quote:Since his indictment more than two years ago, Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, has steadfastly proclaimed his innocence, and last week he reiterated that. “I am going to be exonerated,” he said in a brief interview on Wednesday with reporters following a rally protesting President Trump’s immigration policies.
quote:Mr. Menendez is charged with 12 corruption-related counts, including six counts of bribery and three counts of honest services fraud.
Bronquote:The legal case revolves around whether those gifts were permissible as gifts a friend could give to another, or whether they were part of a longstanding bribery arrangement where Mr. Menendez would intervene to protect the financial and personal interests of Dr. Melgen in return for his gifts and donations.
“That’s one thing that makes this case interesting: It asks the existential question as to when friendship ends and corruption begins,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor from the U.S. attorney’s office in Newark.
Wat een ontzettende mongool is het toch ook. Na Pruitt "nee er zit geen gif in het water nietes kijk maar Breitbart zegt van niet" als nieuwe leider van de EPA zonder wetenschappelijke achtergrond, en Betsy deVos op onderwijs, gaan de Reps ook NASA mollen. Idiocracy 2.0, (of Day Zero 2.0?) gewoon iedereen die slim is uitschakelen zodat je in de toekomst nog stemmen krijgt.quote:In a Friday night news dump, the White House announced that President Donald Trump Plans to nominate Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), a climate science denier to be administrator of NASA.
Bridenstine is a politician without any scientific credentials, unlike previous NASA chiefs
Ik mag hopen dat dit slechts een gerucht is. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat de NASA akkoord zou gaan met zo'n aanstelling, die zullen uit protest het werk neerleggen.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 10:46 schreef speknek het volgende:
[..]
Wat een ontzettende mongool is het toch ook. Na Pruitt "nee er zit geen gif in het water nietes kijk maar Breitbart zegt van niet" als nieuwe leider van de EPA zonder wetenschappelijke achtergrond, en Betsy deVos op onderwijs, gaan de Reps ook NASA mollen. Idiocracy 2.0, (of Day Zero 2.0?) gewoon iedereen die slim is uitschakelen zodat je in de toekomst nog stemmen krijgt.
Opvallend genoeg niet door Trump zelf dus, ondanks dat immigratie 1 van de speerpunten van z'n campagne was. But wait! There is of course still Trumps law:twitter:MikeScarcella twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 02:50:03 *The Attorney General will not be taking questions following the briefing.* #DACA https://t.co/n995gVUrxx reageer retweet
twitter:
"Science is just an elitists' opinion, yo"......quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 10:46 schreef speknek het volgende:
[..]
Wat een ontzettende mongool is het toch ook. Na Pruitt "nee er zit geen gif in het water nietes kijk maar Breitbart zegt van niet" als nieuwe leider van de EPA zonder wetenschappelijke achtergrond, en Betsy deVos op onderwijs, gaan de Reps ook NASA mollen. Idiocracy 2.0, (of Day Zero 2.0?) gewoon iedereen die slim is uitschakelen zodat je in de toekomst nog stemmen krijgt.
Dan worden ze ontslagen en zoveel banen zijn er niet in die sector. De klimaatwetenschappers kunnen nog naar Frankrijk, natuurlijk.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 10:53 schreef Belabor het volgende:
[..]
Ik mag hopen dat dit slechts een gerucht is. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat de NASA akkoord zou gaan met zo'n aanstelling, die zullen uit protest het werk neerleggen.
Nee dat is geen gerucht en de NASA vindt het prima.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 10:53 schreef Belabor het volgende:
[..]
Ik mag hopen dat dit slechts een gerucht is. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat de NASA akkoord zou gaan met zo'n aanstelling, die zullen uit protest het werk neerleggen.
Misschien kan de nasa hem wat feiten bijbrengen. NASA lijkt me te groot om naar de pijpen van een ongeïnformeerde idioot te dansen.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 10:53 schreef Belabor het volgende:
[..]
Ik mag hopen dat dit slechts een gerucht is. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat de NASA akkoord zou gaan met zo'n aanstelling, die zullen uit protest het werk neerleggen.
http://www.news.com.au/fi(...)66b2ab3103120143ab71quote:"Russia condemns North Korea's exercises, we consider that they are a provocation ... (But) ramping up military hysteria will lead to nothing good. It could lead to a global catastrophe," he told reporters.
