Trump’s major immigration policy decisions during 2017 included the following:

— Stated his intention to build a border wall with Mexico.

— Attempted to pressure sanctuary cities to comply with federal law.

— Implemented travel bans from certain terrorist linked countries.

— Attempted to phase out or reform out the DACA “Dreamer” program.

— Secretively imported tens of thousands of Muslims into the United States.

— Ended the temporary protected status for 450 Sudanese.

ABOUT TRUMP’S “TRAVEL BAN”


Trump’s “travel ban” legislation has been a focal point of criticism and divisiveness which has been challenged in court.  Ultimately the bans still stand due to them offering “case-by-case exemptions”.

An April Reuters media report claims that only 6% of applications from “Travel Ban” countries are receiving Visa waivers for traveling to the U.S., however it does not mention the fact that tens of thousands of mostly unvetted migrants from those same countries are being brought into the U.S. in a UN refugee resettlement program.


An article in the Conservative Review entitled “Aimless fighting in Afghanistan— while we bring Afghanistan to our shores” explains how tens of thousands of unvetted Muslims are secretively being imported into the U.S. by the Trump Administration from supposed “travel ban” countries.

Following is a summary of the information:

— The influx of migrants from countries on Trump’s “travel ban” list has not slowed down overall.  Trump is not coming close to a complete shutoff from countries like Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.  Based on first quarter data in 2018, the U.S. is on pace to grant over 4,000 green cards to Yemeni nationals. 2,000 Somalis were given green cards in the first quarter, with many being adjustments of status but also including new arrivals, with the same type of trend holding true for those from Syria.  The U.S. is on pace to bring in 13,000 to 14,000 Iranians in 2018, which is roughly in line with the national average. Immigration from Sudan is continuing at record highs.

— 2,429 people from the non-Islamic country of Venezuela which was also on Trump’s “travel ban” list were given green cards during the first three months of 2018.  Venezuela has a large Arab population, close ties to Iran, and a leadership that is hooked into terror financing.

— Immigration has increased from other Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan, with the latter two being the result of a consolidation of the visa lottery and chain migration.

— The pace of non-immigrant visas from the supposed travel ban countries hasn’t even been slowed, with only 1,338 visa applicants being denied in 2017, and with 90% of those being only because they didn’t quality.


Also see a January 2017 Breitbart article, “Seven Inconvenient Facts About Trump’s Refugee Actions”.

ABOUT THE DEFERRED ACTION FOR PARENTS OF AMERICANS (DAPA) PROGRAM (WHICH WAS NEVER INITIALLY ACTIVATED)

On June 15, 2017, Donald Trump rescinded the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, which would have given three year renewable work permits and exemptions from deportation to most illegal immigrants.

Barack Obama announced the DAPA program on November 2014, but several states filed lawsuits to block it due to its unconstitutionality, and thus is was never implemented.

DAPA would have applied to all illegal immigrants who meet the following criteria:

— Have lived in the United States without interruption since January 1, 2010

— Have been physically present in the United States on November 20, 2014 (the date the program was announced)

— Have been physically present in the United States when applying to the program

— Have lacked lawful immigration status on November 20, 2014

— Have, as of November 20, 2014, a child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident

— Has not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors

— Has not “otherwise pose a threat to national security or be an enforcement priority for removal”

TRUMP’S ATTEMPT TO END THE DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS (DACA) PROGRAM

Jeff Sessions and other advisors such as Stephen Miller pressured Trump into canceling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act (DACA) due to lawsuits that were being threatened by some Republican state Attorney Generals.  DACA gave “Dreamers” who are the children of illegal immigrants the ability to obtain work visas and driver’s licenses and be free from the risk of deportation, but it does not grant them citizenship.

From Wikipedia: To be eligible, recipients must be present in the United States unlawfully after being brought in as children before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not currently provide permanent lawful status or a path to citizenship, nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.

Barack Obama created DACA by executive action in 2012, meaning without Congressional approval. Rep. Steve King who voted to try to defund the program in 2013 stated, “The point here is ... the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he’s done both .. in this respect.”

