States sue Trump over immigrant families as Congress quarrels

[webfact]

States sue Trump over immigrant families as Congress quarrels

By Richard Cowan and Jonathan Stempel

 

An undocumented immigrant family is released from detention at a bus depot in McAllen, Texas, June 22, 2018. REUTERS/Loren Elliott

 

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - More than a dozen states sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over its separation of migrant children and parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, saying President Donald Trump's order last week ending the breakups was illusory.

 

In a complaint filed with U.S. District Court in Seattle, 17 states and the District of Columbia argued the administration's policy was unconstitutional in part because it was "motivated by animus and a desire to harm" immigrants arriving from Latin America.

 

“The new federal executive order does not bring back together the thousands of families that were torn apart by the federal government’s policy, and it does not prevent families from being separated in the future,” Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, said in a statement on the lawsuit.

 

The family separations began because of the administration's 2-month-old "zero tolerance" policy of seeking to prosecute all adults who cross the border illegally, including those traveling with children.

 

But Trump backtracked last Wednesday amid mounting global outrage spurred by images of children being held in cages.

 

In an executive order ending the family separations, Trump did not explain how his hardline immigration policies could be adjusted to keep families intact and house them while their legal status is assessed.

 

Although the administration has said the zero tolerance policy remains in place, officials said on Monday that parents who crossed illegally with their children would not face prosecution for the time being, because the government was running short of space to house them.

 

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told a Senate hearing on Tuesday that most of the 2,000-plus children who had been separated from their parents could not be reunited with them until Congress passes new legislation.

 

A 1997 court settlement known as the Flores agreement set policy for the detention of minors in the custody of immigration officials, and a federal appeals court has interpreted it to allow immigration officials to detain families for only 20 days.

 

While that settlement is in place, Azar said the children could not be moved to be with their parents in detention.

 

"I cannot reunite them while the parents are in custody because the court order doesn’t allow kids to be with their parents for more than 20 days,” Azar said.

 

He called on Congress to fix the Flores agreement. Until it does so, he said, HHS will have to wait for families to go through immigration proceedings or be granted asylum before reuniting children with their parents.

 

The children separated from their parents in recent weeks are now scattered across the country, some in foster homes and others in institutions, their whereabouts often unknown to their parents.

 

In a ruling on Tuesday that recognised the president's broad authority to set immigration policy, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, upheld Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries.

 

CONGRESS DIVIDED

After retreating on the family separations, Trump urged Congress to act quickly and follow up his order with legislation. But he then said lawmakers from his Republican Party, which has a majority in Congress, should give up on it.

 

The House of Representatives was expected to vote on Wednesday on a broad-based immigration bill that would bar the separation of migrant children from their parents and provide $25 billion for a wall that Trump has vowed to build along the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan said the broader bill would also resolve the issue of young adults known as "Dreamers," who were brought to the United States illegally as children, focus on a merit-based immigration system and secure U.S. borders and the rule of law.

 

But the measure was widely expected to fail.

 

Several House conservatives left a closed-door meeting of Republicans on Tuesday expressing discontent with the broad bill. Without their support, it will likely be rejected.

 

Ryan said he would not rule out the possibility of bringing to a vote a narrower bill addressing only the detention of immigrant families, if the broader bill did not pass.

 

'HUMANITARIAN STANDARDS'

Senate Democrats and Republicans have been exploring possible legislation to ban the separation of immigrant children from their families and require rapid reunification of children taken from their parents under the zero tolerance policy.

 

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday he would like to see the Senate unanimously pass legislation to prevent family separations.

 

"We're hopeful that they can reach an agreement to deal with this real emergency issue," McConnell told reporters, referring to a Senate compromise effort by Democrat Dianne Feinstein and Republican Ted Cruz.

 

"If they can, I would hope that it'd be something the Senate could pass on a voice vote," McConnell said.

 

First lady Melania Trump plans to visit immigration facilities later this week, her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said on Tuesday, without giving further details.

 

Melania Trump last week visited a shelter that houses migrant children in Texas, but the trip was overshadowed by controversy over a jacket she wore with the words: I really don't care, do u?" scrawled on the back.

 

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Jonathan Stempel; Additional reporting by Steve Holland, Amanda Becker, Susan Cornwell and Yeganeh Torbati in Washington; Writing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Kieran Murray; Editing by Paul Simao and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-27

[Thingamabob]

Pathetic. Come on Dems, start doing something useful. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Thingamabob said:

Pathetic. Come on Dems, start doing something useful. 

Erm.... The Republicans have the majority in both houses!

 

So you blame the Dems?!

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Thingamabob said:

Pathetic. Come on Dems, start doing something useful. 

Yes, a blue wave in November would be very useful. The dictator president must be checked. 

[Tug]

Regardless blue wave or not many republicans are extremely uncomfortable with the bulley clown the survivors will be more willing to speak up

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, a blue wave in November would be very useful. The dictator president must be checked. 

Not currently looking very good for the "blue wave".

 

Given that he was

enforcing a law enacted by congress,

there is precedent by previous president(s) to hold children separately,

it is normal for criminals to be separated from their children,

the SCOTUS has recognised the constitutional authority of the president over immigration,

I doubt he is worried that a case can succeed against him.

 

I would consider precedent by previous president(s) to hold children separately to be the most significant. If Obama could do it, later presidents certainly can.

 

11 hours ago, webfact said:

unconstitutional in part because it was "motivated by animus and a desire to harm" immigrants arriving from Latin America.

Any half decent lawyer could get that thrown out, IMO.

SCOTUS disregarded his tweets etc in coming to their recent conclusion, and considered only the text of the travel ban.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not currently looking very good for the "blue wave".

 

Given that he was

enforcing a law enacted by congress,

there is precedent by previous president(s) to hold children separately,

it is normal for criminals to be separated from their children,

the SCOTUS has recognised the constitutional authority of the president over immigration,

I doubt he is worried that a case can succeed against him.

 

I would consider precedent by previous president(s) to hold children separately to be the most significant. If Obama could do it, later presidents certainly can.

 

Any half decent lawyer could get that thrown out, IMO.

SCOTUS disregarded his tweets etc in coming to their recent conclusion, and considered only the text of the travel ban.

If this issue means "it's not looking very good for the blue wave" then whey did Trump back down?

And as usual you've got some of your your facts wrong

[Trouble]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, a blue wave in November would be very useful. The dictator president must be checked. 

I have yet to see the current President, assuming dictatorial powers. If enforcing current laws passed by the Congress is being a dictator, you and I have different ideas of how dictators conduct themselves. It's not like the President as enacted laws on his own volition. Better start looking at what he's actually done under the law vs. what the media contends he has done outside the law.

 

We currently have a bunch of politicians unable to deal with a serious problem which the democrats seem unwilling and unable to address so as the keep the problem at the forefront of the news until the mid term elections hoping it garners them some votes. Maybe this country needs a dictator as it certainly isn't functioning very well anymore. 

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, Trouble said:

I have yet to see the current President, assuming dictatorial powers. If enforcing current laws passed by the Congress is being a dictator, you and I have different ideas of how dictators conduct themselves. It's not like the President as enacted laws on his own volition. Better start looking at what he's actually done under the law vs. what the media contends he has done outside the law.

 

We currently have a bunch of politicians unable to deal with a serious problem which the democrats seem unwilling and unable to address so as the keep the problem at the forefront of the news until the mid term elections hoping it garners them some votes. Maybe this country needs a dictator as it certainly isn't functioning very well anymore. 

"the democrats seem unwilling and unable to address"

And there was me thinking the Repu8blicans had the majority in both houses. How people can write things like this, and despite overwhelming evidence still blame the wrong ones is beyond me. Or are you seriously believing anything coming from the white house?

[johnnybangkok]

9 hours ago, Trouble said:

I have yet to see the current President, assuming dictatorial powers. If enforcing current laws passed by the Congress is being a dictator, you and I have different ideas of how dictators conduct themselves. It's not like the President as enacted laws on his own volition. Better start looking at what he's actually done under the law vs. what the media contends he has done outside the law.

 

We currently have a bunch of politicians unable to deal with a serious problem which the democrats seem unwilling and unable to address so as the keep the problem at the forefront of the news until the mid term elections hoping it garners them some votes. Maybe this country needs a dictator as it certainly isn't functioning very well anymore. 

There is no current American law that says that these children have to be separated from their family, only that children cannot be held in a federal prison. The problem has arisen with Trump and Sessions 'zero tolerance' policy that basically says that EVERYONE crossing the border is now subject to criminal prosecution and therefore the children get separated.  This was a concerted effort from Trump/Sessions to deter people from crossing the border, knowing that they would be separated from their children.

This is a Republican made problem pure and simple, aptly demonstrated by his executive order that instantly reversed the separation of the children.  If all he was doing was 'enforcing current laws' how could he reverse it quite so easily? Why didn't he need to get the Democrats and congress involved? Why didn't it need to go to a Federal judge or the Supreme court? The answer is pretty simple. It wasn't 'current law', it was made up by Trump and Sessions and all he did was blame the Democrats for the problem.

The Democrats are 'unwilling and unable' to address immigration policy because Trump and the Republicans are not budging on matters such as the building/financing of the wall and the 'Dreamers' issue.

So no, this is not a media inspired problem just a Trump one. This whole immigration debacle could easily sorted by the Republicans IF they really wanted to. But it doesn't serve their current interests or their political base to compromise on immigration as they know this is what stirs up the masses and keeps their base loyal to them. It's the oldest trick in the book; just tell a whole heap of lies and misinformation to distract the common man whilst systematically robbing the country for you and your billionaire cronies.     

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, Trouble said:

I have yet to see the current President, assuming dictatorial powers. If enforcing current laws passed by the Congress is being a dictator, you and I have different ideas of how dictators conduct themselves. It's not like the President as enacted laws on his own volition. Better start looking at what he's actually done under the law vs. what the media contends he has done outside the law.

 

We currently have a bunch of politicians unable to deal with a serious problem which the democrats seem unwilling and unable to address so as the keep the problem at the forefront of the news until the mid term elections hoping it garners them some votes. Maybe this country needs a dictator as it certainly isn't functioning very well anymore. 

And what is this serious problem that is not being dealt with? Illegal immigration is way down. What harm is being done to the United States by some of these people making it through? Trump would have people believe that they pose a serous crime problem. Not true. That they are a burden on the economy. Not true.

How many resources and how many billions of dolars more should be devoted to this situation? There are enough obstacles now to discourage most people from coming in as illegal immigrants. The status quo is just fine.

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 11:02 PM, bristolboy said:

If this issue means "it's not looking very good for the blue wave" then whey did Trump back down?

And as usual you've got some of your your facts wrong

I meant it's not looking good for the blue wave BECAUSE he backed down.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I meant it's not looking good for the blue wave BECAUSE he backed down.

Let's wait and see what happens with the children who are already separated from their parents and whom  so far the Trump administraton has refused to reunite. In fact, even if they agreed to reunite the children with their parents it's not clear at all how quickly they could manage it because of their incompetence. The program is an utter mess.

[wayned]

Suing the federal government is a waste of time.  What the Attorney generals of each sate should  do is file criminal charges against Jeff Sessions  and Donald Trump for kidnapping and child endangerment and immediately issue a warrant for their arrest.

[Scott]

There will always be situations where the children have to be removed, but certainly not on the scale seen in this situation.   People who are charged with a felony, whether for a second illegal crossing, drugs, or being wanted for other criminal activity, will have to be jailed and the children placed in care.   There is also the situation where there a child arrives without an immediate family member, although they are not being separated from parents.

 

It is very costly to remove children and place them in care and it makes the processing of any asylum case much more complicated.   There is the logistical problem of reuniting families, especially if the children are moved far away.  

 

Since the number of Mexicans has been declining, the majority of those seeking asylum would be from Central and South America.   It is unlikely that many of them have previous illegal crossings or would be wanted for felony charges.  

[wayned]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

There is the logistical problem of reuniting families, especially if the children are moved far away.  

It seems that HHS and Homeland Security has complicated the problem by not having a system that properly tracks what children belong to what parent.  They seem to have just thrown them into the system for unaccompanied minors which has no reason to have a tracking system.  It's like they just kidnapped then children with no intent of ever returning them to there  parents.  8 days left until the clock expires on return of the under 5 year old children, but by then it will all be forgotten as Trump will create another diversion to cover it up, possibly the new building at the nuclear plant in NK after Trump said that they had agreed to denuclearize!