Trump fires top government lawyer for defiance on immigration order

[WaywardWind]

21 minutes ago, Usernames said:

Utterly clueless comment. The AG position, acting or otherwise, is appointive.

Absolutely correct - the AG is appointed and serves at the pleasure of the president. No argument there.

 

Where you and others are wrong is in believing that the AG must perform his or her duties as dictated by the president. Not so.  The president can fire the AG but cannot tell him or her how to fulfill the responsibilities.

 

That's where you are dead wrong and apparently clueless.

[alanrchase]

Here is a somewhat ironic video clip.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[WaywardWind]

14 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

As I indicated, Stephen Miller I quoted, is the adviser to the President. He is the person that indicated that  The Office of Legal Counsel which is an Office within the Department of Justice, reviewed and approved the immigration executive order. There are many lawyers in the Office, and the one that signed the opinion is unimportant. Why do you need a specific person's name?

 

The AG has duty to the citizens of USA and Yates lost her job as AG for cause, according to the President. Usually, a person can only be fired from their job by their boss. So it seems to me, Trump was Yate's boss.

 

Trump, as Chief Executive and the President not only has the duty to enforce laws, but also the authority to decide how to do so.  Executive authority to take action is thus “fairly wide,” as former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner indicated. The Supreme Court has emphasized the federal government’s “broad discretion,” which includes consideration of “immediate human concerns.” Read more here:

https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/execauthorityimm/

 

You demonstrate little or no understanding of the USA federal law or of the Constitution. Here, read this and please return with a reasonable intelligent opinion:

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

 

 

 

The AG serves at the pleasure of the president, but neither the president nor anyone else can dictate how the AG fulfills the responsibilities of the office. Trump can fire her, but he cannot dictate what she has to do.

 

I wouldn't believe a single thing that comes out of the mouth of Stephen Miller, and you really shouldn't either.

 

And I promise you that I have a far better understanding of federal law and the Constitution.

 

Finally, you are the one who needs to review the INA, and pay particular attention to sections 236, 236A,and 237.

[Banana7]

9 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

Absolutely correct - the AG is appointed and serves at the pleasure of the president. No argument there.

 

Where you and others are wrong is in believing that the AG must perform his or her duties as dictated by the president. Not so.  The president can fire the AG but cannot tell him or her how to fulfill the responsibilities.

 

That's where you are dead wrong and apparently clueless.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

Please go read the National Immigration Law Center's opinion as what powers the President has related to immigration here:

https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/execauthorityimm/

 

In the opinion of many immigration lawyers, " As chief executive, the President not only has the duty to enforce laws, but also the authority to decide how to do so. " So that means he can tell the AG how he wants the job done related to immigration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WaywardWind]

2 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

Thank you for your opinion.

 

Please go read the National Immigration Law Center's opinion as what powers the President has related to immigration here:

https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/execauthorityimm/

 

In the opinion of many immigration lawyers, " As chief executive, the President not only has the duty to enforce laws, but also the authority to decide how to do so. " So that means he can tell the AG how he wants the job done related to immigration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is it that you seem incapable of understanding the role of the AG vis-a-vis a presidential directive?

 

The president can issue and executive order. The AG then has to decide whether or not it complies with the law and with the Constitution.  The AG then makes the decision to enforce the order or not. If the answer that the AG believes that the order is illegal, than the AG can decline to enforce. The president cannot order the AG to enforce; he can only remove the AG, and then the Assistant AG becomes the acting AG, and goes through the same analysis as the AG did.  If the acting AG decides that the order is illegal, he or she can decline to enforce, and the president is back to square one.

 

This is exactly the scenario that played out in 1973 when Nixon ordered Elliott Richardson to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox.  Richardson refused (and resigned rather than wait to be dismissed) and Nicholas Katzenach moved up and became Acting AG. Katzenbach also refused to fire Cox, an Nixon fired him (although Katzenbach subsequently swore that he also resigned). The Solicitor General then became the Acting AG, and he acceded to Nixon's demands and fired Cox, a move that the judge who was overseeing the investigation later ruled was illegal. 

[IAMHERE]

" defiles America's historic reputation as a welcoming place for immigrants. "

 

Ok, good! It is time to change. Change is good. America isn't the same wide open country it used to be, we don't need immigration like we did a century ago. America has enough home grown terrorist, don't need to import them.

[Banana7]

9 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

How is it that you seem incapable of understanding the role of the AG vis-a-vis a presidential directive?