Trump made a campaign promise to end the policy, but later he reassured the recipients in February, “not to worry.. We are going to deal with DACA from the heart,” but then a group of Republican State Attorney Generals threatened to sue the Federal government if he didn’t cancel the program by September 5th, which would have put Trump in a position of publicly defending the program.  Therefore, in September of 2017 Trump said that he would start to phase out the program starting in six months, during which time Congress may act to codify the program into law.

A number of lawsuits had been filed as a result of Trump’s decision and a Judge ruled in favor of the program, so it continues to be the case that individuals who have or have previously had DACA can apply to renew it.


[Note: I think Trump’s decision to try to eliminate DACA was a bad one, it made him appear to be heartless and it didn’t do anything to stop the continuing influx of new migrants that focusing on building a border wall would have accomplished.

I believe that if people are already in the country they should be allowed to stay unless they commit crimes, however all new illegal immigration including most asylum requests (which are usually not legitimate claims) and birthright citizenship (the practice of women traveling to the U.S. to give birth for citizenship status) should no longer be allowed after a certain specified date.

It is interesting that Trump didn’t immediately move to end the birthright citizenship loophole.  He could have easily initially done that and it would have been very effective.  Most other Western countries such as New Zealand and Australia don’t allow birthright citizenship, and the United States shouldn’t either— Pregnant women are simply traveling to the U.S. when they are due to give birth, usually at the expense of taxpayers.]

Trump is secretively importing as many as 30,000 mostly unvetted Muslims into the U.S. during 2019


On September 17th, 2018, Donald Trump had announced that he has decided to import as many as 30,000 mostly Muslim refugees into the United States during the coming year, making his announcement weeks earlier than has been anticipated.

The United States has been involved in a little known program of importing refugees from regions of the world since the 1980’s, where the refugees are selected by the United Nations and then brought to the United States by nine different “refugee resettlement contractors,” where they are given the full benefits of U.S. citizens and eventually they have the option of becoming U.S. citizens themselves.

The Refugee Resettlement Program has many issues though, where many of the supposed “refugees” are actually economic migrants who are being brought to the U.S. to fulfill Establishment political agendas, while many legitimate refugees such as Christians who are persecuted by Muslims are not chosen to come to the U.S. in any substantial numbers.

Last year Trump admitted over 20,000 Muslims though that program, as well bringing in 16,000 additional “special immigrant visa holders” from Afghanistan, with essentially none of them being adequately vetted. But despite such a high number being brought in, it is a smaller amount than has been admitted by previous presidential administrations.

After Trump made his announcement about the number of refugees that he will be admitting next year, media coverage (such as this Politico article) has been deceptively portraying Trump as being a “cold-hearted hawkish hard-liner” who has “slashed the amount” of the refugees that the United States will be allowing— instead of explaining that Trump has decided to import tens of thousands of mostly unvetted Muslims when actually he had the option of not bringing in any at all.

And if last year is any indication, Trump might bring in many more than 30,000 Muslims under the guise of other programs. The Politico article claims that Trump admitted “only 20,825” refugees last year, but that number doesn’t include the additional 16,000 Afghanistanis that he brought in.

The Politico article says there was a yearly cap of 110,000 refugees under Obama, however Obama set that high number soon before he left office as a political stunt to make whatever amount that Trump chose seem to be dramatically less by comparison. Obama actually admitted an average of about 70,000 per year. See this Refugee Resettlement Watch article explaining that issue.

The Politico article quotes various individuals from the refugee industry such as Church World Services who claimed that Trump is involved in “an all-out attack on vulnerable families seeking to rebuild their lives in safety,” and the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society which said that the decreased numbers shows that the U.S. is “a nation in retreat.”

The Politico article also says “The Trump administration is required by statute to consult with the Senate and House Judiciary committees regarding the proposed ceiling. The Senate meeting has not yet taken place, according to an aide,” however that is a very misleading statement— Trump might be required to “consult” with the Judiciary committees, however the number of refugees admitted is his decision to make alone.

Also see the article The United States has secretively been importing millions of Islamic migrants from overseas for decades for more information about this issue.