He said it was “ridiculous” that the US first slapped Russia with sanctions carried in the same bill that penalised North Korea, and “then asked us to help impose sanctions on North Korea."
"This is being done by people who mix up Australia with Austria," he added.
Tsja, je kunt ze geen ongelijk geven.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 12:31 schreef speknek het volgende:
Putin heeft ook nog wel wat woorden over voor de Trump administratie.
[..]
http://www.news.com.au/fi(...)66b2ab3103120143ab71
Hun bemoeienis met de Amerikaanse verkiezingen heeft al geleid tot een 'global catastrophe', dus ze moeten niet zo zeiken.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 12:31 schreef speknek het volgende:
Putin heeft ook nog wel wat woorden over voor de Trump administratie.
[..]
http://www.news.com.au/fi(...)66b2ab3103120143ab71
Precies.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 12:32 schreef Tchock het volgende:
[..]
Tsja, je kunt ze geen ongelijk geven.
Mooie tekst.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 13:02 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:
[..]
Hun bemoeienis met de Amerikaanse verkiezingen heeft al geleid tot een 'global catastrophe', dus ze moeten niet zo zeiken.
quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 10:53 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Sessions gaat vandaag een persconferentie geven aangaande DACA begreep ik. En zal GEEN vragen beantwoorden.Opvallend genoeg niet door Trump zelf dus, ondanks dat immigratie 1 van de speerpunten van z'n campagne was. But wait! There is of course still Trumps law:twitter:MikeScarcella twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 02:50:03 *The Attorney General will not be taking questions following the briefing.* #DACA https://t.co/n995gVUrxx reageer retweettwitter:
Ik gok dus dat de gelekte informatie juist was. Ideaal natuurlijk, want nu kan hij het congres de schuld geven als het niet lukt binnen 6 maanden.twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 14:04:43 Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA! reageer retweet
Yep. Het kan natuurlijk nooit de schuld van Trump zelf zijn he? Dus wat congres ook beslist, hij kan niet verantwoordelijk gehouden worden.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 14:28 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
[..]Ik gok dus dat de gelekte informatie juist was. Ideaal natuurlijk, want nu kan hij het congres de schuld geven als het niet lukt binnen 6 maanden.twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 14:04:43 Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA! reageer retweet
Ik lees trouwens wel een transcript van Sessions' persco, kan de man niet aanhoren.
KJU rilt al.twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 14:36:57 I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States. reageer retweet
http://thehill.com/blogs/(...)to-send-daca-back-toquote:OPINION | Don't slam Trump for sending DACA back to Congress
President Trump’s expected announcement that he is terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has met with widespread criticism over the potential cost to roughly 800,000 children of undocumented parents. While I agree with the same concern over the status of these individuals, I do not agree with the same criticism of sending DACA back to Congress. DACA was unilaterally ordered by President Obama after Congress refused to approve the program.
Some of us criticized the action as a circumvention of the legislative branch that undermined our system of the separation of powers. But because they liked the result, Democratic members yielded their institutional power to the White House and helped create an unchecked presidency. With Trump using the same authority to pursue his own policies, Democratic leaders now want to radically expand the powers of the judiciary to block an uber presidency of their own making. They have become constitutional short sellers who dump core principles as soon as they raise political costs.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) announced that they would challenge Trump’s decision in federal court. While they declined to give details of this extraordinary challenge, they would presumably be asking a court to say that Trump could not use the same power to rescind DACA that Obama used to create it. Since the power is the same, what remains is the merits of the policy, something courts have long avoided under the political question doctrine. They would have to say that undocumented individuals can be allowed to stay but not ordered to leave by executive order.
[..]
During the previous administration, I testified repeatedly about the dangers of the unilateral actions taken by Obama (whom I voted for in 2008). Two years ago, I even wrote a column warning that Democrats should consider the prospect of these same powers under health care and immigration being wielded by a President Trump rather than a President Obama. Yet, in one of the strangest demonstrations in history, Democrats rapturously applauded when Obama said that he would simply circumvent their branch because Congress did not yield to his demands for DACA and other measures.