 

The president can issue and executive order. The AG then has to decide whether or not it complies with the law and with the Constitution.  The AG then makes the decision to enforce the order or not. If the answer that the AG believes that the order is illegal, than the AG can decline to enforce. The president cannot order the AG to enforce; he can only remove the AG, and then the Assistant AG becomes the acting AG, and goes through the same analysis as the AG did.  If the acting AG decides that the order is illegal, he or she can decline to enforce, and the president is back to square one.

 

This is exactly the scenario that played out in 1973 when Nixon ordered Elliott Richardson to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox.  Richardson refused (and resigned rather than wait to be dismissed) and Nicholas Katzenach moved up and became Acting AG. Katzenbach also refused to fire Cox, an Nixon fired him (although Katzenbach subsequently swore that he also resigned). The Solicitor General then became the Acting AG, and he acceded to Nixon's demands and fired Cox, a move that the judge who was overseeing the investigation later ruled was illegal. 

The current scenario with Yates is nowhere near the Cox matter. There are enormous differences, but I'm not going to detail them here, that is not the subject of this thread or news story.

 

Here, I'll make it convenient and easy for you:

 

Trump proclaimed pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), that the immigrant and non-immigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental.

 

Trump proclaimed Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States.

He also ordered The Secretary of State immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222.

 

These proclamations are completely legal, and are sufficient evidence for all branches of the government to take immediate action including the DOJ. Yates from DOJ refused, so consequently, for just cause, acting on behalf of the USA citizens, her services were terminated.

 

I hope she is charged with negligence of duty.

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Banana7

[zaphod reborn]

1 hour ago, disambiguated said:

You have no idea what you're talking about.  See Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

 

"(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Poor legislative research skills.  That was the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.  It was superseded in 1965.

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

You mean this Stephen Miller? Bannon's sidekick? The same Stephen Miller who was a chief architect of the repugnant executive orders? The right wing racist in the White House? You need better sources. ...

 

20 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

... I wouldn't believe a single thing that comes out of the mouth of Stephen Miller, and you really shouldn't either. ...

 

Stephen Miller has a long-record of supporting restrictions on Immigration into the USA, which most Americans believe is also in the best interest - economic and safety - of American Citizens.  He was an adviser to Jeff Session before joining with the Trump campaign, not an employee of (former Naval Officer) Stephen Bannon.  His views far predate Breitbart.

 

In High school...

Quote

Around 2002, when other students reportedly scoffed at the reintroduction of the Pledge of Allegiance to their morning routine, Miller stood tall and proudly with his hand over his heart like clockwork every single day.

 

You can say you disagree with his views / policies, or even the notion of patriotism.  You might even explain why bringing in more refugees that cost US Taxpayers 65K in handouts per year is somehow good for the country (when 12x more refugees could be helped in safe-zones near their homes for the same money).  But you should not throw around the "racist" term unless you have solid evidence to back that up. 

Note that "illegal alien" is not a "race."

[SaintLouisBlues]

3 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

You might even explain why bringing in more refugees that cost US Taxpayers 65K in handouts per year is somehow good for the country (when 12x more refugees could be helped in safe-zones near their homes for the same money). 

Quite so. America would be a far, far better place if Steve Jobs' parents had been helped to stay in their own country

[user82374298374]

23 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

Poor legislative research skills.  That was the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.  It was superseded in 1965.

No, it was not.  The 1965 Hart-Celler Act does not supersede it, and no one who knows anything about U.S. law would make such an obviously false claim.  Though I do look forward to Hart-Celler's repeal.

 

Even the traitorous Acting AG Yates didn't make that obviously specious claim - in point of fact, she cited no legal justification whatsoever for her refusal to execute the President's perfectly legal order.  Instead, she cited her feelings.

 

Get your facts straight.  Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional.

 

Maybe you've been in Thailand too long.

Edited January 31, 2017 by disambiguated

[Jingthing]

An early impeachment looking ever more likely. 6 months and he'll be gone.

trump would fight that violently in the streets with the military not to mention his redhat goons. Seriously he's turning out to be a monster. The biggest threat to the USA since the Civil War. Don't underestimate the threat he represents.

[SaintLouisBlues]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Seriously he's turning out to be a monster.

"Turning out" Has it taken you this long to catch up to the rest of us?

[JackThompson]

4 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

Poor legislative research skills.  That was the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.  It was superseded in 1965.

Did the 1965 act repeal the former in its entirety, or merely modify it? 

 

When the 1965 Immigration Act was passed, we were told ...

 

Quote

 

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.

- Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965. pp.