ABOUT THE PROGRAM OF “TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS” (TPS)

From Wikipedia: “Temporary protected status (also called "TPS") is a temporary status given to eligible nationals of designated countries who are present in the United States.  The status, afforded to nationals from some countries affected by armed conflict or natural disaster, allows persons to live and work in the United States for limited times.  Currently, persons from ten countries—Haiti, El Salvador, Syria, Nepal, Honduras, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Nicaragua; and South Sudan—have temporary protected status. About 320,000 people have TPS as of 2017, the majority from El Salvador (195,000), Honduras (57,000), and Haiti (46,000).  [Note August 1, 2019— The Wikipeida article under-represented the amount of TPS foriegn nationals, which is currently 417,000 according to the Congressional Research Service.].

[New editor's note: August 1, 2019— The policy of “Temporary protected status” seems that it would be frustrating for those people who become used to living in the U.S. due to them eventually needing to return to their original country, especially if their country is still experiencing problems.  However, they are aware of the amount of time that they will be living in the U.S. from the time that they arrive, so at least they are able to plan accordingly.  But also the US is able to extend the amount of time that they are able to stay by renewing their status, and when the U.S. fails to do so such as how Trump has done for many groups it causes much controversy and also it brings legal challenges in court.

I didn’t realize that the TPS program is also being used to bring in large numbers of mostly unvetted Muslim migrants in addition to the ones that are brought in by the UN’s Refugee Resettlement Program.]

Trump’s major immigration policy decisions during 2018 included the following:

— Ended the temporary protected status for 195,000 Salvadorans, 50,000 Haitians, 8950 Nepalese, and 57,000 Hondurans.

— Trump faired poorly in negotiations with Democrats, leaving him with no funding for a border wall and also being legally constrained from building any new sections of a wall.

— Sent 2,000 National Guard troops to the border to help repair sections of fence, but not to catch and detain illegal immigrants.

— Attorney General Jeff Sessions told federal prosecutors to put more emphasis on charging people for illegal entry, and he sent more prosecutors and immigration judges to the southern border with Mexico.

— Sessions tries to reform the definition of asylum to eliminate a common immigration loophole.

— The policy of child separations at the border begins.

— Trump quietly announces that he will import 30,000 mostly Islamic refugees in 2019.

— Trump fires Jeff Sessions who is very knowledgeable about the mechanism of the immigration issues.

— Trump backs off of his intention to deport Vietnamese immigrants from the Vietnam war who have had criminal convictions during their stay in the U.S.

— Trump initiates a government shutdown at the end of the year due to not receiving funding to build a border wall.

THE ISSUE OF TRUMP REJECTING “DEALS” OFFERED IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2018 FOR $25 BILLION FOR WALL CONSTRUCTION, WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA DECEPTIVELY REPORTING ABOUT THE SITUATION

The Establishment media continually derides Trump for “Having an opportunity to get his border wall built early in 2018, but he threw the chance away!” etc..  However the deals that he was offered were unacceptable, and the avalanche of Establishment articles criticizing Trump for the situation don’t mention the aspects of the deals which made them clearly not feasible.

Unfortunately though, Trump ended up signing a bill which didn’t fund the wall, and it even legally restrained him from doing construction of any new border walls!

Trump obviously should have held out in the end, and he should have not even bothered “waiting for proposals” from politicians who he knows have corrupt motives.  Trump should have made building a border wall a priority during the very start of his administration.



The Initial “DACA Replacement” Deal Offered to Trump

Trump “phased out” the DACA program in 2017, and when he did so he asked Congress to come up with a replacement bill that would protect the “Dreamers” from risk of deportation.  As a result, a bipartisan group of senators announced on January 11, 2018 that they reached a consensus on a DACA replacement bill.

However, Trump didn’t accept the deal because it didn’t properly fund a border wall, it made the problems of chain migration and the lottery system worse, and it would force the U.S. to take large numbers of people from high crime areas.




Trump’s (Very Reasonable) Counter Proposal to the DACA Replacement Deal

Trump then made a counter proposal which extended amnesty to 1.8 illegal immigrants in exchange for $25 billion for a border wall as well as the end of chain migration and the visa lottery system.

The bill would apply to illegal migrants who registered for DACA under Barack Obama, as well as illegal immigrants who did not apply, with the combined being estimated to total about 1.8 million people.