From a constitutional perspective, it looked like a mosh pit of self-loathing members, politicians eager to be declared a functional non-entity in our tripartite (now bipartite) system. Unable to yield more authority to the executive branch, these politicians would now inflate the power of the courts to check a president. Imagine if a federal court gave Schneiderman what he wants. A federal judge could simply declare that an executive order is “gratuitous” or too “devastating” to be allowed. What would have been the reaction if a federal judge declared DACA to be gratuitous or cruel to those who are awaiting entry into the country legally? We would have uber judges to match our uber president.
I am admittedly a Madisonian scholar and a constitutional formalist. I believe strongly in the role of Congress in legislation and clear lines of separation between the branches. The separation of powers protects us from the concentration of authority in the hands of a single president or a few jurists. James Madison saw Congress as a way to force majoritarian compromise out of our factional divisions. Sometimes when the country is deeply divided, less gets done until we can reach a consensus. It sometimes takes time, which is a finite and dwindling commodity for presidents. The process is not pretty or easy, but it has one thing to recommend it: we are still here. It is the balance of the three branches that has brought us stability through economic to social to political upheavals.
Trump’s decision will return this question to where it should have remained: Congress. Presidents do not have the option to go it alone in our system. Obama failed to pass DACA in Congress, and he was left with only two choices. He had to either compromise or change Congress. Sometimes when the country is politically divided, less gets done until we can reach a consensus. However, that consensus is found in the legislative process, not through presidential or judicial proclamations.
Where Obama used this authority to circumvent Congress on DACA, Trump is using it to return DACA to Congress. After failing to pass this program earlier, members may now be able to succeed by reaching a compromise with their Republican colleagues. Regardless of the outcome, however, the importance of re-establishing an equal legislative branch is paramount for our system and our future. As for Schneiderman, he should rethink his challenge before more constitutional short sales turn a great Constitution into a worthless penny stock.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Het is beslissing van een president die niet in staat is om dingen bij te stellen of te repareren, dat kon je wel zien met zijn zorgplan, en nu met DACA. Zijn leven bestaat uit nieuw, nieuw, nieuw, anders is het niet goed. Zelfs al moet hij daar 230 jaar politieke consensus voor opofferen. Zijn politieke tactiek van verbrande aarde zal rampzalig uitpakken.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 15:48 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
[..]
http://thehill.com/blogs/(...)to-send-daca-back-to
opinies?
quote:Hillary Clinton’s subtly savage takedown of Bernie Sanders
Hillary Clinton's book is due out next week. And judging by a page that was just tweeted by one of her staunchest supporters — not to mention plenty of other evidence — it's likely to include a heaping dose of score-settling.
That includes with Bernie Sanders.
In the passage that was tweeted out Monday evening by Tom Watson, Clinton attacks some of Sanders's supporters for being “sexist” and suggests the Vermont senator doesn't have the Democratic Party's true interests at heart. Most notably, she also intimates that he may not have even cared that his underhanded (in her opinion) attacks on her helped Donald Trump become president.
“When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything,” she wrote. “Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s 'Crooked Hillary' campaign.
“I don’t know if that bothered Bernie or not.”
Clinton continues: “He certainly shared my horror at the thought of Donald Trump becoming President, and I appreciate that he campaigned for me in the general election. But he isn’t a Democrat — that’s not a smear, that’s what he says. He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.”
At the end of the page, Clinton concludes by saying: “I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were too.”
This, needless to say, isn't likely to help the Democratic Party heal any time soon. I've argued before that Clinton's decision to dwell upon the many allegedly unfair reasons for her general-election loss — Russia, James B. Comey, misogyny, debate questions, etc. — are likely to distract from the truly difficult work Democrats face in determining how they lost the Rust Belt to a historically unpopular nominee in Trump. Clinton seems to have far more interest in pointing the finger at everyone but herself. Perhaps her reasons are justifiable. But it also suggests that her and her party's serious shortcomings were unimportant.
