blog mcaleenan Legal immigration homeland security DHS close border

Westlake Legal Group t-8 Report: Trump told DHS official he’d pardon him if he got into legal trouble for blocking immigrants from entering Trump The Blog mcaleenan Legal immigration homeland security DHS close border

Old impeachment theory: The House is going to impeach Trump over Russiagate.
Current impeachment theory. The House is going to impeach Trump over whatever’s hiding in his tax returns.
Coming impeachment theory: The House is going to impeach Trump for inducing lawbreaking by his own cabinet.

Between this and the reports last week of Trump encouraging border agents to ignore the courts if they’re told to continue admitting asylum-seekers, we’re destined for House hearings on whether he’s breaching his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Imagine how excited acting DHS secretary Kevin McAleenan must be about not only inheriting a department that’s facing a crisis at the border without any permanent appointee in its top three positions but maybe soon having to testify before the House about whether the president tried to get him to break the law.

During President Donald Trump’s visit to the border at Calexico, California, a week ago, where he told border agents to block asylum seekers from entering the US contrary to US law, the President also told the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, that if he were sent to jail as a result of blocking those migrants from entering the US, the President would grant him a pardon, senior administration officials tell CNN…

It was not clear if the comment was a joke; the official was not given any further context on the exchange.

Right, the defense will be that Trump was joking, but (a) the border agents whom he told to ignore the courts allegedly took him seriously enough that they asked their supervisors what they should do and (b) the “joke” defense was stronger before he confirmed that he really is thinking of dropping illegals off in blue districts despite the objections of ICE lawyers. Also, note that CNN cites “senior administration officials” — plural — for its scoop. More than one person heard what he said and no one seems to have clearly understood him to be kidding.

The NYT is also reporting this afternoon that Trump offered McAleenan a preemptive pardon for actions taken at the border, citing three sources. One of those people agreed that it was unclear if Trump was joking but noted that his comment “alarmed officials at the Department of Homeland Security who were told of it.” According to the Times, Trump also asked McAleenan to close the southwestern border, a step which he seemed to have abandoned a week ago when the possibility of him cutting off cross-border access to El Paso freaked out Texas politicians of all stripes, including Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. An interesting tidbit:

Ms. Nielsen had earlier refused to carry through with Mr. Trump’s desire to close the border, telling him it was illegal. But the president encouraged Mr. McAleenan to disregard Ms. Nielsen and enforce the move himself. Two days later, Ms. Nielsen submitted her resignation under pressure from Mr. Trump, and the president appointed Mr. McAleenan acting secretary of homeland security…

Mr. Trump’s desire to close the border, despite the legal impediments, was a factor in the forced resignation of Ms. Nielsen. It was one of a number of instances in which Ms. Nielsen believed she was being asked to engage in conduct that violated laws, according to several people with knowledge of those discussions.

The Times sure does seem to have a lot of insight into Kirstjen Nielsen’s thinking! I wonder if the ex-secretary, eager to rehabilitate her image in official Washington for her post-Trump career, has decided to begin leaking to the press about Trump’s most dubious requests of Homeland Security officials. If there are in fact House hearings into whether Trump is encouraging DHS officials to break the law, she seems likely to end up as the star witness. Keeping her on as secretary would have made it easier for Trump to assert executive privilege over the things she says to Congress and obviously would have given Nielsen an incentive not to say anything in testimony that might alienate her boss. As a now ex-secretary whose future lies in distancing herself from Trump, those incentives are … different.

How would the pardon even work in the case of an ongoing process like, say, refusing to interview an asylum-seeker who arrives at a port of entry contra federal law? Could a single pardon immunize McAleenan or border agents for recurring lawbreaking? Could it immunize them prospectively for future lawbreaking? Or would Trump and the DOJ end up in some absurd game in which McAleenan is charged, pardoned, then breaks the same law again, is charged again, pardoned again, etc? Either way, Trump’s impulse to work around federal law with pardons is of a piece with his other dubious moves lately, per Jonathan Last:

It’s true that upon taking office, Donald Trump found that the weight of our system of government did constrain him from acting out his every wish. But Trump has slowly learned to get around these built-in safety measures. That’s why he fired Jeff Sessions and replaced him with a more compliant attorney general. It’s why he declared an extra-constitutional state of emergency to grab funding for his wall. It’s why he first tried to bully his Fed chairman and is now trying to circumvent him by stacking the board with loyalists. It’s why he’s slowly turning over senior positions and refusing to restock them with permanent, Senate-confirmed hires.

Even if you were inclined to hope for the best in a Trump presidency, the guardrails look a lot more wobbly than they did three years ago.

Yep. Senate Republicans are clearly getting tired of it too, although that risks creating a vicious circle in which Trump tries to act unilaterally, the Senate GOP rebukes him, and Trump comes away concluding the only way to get what he wants is to act even more boldly and dubiously unilaterally. McConnell’s caucus really, really doesn’t want a confrontation with him but it may be unavoidable.

The post Report: Trump told DHS official he’d pardon him if he got into legal trouble for blocking immigrants from entering appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-8-300x153 Report: Trump told DHS official he’d pardon him if he got into legal trouble for blocking immigrants from entering Trump The Blog mcaleenan Legal immigration homeland security DHS close border   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Liberals Furious After B-Globe Yanks Nasty Column That Called for Waiters to Pee, Bleed on Kirstjen Nielsen’s Food

Westlake Legal Group LukeONeilTwitter Liberals Furious After B-Globe Yanks Nasty Column That Called for Waiters to Pee, Bleed on Kirstjen Nielsen’s Food Social Media Politics North Carolina Media Massachusetts kirstjen nielsen journalism immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Boston Globe Allow Media Exception

Freelance writer Luke O’Neil. Source: Twitter screen grab.

On Wednesday, I wrote about a particularly nasty column written by liberal Massachusetts-based freelance writer Luke O’Neil which appeared in the Boston Globe earlier that day.

Here’s what the first paragraph stated (bolded emphasis added)

One of the biggest regrets of my life is not pissing in Bill Kristol’s salmon. I was waiting on the disgraced neoconservative pundit and chief Iraq War cheerleader about 10 years ago at a restaurant in Cambridge and to my eternal dismay, some combination of professionalism and pusillanimity prevented me from appropriately seasoning his entree. A ramekin of blood on the side might have been the better option, come to think of it. He always did seem really thirsty for the stuff.

At the end of the piece, O’Neil urged wait staffs across America to do to former DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen what he had failed to do to Kristol all those years ago:

As for the waiters out there, I’m not saying you should tamper with anyone’s food, as that could get you into trouble. You might lose your serving job. But you’d be serving America. And you won’t have any regrets years later.

Westlake Legal Group LukeOneilColumn Liberals Furious After B-Globe Yanks Nasty Column That Called for Waiters to Pee, Bleed on Kirstjen Nielsen’s Food Social Media Politics North Carolina Media Massachusetts kirstjen nielsen journalism immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Boston Globe Allow Media Exception

Source: Boston Globe.

I screencapped that section, because I figured if the outcry was strong enough to it that the column would eventually get altered or pulled. After all, this was not him merely urging verbal harassment of a public official – O’Neil was encouraging people to commit a crime.

As it turns, out the paper did alter the column, deleting all references to peeing and bleeding on anyone’s food. Ultimately they ended up deleting it altogether (the link no longer works).

The Washington Post did a write-up today on what happened and the aftermath. They noted that O’Neil did not regret a single word and that some other Globe writers shared the piece and had no issue with it:

“I do not apologize for it personally whatsoever,” he said.

On social media, a number of people backed O’Neil’s piece, including some other journalists at the Globe.

Shirley Leung, the newspaper’s interim editorial page editor, shared the article to Twitter on Wednesday.

“I have no idea how this op-ed got past our editors…” tweeted Globe film critic Ty Burr, “but honestly, the vein-popping apoplexy on the part of the commentariat is a beautiful thing to see.”

Burr even tweeted his endorsement of the idea of peeing and bleeding on people’s food in a later tweet, provided the circumstances were right:

The WaPo also reported that some liberal writers were furious over the move, including Think Progress alum Judd Legum, who blamed the Globe‘s decision to pull the piece on …. Fox News:

Media Matters editor at-large Parker Malloy was also threw a tantrum:

Defending incitement to commit criminal acts on your political opposition to own the cons. Gotta love it.

O’Neil said he would never write for the Globe again. He’s also written columns for the Post, but neither paper has indicated whether or not they’d publish anything else from him in the future.

————————————–
Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–

The post Liberals Furious After B-Globe Yanks Nasty Column That Called for Waiters to Pee, Bleed on Kirstjen Nielsen’s Food appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group LukeONeilTwitter-300x170 Liberals Furious After B-Globe Yanks Nasty Column That Called for Waiters to Pee, Bleed on Kirstjen Nielsen’s Food Social Media Politics North Carolina Media Massachusetts kirstjen nielsen journalism immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Boston Globe Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com