“The path to citizenship would require a 10-12 year period where recipients would be required to demonstrate good behavior, work and education requirements, and good moral character.”

It included a $25 billion lump sum “trust fund” for a “wall system” for not only the southern border but also major security enhancements on the northern border as well.

The bill curtailed the problem of chain migration by limiting family immigration sponsorships to only spouses and minor children, but not allowing parents or extended family members.  It also proposed to end the visa lottery program and reallocate it toward the skills-based visa backlog.

And the new migration limitations would apply to all immigrants in the United States, not just the newly legalized 1.8 million.

“A senior White House official described the plan as an ‘extraordinarily generous concession’ with Democrats but made several demands considered non-starters by members of Congress supporting amnesty.”



The Democrat’s Ridiculous “Open Borders” Bill That Was Offered as Counter Proposal to Trump’s Proposal

Despite what the Establishment media claims, the counter proposal offered by New York Senator Chuck Shumer called the “Immigration Security and Opportunity Act” was ridiculously unworkable and not seriously expected to be accepted by Trump.

Following is a summary from a February 14, 2018 Breitbart article:

Illegal immigrants who fly, drive or walk into the United States before July 1 will be shielded from deportation if Congress approves an amnesty amendment now supported by eight GOP Senators.

“Every last one should be laughed out of the Senate for proposing an amnesty for illegal immigrants who have not yet arrived,” said a source.

The promised sanctuary for future illegal immigrants is buried at the end of the 64-page “Immigration Security and Opportunity Act,” which is now scheduled for a floor vote on Thursday, February 17.

— The amendment was supported by Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, called the “Rounds-King” amendment because it is sponsored by Republican Sen. Mike Rounds and Democratic-leaning Angus King from Maine.

— The bill had a hand-written modification which would be used to stop the enforcement of immigration law against the illegal immigrants who have arrived in the United States before February 15, 2018, but also stopping enforcement against all migrants who would then rush into the United States by June 30 or before July 1.




The result could be the effective end of immigration enforcement, and a resulting drop in Americans’ wages as the inflow of cheap-labor migrants bids down white-collar and blue-collar wages.

...

However, the June 30 date may have been inserted to distract attention from the bill’s other features, which include an amnesty for an unlimited number of illegals, loose identification rules which make identity fraud easier, plus provisions which would allow the illegals to get citizenship for millions of their own foreign siblings and parents.

If passed, Schumer’s promise of sanctuary until June 30 likely will be welcomed by hundreds of millions of people around the globe who may wish to get into the United States by June 30.  A 2013 study by Gallup reported that:  “About 13% of the world’s adults — or about 630 million people — say they would like to leave their country and move somewhere else permanently. For roughly 138 million people, that somewhere else would be the U.S. — the No. 1 desired destination for potential migrants.”

[Note:  ... Yet this is what the Establishment media has been portraying as Trump’s supposed “big chance” that he missed!]




Trump then signed a spending bill in March that didn’t contain provisions for his immigration reform, and it even severely limits what he can do on the border

A March 25 Breitbart article explains that the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill that Trump signed didn’t include a single provision from his 70-point list of immigration reforms, and in fact it specifically limits what he can do on the border.

The article explains that the bill left Trump only with $1.6 billion for border security, and the omnibus bans him from using any of his prototype models of border walls, which leaves him being forced to only spend $641 million on new fencing that must be constructed from fencing that has been used on other parts of the border, and the omnibus tells him exactly where he must put the fence— only in San Deigo and the Rio Grande Valley region of the border.

Trump’s major immigration policy decisions during 2019 included the following:

— The U.S. Government was shut down during January 2019 due to disagreements about funding for a border wall with Mexico, and Trump ended up not receiving any funding to build the wall at the end of the shutdown.

— Trump then declared a National Emergency to redirect $8 billion in funding to build a border wall with Mexico, however it is blocked in court by lawsuits from sixteen states and various leftist organizations.  Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s actions set a precedent for the next Democratic President to declare “gun violence” as a national emergency.

— The RAISE Act is reintroduced in the Senate and House, which would eliminate the outdated diversity visa lottery system, place responsible limits on permanent residency for refugees, and eliminate chain migration while also creating temporary renewable visas for parents in need of caretaking.

— Trump threatens Mexico with 5% tariffs, increasing 5% with each additional month until it reaches 25% if Mexico does not block the flow of illegal immigration into the United States, and as a result he signs a deal with Mexico who sends troops to its northern and southern borders.

ABOUT THE 2018-2019 GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

On December 22, 2018, the Senate passed a bill to fund to the government for the next year, but the bill was not taken up by the Republican-controlled House because it didn’t allocate funds of $5.7 billion to build a border wall.  As a result, nine executive departments with around 800,000 employees had to shut down partially or in full, affecting about one-fourth of government activities and causing employees to be furloughed or required to work without being paid.

On January 3, the new Congress was sworn in, and Democrats now have a majority in the House of Representatives, and they immediately voted to approve the appropriations bill that previously passed the Senate (which included no funding for the wall.)



In a television address on January 8, 2019, Trump made a case for a national security crisis at the southern border of the United States, and the necessity of building building a border wall.


From Wikipedia:

The Democratic proposal was largely similar to the measure that had previously passed the Senate unanimously in the 115th Congress, and then been passed by the Democratic-controlled House in the 116th Congress. It provided funding for the government with no money for the border wall.

The Republican proposal incorporated Trump’s proposal, which would fund a border wall; temporarily extend TPS and DACA for three years, but would substantially narrow eligibility for DACA; and make significant legal changes to make it more difficult for persons escaping [(domestic)] violence and [(gang related)] persecution to be granted asylum in the United States.

Neither proposal was able to attain the 60 votes needed for passage. The Trump plan failed in a 50-47 vote. The Democratic plan failed in a 52-44 vote. Most Republicans voted for Trump’s plan and against the Democratic plan. Most Democrats voted for the Democratic plan and against Trump’s plan.

Republicans Tom Cotton and Mike Lee voted against both plans. Democrat Joe Manchin and Republicans Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Johnny Isakson, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney voted for both plans.  Not voting on either were Republicans Rand Paul and Jim Risch and Democrat Jacky Rosen.  Republican Richard Burr voted for Trump’s plan and did not vote on the Democratic plan.

On January 25, House Democrats prepared a compromise proposal to reopen the government, which would provide $5 billion for border security but no wall construction. However, the shutdown ended the same day.


In his announcement of the end of the shutdown, Trump made claims which contradicted to his campaign promises: “We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shining sea. We never did. We never proposed that. We never wanted that because we have natural barriers at the border where natural structures are as good as anything that we can build.”


Following is information in an article in The Hill which explains the circumstances of the end of the shutdown.

— Trump agreed to back a short-term funding bill to reopen the government that does not include funds to construct a wall along the southern border.

— “[The Deal] amounts to a victory for Democrats who have refused the president’s demand for $5.7 billion in wall funding. Trump had said for weeks he would not reopen the government without that money.”

— Trump later said about the wall funding “I have other alternatives if I have to, and I’ll use those alternatives if have to. But we want to go through the system. We have to have a wall in this country.”

— “But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), emboldened by Trump’s decision to end the shutdown, said she has been ‘very clear’ that she will not support wall funding.  .. ‘Our unity is our power, and that maybe is what the president underestimated,’ she told reporters at the Capitol after the president’s speech. .. A senior Democratic aide said Pelosi kept Trump ‘off-balance’ by refusing to negotiate on wall funding and blocking the State of the Union address while the government was shut down.

TRUMP DECLARES A NATIONAL EMERGENCY TO ALLOCATE FUNDS TO BUILD A BORDER WALL



Following are quotes from a Wikipedia article which explains the situation:

On February 15, 2019, President of the United States Donald Trump declared a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States .. activating executive powers provided under the National Emergencies Act to utilize the armed forces and construction powers ..  The emergency was declared after Trump signed, but derided, a bipartisan funding bill containing border security funding that had passed the House of Representatives and the Senate a day before.

Trump had previously threatened to declare a national emergency if Congress did not pass his entire desired program for a wall on the United States-Mexican border by February 15, 2019.  Under Proclamation 9844, the Trump administration plans to redirect $8 billion in previously-agreed expenditure and to use the money to build the wall instead. The proposed redirections include $3.6 billion assigned to military construction, $2.5 billion meant for the Department of Defense’s drug interdiction activities, and $600 million from Treasury’s forfeiture funds.  Trump’s declaration was unprecedented in that none of the 58 previous emergency declarations made by the American executive branch involved circumventing Congress to spend money it had expressly refused to authorize or allocate.

..

Trump rejected a proposal in January 2018 that would have authorized $25 billion for wall construction in exchange for a path to citizenship for Dreamers, as well as a similar proposal the next month.  In March, Congress approved a bill providing for $1.6 billion in barrier funding.  (Jump to a section explaining this issue)

.. Tom Davis, an influential former Republican congressman, observed, “The mistake they made was not coming in right away and coming up with a plan.  You wonder why they didn’t try to jam this through when Republicans controlled the House because it’s a lot more complicated now trying to convince Nancy Pelosi.”

..

On February 15, 2019, President Trump spoke to the media in the White House Rose Garden.  After signing the spending bill to keep the government open, Trump declared a national emergency over the border crisis, hoping to get access to $8 billion to use for border security.  During his announcement, Trump stated, “I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”  Critics asserted this statement would undercut the rationale for his emergency declaration in court challenges.

To obtain $8 billion for border wall construction, the Trump administration proposes augmenting the earlier February 14th $1.375 billion appropriations bill by diverting other previously-allocated monies: $3.6 billion for military construction, $2.5 billion for the Department of Defense’s counter-drug activities, and $600 million from Treasury’s drug-asset forfeiture funds.  White House officials said that the national emergency specifically enabled the $3.6 billion military diversion while the $2.5 billion from Defense and the $600 million from Treasury were possible due to “presidential discretion”.

Roll Call reported on February 21, 2019, that over one-third of the funds the Trump administration had identified for diversion had already been spent by the Department of Defense.  In March 2019 the Pentagon issued a list of proposed military construction projects which could be postponed, under the president’s emergency declaration, so that their funding could be diverted to build the wall.  The Pentagon authorized up to $1 billion to be transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers for construction of additional barriers.


LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO OVERTURN AND PRESIDENTIAL VETO

Under the national emergency legislation, Congress can overturn a declaration of emergency legislatively. ..

House speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on February 20, 2019 that Democrats would introduce such a resolution in two days.  The measure, House Joint Resolution 46, stated: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That .. the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, .. is hereby terminated."

The House voted to approve the bill on February 27 by a vote of 245-182, with thirteen Republicans voting in favor.  On March 3, Rand Paul became the fourth Republican senator to declare he would vote for the resolution, improving the chances of passage.  The next day he asserted that "at least" ten other Republican senators told him they would also vote for the resolution.  On March 14, the Senate voted 59-41 to support the bill to overturn Trump's emergency declaration, with twelve Republicans voting in favor.

On March 15, 2019, Trump vetoed the Joint Resolution .. Pelosi responded by scheduling a vote to override the veto on March 26, 2019.  There were 248 votes to override the president’s veto, and 181 votes against, which fell short of the 2/3 supermajority (286 votes) needed to override.



LEGAL CHALLENGES

Sixteen U.S. states (shown) jointly filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration three days after the emergency declaration.

In his statement declaring the emergency, President Trump acknowledged the inevitability of legal challenges, stating that he anticipated losing in lower courts, but ultimately prevailing in the Supreme Court.

As of February 22, 2019, at least six separate lawsuits have been filed, including:

— El Paso County, Texas filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Texas in concert with the Border Network for Human Rights, Protect Democracy, and the Niskanen Center.

— Public Citizen sued on behalf of the Frontera Audubon Society and three Texan landowners.

— The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice in a case involving a FOIA request.

— The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in Washington D.C.

— Sixteen U.S. states jointly filed a lawsuit in Federal court in San Francisco challenging the declaration.

— The ACLU filed suit in the Northern District of California on behalf of the Sierra Club and other interested organizations and people.

— The Tohono O’odham Nation has raised the issue with the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Cocopah, Kickapoo, and Kumeyaay are also considering their legal options.

Federal judges have issued two rulings on legal challenges:

On May 24, 2019, in response to lawsuits brought by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. [an Obama apointee] temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to divert funds not explicitly appropriated by Congress.

On June 3, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden denied a request by the U.S. House of Representatives to temporarily block spending on the wall.  .. McFadden, a Trump appointee, said the House had no legal standing to sue the president and that therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim.



REACTIONS

Some analysts stated that if legally upheld, the declaration would vastly expand governmental power, particularly that of the presidency and the executive branch.

On February 25, a bipartisan group of 58 former senior national security officials and 25 former Republican lawmakers implored Congress to overturn Trump’s emergency declaration.  The former lawmakers wrote, “It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to presidents or party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional republic we must act within the borders of the Constitution,” while the security officials contended that there is no “documented terrorist or national security emergency at the southern border” nor an “emergency related to violent crime.”

Support from Republicans has been divided, with most conservative House Republicans embracing Trump’s action, while opposition was more pronounced among Senate Republicans.  Reportedly, because of Trump’s high approval ratings among Republicans, many in the party were concerned that expressing public opposition to the president’s action could result in their political demise.  An analysis by FiveThirtyEight found that through February 18, 2019, 34% of the 53 Republican Senators had expressed support for the declaration.

Before the declaration, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—long a defender of Senate prerogatives—and most other Senate Republicans strongly urged the president to not take the action. After the declaration, McConnell led several other senators in pivoting to support it.

Senator Lindsey Graham expressed emphatic support for the declaration.

Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson said he “support[s] the president in his decision.”

Richard Shelby said Trump has “the power to defend the country, to defend the borders.”

Senator John Hoeven stated that Republicans “support the president’s efforts to strengthen border security.”

Senator Kevin Cramer said that Trump “will address the crisis at the southern border, whether or not Congress does.”

Representative Matt Gaetz stated that he was “proud” of Trump.

Others, including Senators Rand Paul, Chuck Grassley, and Marco Rubio, spoke out strongly AGAINST the declaration.



[DEMOCRAT THREATS OF RETALIATING BY HAVING THE NEXT DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT DECLARE “GUN VIOLENCE” OR “CLIMATE CHANGE” AS NATIONAL EMERGENCIES]

Shortly before the emergency was declared, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi warned Republicans that this would set a precedent for the next Democratic president to declare a national emergency on gun violence.

Trump-critic Max Boot argued in the Washington Post that the action was Trump’s “latest assault on the norms of American democracy” and that “arguably nothing Trump has done to date has been as alarming as his misuse of the 1976 National Emergencies Act” and would set a precedent to allow a future Democratic president to declare an emergency taking unilateral action on gun control and climate change.

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  Gun control and climate change are not actually national emergencies as the immigration problem is.  Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, and the concept of man-made global warming is a fraudulent myth.  If a Democrat President (let’s hope there isn’t one anytime soon) were to attempt to declare a national emergency for either of those non-emergencies, it would result in a national uproar.]

Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” Agreement is a Farce

Donald Trump’s new “Remain in Mexico” policy has a loophole which allows people who are apprehended while crossing the border to continue to be released into the U.S. as long as they pretend that they can’t speak Spanish.






SUMMARY


Starting in December of 2018, Donald Trump established an agreement with Mexico stating that the U.S. would start returning asylum seekers who arrived at three ports of entry— at stations in San Diego and Calexico in California, and also at El Paso in Texas.  Since then asylum seekers coming to those ports have been returned to Mexico and they have been told to wait for their hearings, which might not happen for years.  Most migrants coming over the border apply for asylum wether they actually qualify or not.

On June 8th, 2019, Trump made an announcement that he reached a deal with Mexico saying that a policy of “Remain in Mexico” will now apply along the entire southern border of the U.S., where migrants who cross attempting to seek asylum will be sent back to Mexico to wait for their hearings, and with Mexico also agreeing to give them work permits.

During the month of May, 2019, U.S. authorities apprehended 140,000 people at the border, and about 8,000 asylum seekers have reportedly been brought back to Mexico over a three month period between March and May 2019.

Since May, media reports have been saying that the asylum seekers are being released into crime-filled Mexican border towns that are controlled by criminal gangs, where the migrants are reported to not be properly cared for, which is prompting lawsuits for them to be released into the United States.

However, what most media reports aren’t mentioning is the fact that the new policy of “Return to Mexico” only applies to asylum speakers who demonstrate that they can speak Spanish—  All other such migrants who can’t speak Spanish or who pretend that they can’t speak Spanish are continuing to be released into the U.S. in the same manner as they always have been.

A simple solution for those issues would be to return all such asylum seekers coming over the border no matter if they can speak Spanish or not, and then to safely relocate them to areas outside of Mexico City to wait for their hearings where they can be properly cared for and where they can find employment.



LAWSUITS


The new policy of “Remain in Mexico” has prompted lawsuits challenging it.  For example a June 27 NPR article explains that a labor union for asylum workers in the U.S. is suing to stop the program, claiming that the asylum seekers will be persecuted if they are returned to Mexico.  The union said human rights abuses, gang violence, and kidnappings remain a problem in Mexico, citing a State Department Travel advisory, and they also argued in appeals court that there is “no evidence” that the migrants coming over the border pose a security risk to American citizens or are smuggling drugs.

In April, 2019, courts attempted to block the “Remain in Mexico” policy, but a few days later the 9th Circuit Appellate Court allowed the government to resume the policy until it makes its final decision.



A DEMOCRAT CONGRESSWOMAN VERONICA ESCOBAR HAS BEEN REPORTED TO BE COACHING MIGRANTS TO PRETEND THAT THEY CAN’T SPEAK SPANISH IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GAIN ENTRY TO THE UNITED STATES


A Washington Examiner article reported on July 5, 2019 that the congresswoman Veronica Escobar had sent staff to Mexico to coach migrants that they should pretend that they don’t know how to speak Spanish in order to exploit a loophole which would ensure that they are released into the United States, although Escobar later denied the claim.

The Washington Examiner article said that it was told by The National Border Patrol Council’s El Paso chapter and several Customs and Border Protection personnel that Escobar has been sending staffers to interview thousands of migrants in the border town of Ciudad Juárez over the past few weeks to find cases where Department of Homeland Security officials “may have wrongly returned people”.

The article explains that under the “Remain in Mexico” policy, anyone returned to Mexico must be fluent in Spanish because they may have to reside in Mexico for up to five years until a U.S. federal judge decides their asylum claim.

The sources in the article claimed that Escobar’s aides were reescorting people to the port and telling the officers that the Central American people with them cannot speak Spanish, despite their having communicated it days earlier.  “What we’re hearing from management is that they’re attempting to return people, and the story was changed in Mexico, where a person who understood Spanish before now doesn’t understand — where a person who didn’t have any health issues before now has health issues,” the source said.  Reportedly Escobar’s team has sought interviews with 6,000 people who were returned last month.

Mark H. Melcalf, a former federal immigration judge, said “She’s trying to obviously say these people have been wrongly denied their claims and they’re waiting when they shouldn’t be”, and he also explained that a criminal case would exist if Escobar were found to be complicit in an effort to perpetrate a fraud.

Escobar replied to the allegatons in a Politico article saying that she has been receiving death threats because of the Washington Examiner report, and she claimed that the report is a result of “a couple of border patrol union guys” fabricating the story because they are irritated due to her “raising examples of violations of their own policy with regard to people in the asylum system.”

She then said that her office does meet with “constituents whose clients are asylum seekers who have been sent back to Mexico under Trump administration rules”, but she denied helping them to “game the system.”




A PROPER SOLUTION


Mexico has problems, but much of the country is not in as bad of shape as many people think it is.  The other day I saw a documentary on Netflix entitled “The World’s Biggest Cities”, where the second episode explains how Mexico City is becoming a more developed area.  A website for the documentary is here, including short video clips from it.

It is important that the “Remain in Mexico” policy is reformed to not have a language requirement in order for the migrants to be released back into Mexico.  It would be fair because migrants have always been released into the United States without having any language requirements, of course.

Mexico City is a very large and diverse area, it would be easily for that region to able to accommodate the people who were trying to illegally cross into the United States.  Outlying areas of the city could be designated for such people to be initially cared for and it would also be a location where they could find opportunity for employment, with just a simple train ride bringing them from the high crime areas on the border.