Given the book's “What Happened” title and this past, it was clear Clinton would be doing a fair bit of blame-sharing in the book. What wasn't as clear was how much she would dwell upon Sanders's shockingly competitive challenge to her in the Democratic primary.
This passage doesn't exactly read like a take-no-prisoners accounting; it's more understated than that. Much of it is technically true. The tactics of the “Bernie Bros” were indeed often sexist. Sanders still isn't a Democrat, and he never claimed that his campaign was about helping the party — a party he long derided as insufficiently progressive. He clearly wanted to “disrupt” it to some extent. And the seeds of the idea that Clinton was corrupt were indeed planted and tended to in the primary.
But inside the measured language are some pretty harsh judgments of Sanders. She's not just suggesting he's not a Democrat; she's suggesting he doesn't truly care about the party or that he may have played a hand in electing Trump. She's suggesting he doesn't appreciate the party. She claims his attacks were out-of-bounds and unprincipled.
“Because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn’t make an argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character,” she said.
Maybe that's just politics, you might say! Well, the Sanders-led opposition to Clinton always considered itself to be about principle, whatever the costs of taking that principled stand (even President Trump).
Clinton is not-so-gently questioning that entire conceit, saying Sanders's reasons for causing that upheaval weren't justified. She's suggesting his campaign was about political expediency and getting elected and doubts there was truly much difference between them.
For a candidate and a base of supporters who were adamant about their cause and those differences, that's going to sting. And linger. It's the equivalent of throwing gasoline on the embers that remain from the 2016 primary.
Below is the full passage:
SPOILEROm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.https://www.washingtonpos(...)m_term=.62279ebc4aefIch glaube, dass es manchmal nicht genügend Steine gibt und
Ich bin mir sicher, dass auch schöne Augen weinen
Hij heeft natuurlijk ergens wel een punt, maar die vermeende verontwaardigdheid is echt schrijnend. Vooral met slinkse bijzinnen als dit:quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 15:48 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
[..]
http://thehill.com/blogs/(...)to-send-daca-back-to
opinies?
Serieus? Is de schrijver 14 jaar oud ofzo?quote:Yet, in one of the strangest demonstrations in history, Democrats rapturously applauded when Obama said that he would simply circumvent their branch because Congress did not yield to his demands for DACA and other measures.
SPOILEROm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.Ich glaube, dass es manchmal nicht genügend Steine gibt und
Ich bin mir sicher, dass auch schöne Augen weinen
Hillary Clinton zet schouders onder nieuwsplatform. De kritiek is snoeihardtwitter:HillaryClinton twitterde op maandag 04-09-2017 om 01:20:09 I'm excited to sign up for @Verrit, a media platform for the 65.8 million! Will you join me and sign up too? https://t.co/bOLSMyk6bG reageer retweet
twitter:peterdaou twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 13:17:41 Some people don't comprehend the need for @Verrit, but those who've been harassed and invisibilized know EXACTLY what it's for. reageer retweet
Mooi verhaal, nu wachten op de response Tweet.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 21:01 schreef Puddington het volgende:
Obama heeft ook gereageerd op het besluit van de DACA: https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155227588436749
En dan zijn er nog steeds mensen die denken dat Clinton het in 2020 niet opnieuw gaat proberen.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 21:05 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
WTF is dat verrit gedoe?!Hillary Clinton zet schouders onder nieuwsplatform. De kritiek is snoeihardtwitter:HillaryClinton twitterde op maandag 04-09-2017 om 01:20:09 I'm excited to sign up for @Verrit, a media platform for the 65.8 million! Will you join me and sign up too? https://t.co/bOLSMyk6bG reageer retweet
https://verrit.com/
quote:Trump’s key priority in the DACA debate hasn’t involved any sort of policy goal at all. Instead, he’s been making a dual effort to avoid an open breach with Sessions and his network of nativist politicians while also trying to avoid becoming the face of the turn against DACA.