 

A politician lied - no surprise there.   When you look at the effect, quantifiable by voting patterns, it should have been called, "The Importation of Poor, Handout-Seeking, Socialist Voters Act of 1965."   The costs have far outweighed the benefits.

 

6 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Quite so. America would be a far, far better place if Steve Jobs' parents had been helped to stay in their own country

Steve was adopted.  His biological parents were not immigrants.

Quote

Luckily for us Paul Jobs (his adoptive father) passed on to Steve his love of mechanics, which led to Steve’s friendship with Steve Wozniak and the eventual founding of Apple Computer.

I would never make the case that people from this or that country or region are "biologically inferior" to others - nor that such a myth (race-based thinking) be the basis for immigration policy.  But talent is, unfortunately for Americans, not a dominant-factor in the US immigration system.   The facts regarding immigrant-use of welfare-funds, their being brought in at a time when there is excess labor-supply, and given ISIS has promised to infiltrate refugee flows with killers, are the pertinent issues.

[zaphod reborn]

20 minutes ago, disambiguated said:

No, it was not.  The 1965 Hart-Celler Act does not supersede it, and no one who knows anything about U.S. law would make such an obviously false claim.  Though I do look forward to Hart-Celler's repeal.

 

Even the traitorous Acting AG Yates didn't make that obviously specious claim - in point of fact, she cited no legal justification whatsoever for her refusal to execute the President's perfectly legal order.  Instead, she cited her feelings.

 

Get your facts straight.  Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional.

 

Maybe you've been in Thailand too long.

Here's the current INA.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101    Whoa, the language you cited doesn't exist anymore, does it?  You have to be the most uneducated Trumpster I've come across.

 

Four federal judges have already issued injunctions against the executive order on constitutional grounds.  In order to issue an injunction, the court would have found that the challenge had a high likelihood of success on the merits and that irreparable harm would result from not enjoining the order.  Legal scholars opine that given 4 different judges found in favor of the challenge on this heightened standard, there is little or no chance that the order will pass constititional muster.

Edited January 31, 2017 by zaphod reborn

[SaintLouisBlues]

6 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Steve was adopted.  His biological parents were not immigrants.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/who-is-steve-jobs-syrian-immigrant-father-abdul-fattah-jandali-banksy-3624958/

[GreasyFingers]

7 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

 

The 120 day immigration ban is obviously unconstitutional, because the President can't use an executive order to change an act of Congress (that being the 1965 law that set immigration quotas).  Obama did it, but no one ever took his immigration orders to court.  If Trump paid any heed to his advisers, he would push the legislation through Congress.  However, he knows that the backlash would bring down the Republican house majority in the mid-term elections.  Instead, he is going to waste time, a tremendous amount of money and judicial resources defending an indefensibly unconstitutional executive order.  Sorry, the guy is an idiot and unfit for office.  He didn't listen to his advisers who told him the executive order would cause tremendous panic and hysteria because it wasn't properly vetted, and ultimately it would be completely voided by the courts.

I could not care less about american law but this is doing the rounds on emails. You can check it for authenticity.

McCarron-Walter Act of 1952

 

[SaintLouisBlues]

2 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

I could not care less about american law but this is doing the rounds on emails. You can check it for authenticity.

McCarron-Walter Act of 1952

Which bit can be checked for authenticity? The first two sentences? Or the entire rant? How would I authenticate the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th sentences?

[Tug]

It's trump that needs vetting how about those income tax returns Donald?wonder why not the Saudis they attacked the World Trade Center do ya owe them money Donald what a train wreck that man is the only ones he hasent pissed off are the Russians 

[GreasyFingers]

Just now, SaintLouisBlues said:

Which bit can be checked for authenticity? The first two sentences? Or the entire rant? How would I authenticate the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th sentences?

Just the Act itself

[SaintLouisBlues]

2 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Just the Act itself

Oh so not the message itself? Your post says "this is going around ... you can check it for authenticity"

[Thaidream]

A court of law will judge whether Trump's Executive Order is legal. At Present, there is a stay on the order in several jurisdictions because the courts have already ruled there is a compelling case that the order may violate the Constitution. The Acting AG declined to proceed because she believes the order has constitutional problems. Trump has the right to fire her and appoint a new Acting AG which he did.

The fact is that Trump's order was not properly vetted and the execution of it was poor. If a foreigner already has a valid Immigrant Visa (Green Card) they have already been investigated thoroughly and should not be detained anywhere for more vetting. They should be allowed freedom of movement the same as an American citizen. A person who already has approved Visas of any kind should be allowed to continue with their plans.

It is obvious neither the President or his inner circle who drafted the order has any concept of legality; the basis of the American Constitution; the meaning of the Statue of Liberty or how America is viewed in the World. To me , the greatest danger America faces- is the incompetence of Mr Trump and his clique and it is time for the Reuplican leadership in the house and senate to stand up to these buffoons.

[GreasyFingers]

I am not allowed to use the "s" word but it is entertaining when the yanks get their nickers in a knott.

[simple1]

14 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

I could not care less about american law but this is doing the rounds on emails. You can check it for authenticity.

McCarron-Walter Act of 1952

 

Have to wait and see how the Court/s rule on Trump's Executive Order, However, the 1965 law referred to above is in fact a revision of the Act to which you refer which stated individuals cannot be:

 

discriminated against in the issuance of an immigration visa because of their race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.

 

 

 

 

[SpeakeasyThai]

7 hours ago, Banana7 said:

Unfortunately, her judgement wasn't good enough. 

 

The Order was approved by the Department of Justice and other legal advisor. It's not her decision to disobey a legal order.

 

You'll see her replacement is far more competent and someone who will uphold the laws of the land.

 

 

 

Another Trump family nember ?

[JackThompson]

18 minutes ago, Tug said:

It's trump that needs vetting how about those income tax returns Donald?wonder why not the Saudis they attacked the World Trade Center do ya owe them money Donald what a train wreck that man is the only ones he hasent pissed off are the Russians 

As the FBI director stated, paraphrasing, not finding a potential-terrorist in a database is not helpful if that database does not contain any information on the person in question.   Yemen and Libya have very little to offer, and US-data is spotty at best.

 

The Saudis have improved their records since 9/11, and US-Consulates there are presumably no longer rubber-stamping visas to dangerous people (whom they considered "allies" as former proxy-army agents against the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and others - See the book Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World by Mike Springmann; he was fired for refusing to do this). 

 

10 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

... If a foreigner already has a valid Immigrant Visa (Green Card) they have already been investigated thoroughly and should not be detained anywhere for more vetting. They should be allowed freedom of movement the same as an American citizen.

This has been confirmed.  The administration has stated they will face the same scrutiny / questioning as an American Citizen who returns with a travel-history from terrorist-infiltrated areas. 

 

Quote

A person who already has approved Visas of any kind should be allowed to continue with their plans.

That is not how Visas work.  A visa is not a "guarantee" to enter a country. 

Edited January 31, 2017 by JackThompson

[BTempleman]

6 hours ago, JaseTheBass said:

Trumpites don't care about the truth, so you're probably wasting your time trying to educate the retarded.

 

6 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

She is most definitely NOT his employee. You really need to read up on how the USG works. She is an independent officer of the government, sworn to uphold the Constitution and US law, not respond to directions from any other source.

 

I am still waiting for the identity of the Department of Justice official who you claim approved Trump's order.

She is a political appointee that serves at the pleasure of the Chief Executive, who may have his underlings review his executive order, but in no way do they have the authority to approve or disapprove it.

[Thaidream]

A Visa is not a full guarantee- but generally speaking- when a person obtains one- they should no longer be investigated in the same manner that one who  is applying for a Visa is investigated. The only question that should come into play is upon entry to the US- when the IO puts the name into the computer no adverse information comes up. If that is not the case- an IO can simply deny entry based upon physical appearance; ethnic background or religious affiliation -all of which is a violation of the US Constitution. The alternative is a country in which Chinese were excluded based upon their ethnicity or Japanese Americans were interred during the Second World War because of their ethnicity. Is this what Trump thinks makes America Great Again- I certainly hope not!

[GreasyFingers]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Have to wait and see how the Court/s rule on Trump's Executive Order, However, the 1965 law referred to above is in fact a revision of the Act to which you refer which stated individuals cannot be:

 

discriminated against in the issuance of an immigration visa because of their race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.

 

 

 

 

The bit in the emails quote this part:

"That an applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our constitution"

The conclusion is that the quoran forbids muslims to swear allegance to the constitution.

Have fun with it for it keeps the world laughing.

[Jingthing]

It's trump that needs vetting how about those income tax returns Donald?wonder why not the Saudis they attacked the World Trade Center do ya owe them money Donald what a train wreck that man is the only ones he hasent pissed off are the Russians 

The Russians are even happier now than the redhats, especially after many of the redhats lose their health care and realize that rust belt style jobs are never coming back.