Staat blijkbaar voor ''Verified Items''. Op TechCrunch maakten ze er ook al gehakt van:quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 21:05 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
WTF is dat verrit gedoe?!Hillary Clinton zet schouders onder nieuwsplatform. De kritiek is snoeihardtwitter:HillaryClinton twitterde op maandag 04-09-2017 om 01:20:09 I'm excited to sign up for @Verrit, a media platform for the 65.8 million! Will you join me and sign up too? https://t.co/bOLSMyk6bG reageer retweet
https://verrit.com/
Wat stel jij voor dan? Illegalen immigranten mogen altijd blijven?quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 21:14 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Kinderen/ jonge mensen hun kansen op een toekomst ontnemen onder het mom van handhaving van wetgeving. En dan Sessions het woord laten doen. Bah wat een laf figuur
Trump isn’t delivering his own DACA policy because he’s cowardly and weak
[..]
Trump the great unify-er .twitter:yashar twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 21:12:00 At a press conference right now, Dem Senator Dick Durbin and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham are introducing bi-partisan "dreamer" legislation reageer retweet
Zo schrijf je dat niet. En inhoudelijk is het ook bagger en dat weet je best.quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 21:18 schreef Nintex het volgende:Trump the great unify-er .twitter:yashar twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 21:12:00 At a press conference right now, Dem Senator Dick Durbin and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham are introducing bi-partisan "dreamer" legislation reageer retweet
Langer statement van Trump zojuist:twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 22:45:27 I look forward to working w / D's + R's in Congress to address immigration reform in a way that puts hardworking citizens of our country 1st. reageer retweet
http://thehill.com/policy(...)ear-deal-is-temptingquote:Haley: Leaving Iran nuclear deal is 'tempting'
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Tuesday laid out an argument in a speech Tuesday for President Trump to potentially declare Iran in violation of the nuclear deal later this year.
Haley detailed the “many flaws” in the Iran nuclear deal, though several of the examples occurred before the agreement was created. She also said that Iran was using the deal to “hold the world hostage to its bad behavior.”
“The truth is, the Iran deal has so many flaws that it’s tempting to leave it,” she told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
“The deal was constructed in a way that makes leaving less attractive. It gave Iran what it wanted upfront in exchange for temporary promises to deliver what we want. That’s not good.”
Haley then insisted that, while she has discussed such issues with Trump, she does not know what decision he will make.
The White House every 90 days must certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal negotiated between the U.S. and international powers.
If Trump decides to decertify the deal in October, it would put the administration a step closer to pulling out of the agreement.
But Haley pressed that if Trump “chooses not to certify Iranian compliance, that does not mean the United States is withdrawing” from the agreement. She added that Congress could potentially re-impose sanctions on the country, pointing to the ongoing standoff over North Korea's nuclear program as an example.
“If you look at North Korea now, the reasons we’re pushing for so many sanctions — do we think more sanctions are going to work on North Korea? Not necessarily. But what does it do? It cuts off the revenue that allows them to build ballistic missiles,” she said.
http://thehill.com/homene(...)e-in-the-peace-corpsquote:GOP rep: Send DACA recipients to serve in the Peace Corps
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) suggested Tuesday that recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program should serve as members of the Peace Corps in their home countries, now that President Trump has decided to rescind the Obama administration program.
Attorney Jeff Sessions announced Tuesday that Trump would rescind the program, which offered protection from deportation to people brought into the country illegally as children.
“Former DACAs will make great ‘Peace Corp’ volunteers in home countries. None would take more hardship or risk than we ask of Peace Corp,” King tweeted.
However, only U.S. citizens are allowed to serve in the Peace Corps. It is one of the only two requirements needed to be eligible for the volunteer program.
King earlier slammed Trump after it was reported that Trump would end DACA on a six-month delay, calling the move, which leaves open a potential legislative fix, “Republican suicide."
Ik hoop dat het lukt want als dit niet lukt zijn die jonge mensen van goede wil, waarvan hij beweert hart voor te hebben, de kinderen van de rekening. Het is een immorele manier van handelen maar ja, dat is Trump ten voeten uit. Hij vocht ooit eens een conflict met zijn neef uit over de rug van diens gehandicapte zoontje door een toelage stop te zetten. Zo rolt Trumpquote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 22:56 schreef Nintex het volgende:Langer statement van Trump zojuist:twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 05-09-2017 om 22:45:27 I look forward to working w / D's + R's in Congress to address immigration reform in a way that puts hardworking citizens of our country 1st. reageer retweet
[ afbeelding ]
Wat is de Vredescorps?quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 23:12 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
[..]
http://thehill.com/homene(...)e-in-the-peace-corps
Google Peace Corps. Kun je echt zelf wel. Desnoods google je gewoon Vredescorps.quote:
Vrijwilligers die onder leiding van het Department of State ontwikkelingshulp doen in het buitenland, min of meer...quote:
Laat hem gewoon eens een keer zoeken zeg..quote:Op dinsdag 5 september 2017 23:37 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
[..]
Vrijwilligers die onder leiding van het Department of State ontwikkelingshulp doen in het buitenland, min of meer...
Benieuwd hoe dit gaat af lopen.twitter:yashar twitterde op woensdag 06-09-2017 om 00:39:16 Must-Watch: Senator Menandez' trial starts tomorrow and the stakes are high for Dems and GOP. @LauraAJarrett reports https://t.co/xET0QEwq0Z reageer retweet
quote:President Trump didn’t even have the guts to do the job himself. Instead, he hid in the shadows and sent his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to do the dirty work of telling the country that the administration would no longer shield from deportation 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children.
Mr. Sessions, a longtime anti-immigrant hard-liner, was more than up to the task. In a short, disingenuous speech, he said a program set up by President Barack Obama in 2012 — known as DACA, for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — was a lawless policy that “yielded terrible humanitarian consequences” and denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of American citizens. (Mr. Trump echoed these claims in a statement released by the White House.) Mr. Sessions called DACA “an unconstitutional exercise of authority” and said “failure to enforce the laws in the past has put our nation at risk of crime, violence and terrorism.”
False, false, false and false.
DACA recipients are not threats to public safety or national security; to the contrary, they must have a nearly spotless record to be eligible in the first place. They do not receive legal status in this country, only a two-year, renewable deferral of deportation along with a work permit and eligibility for other government benefits down the road. And they are not taking jobs from native-born Americans, whose declining levels of employment can be chalked up to other factors.
As for the policy’s legality, there’s no question that the president has the authority to set immigration-enforcement priorities. Presidents of both parties have done that for decades, and President Obama did it by focusing on people with criminal records and not on those brought to this country as children. For most of this latter group, the United States is the only home they’ve ever known. About 9 in 10 are working taxpayers, and deporting them could reduce the gross domestic product by over $400 billion over the next decade.
In short, DACA is morally right, legally sound and fiscally smart policy. It was also the only humane choice Mr. Obama had in the face of Congress’s failure to pass any meaningful immigration reform in the last two decades.
If all that weren’t enough, DACA remains overwhelmingly popular among Americans of all political stripes. Polls put its approval rating at roughly double that of President Trump himself. Even the Chamber of Commerce, usually a reliable backer of the Republican legislative agenda, called the decision to end DACA “contrary to fundamental American principles.”
The only bad thing that could be said about DACA is that, because it was a presidential memorandum, it was always vulnerable to being undone by a shortsighted administration playing to its base.
Now that that has happened, 800,000 people — all of whom gave their personal information and immigration status to the government, believing it would not be used against them — face the prospect of being shipped back to a country they may have no connection to or even remember.
This wouldn’t be a concern if Congress had done its job and passed the Dream Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for people brought to this country as children, and which has kicked around Capitol Hill for 16 years. Even though it has been stymied mainly by Republican opposition at every turn, it’s still theoretically on the table. But there’s little sign the dwindling Republican moderates in Congress have the stomach to confront their party’s nativist core. Mr. Trump called on Congress to act, but didn’t have the courage to tell it what he wanted it to do.
Contrast that with President Obama’s willingness to defend a policy that has always had detractors. “Ultimately, this is about basic decency,” Mr. Obama wrote on Facebook on Tuesday. “This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated.”
Mr. Trump has no good rejoinder. That’s partly because there isn’t one and partly because, as is so often the case, he doesn’t fully understand the scope of what he’s done. One would hope that the widespread outrage at Tuesday’s announcement, and the impending suffering of hundreds of thousands of people who’ve done nothing but try to become contributing members of society, might impress it upon him.
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |