SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#576

Post by neeneko » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:27 pm

So I am seeing a few news outlets claiming that Rober's comments:
"affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and -- to be clear -- 'has no place in law under the Constitution.'"
results in an overturning of Korematsu v. United States.

Can anyone chime in on if it actually works that way?



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10168
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#577

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:08 pm

The case is clearly bad law. But fucked if I know why - there is no reasoning given.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25974
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#578

Post by bob » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:27 pm

neeneko wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:27 pm
So I am seeing a few news outlets claiming that Rober's comments:
"affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and -- to be clear -- 'has no place in law under the Constitution.'"
results in an overturning of Korematsu v. United States.

Can anyone chime in on if it actually works that way?
So SCOTUS says Korematsu was wrongly decided. As noted on Popehat, it is just virtue signaling without any practical application. (Fred Korematsu's conviction was vacated in 1983.)

IIRC, during one of the travel-ban-cases litigation in some court, the federal government (or a friendly amici) did cite Korematsu as authority, but quickly backed off that position.

Korematsu actually underpins much of the contemporary equal-protection doctrine. I think SCOTUS here meant to say it was wrong decided, but did not intend throw out decades of equal-protection law.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#579

Post by neeneko » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:27 pm
Korematsu actually underpins much of the contemporary equal-protection doctrine. I think SCOTUS here meant to say it was wrong decided, but did not intend throw out decades of equal-protection law.
That is not something I have heard before. I am going to have to poke around and see what I can learn about that.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 12224
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#580

Post by Kendra » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:29 am




User avatar
Addie
Posts: 30173
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#581

Post by Addie » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:36 am

WaPo
Federal judge, citing Trump ‘animus’ against nonwhites, blocks removal of Haitians, Salvadorans and others ...

In a decision late Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco found substantial evidence that the administration lacked “any explanation or justification” to end the “temporary protected status” designations for immigrants from those countries.

At the same time, he said there were “serious questions as to whether a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor” in the administration’s decision, which would violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

He cited statements by President Trump denigrating Mexicans, Muslims, Haitians and Africans, including his Jan. 11 remark about “people from shithole countries.”

It is one of numerous cases in which such racial or ethnic comments by the president have been cited by judges to block administration immigration policies.

The judge did not rule on the merits of the case, but rather issued a preliminary injunction so the merits could be considered. The potential harm to the immigrants — return to their countries of origin after spending years in the United States — outweighed any harm to the government, he said.

“Absent injunctive relief, TPS beneficiaries and their children indisputably will suffer irreparable harm and great hardship,” Chen wrote. “TPS beneficiaries who have lived, worked, and raised families in the United States (many for more than a decade), will be subject to removal. Many have U.S.-born children; those may be faced with the Hobson’s choice of bringing their children with them (and tearing them away from the only country and community they have known) or splitting their families apart.”
Adding:
Associated Press: Judge blocks Trump administration from ending protections for some immigrants

The status is granted to countries ravaged by natural disasters or war, and allows citizens to stay in the U.S. until the situation improves.

CNN: Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump administration from ending TPS
San Francisco Chronicle: SF federal judge cites ‘s—hole countries’ remark in blocking deportation plan



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 30173
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#582

Post by Addie » Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:36 pm

BuzzFeed News
The Trump Administration, Again, Asks The Supreme Court To Hear A DACA Case

The last time the administration asked the court to consider DACA's legality, the court told the Justice Department it wanted to hear from the appeals court first.


The Trump administration is again asking the Supreme Court to resolve questions over the legality of the administration's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

In a letter filed with the Supreme Court on Monday, Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the court that the Justice Department was filing the request — for the court to take up the issue before any appeals court has ruled in any of the several cases challenging the move — so that the court would be able "to consider this dispute during the current Term."

The Justice Department filed the legal request — a petition for certiorari before judgment — in cases out of California, New York, and Washington, DC, in which judges sided with challengers to the administration's decision to end DACA, issuing orders leaving parts of the program in place for the time being.

While a judge in another case, out of Texas, ruled that the DACA program is likely illegal, that judge also declined to issue an injunction halting the program immediately. That case was not included in Monday's Supreme Court filing.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court rejected the Justice Department's request to hear the case out of California before the appeals court could weigh in.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 30173
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#583

Post by Addie » Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:12 pm

Reuters
U.S. appeals court rules against Trump on DACA immigration program

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court in California ruled on Thursday that President Donald Trump’s administration must continue a program begun under former President Barack Obama that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children.

The decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals preserves the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program introduced in 2012 that has shielded from deportation a group of immigrants dubbed “Dreamers” and given them work permits, though not a path to citizenship.

The ruling represented another legal defeat for Trump over DACA, although he has won court victories on other parts of his hardline immigration policies.

On Monday, his administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal judge’s January decision to block Trump from ending the program even before the 9th Circuit had weighed in, an unusually aggressive move in terms of procedure.

Trump said on Wednesday that he saw potential to work with Democrats, who won control of the House of Representatives this week, but he would have to see how the Supreme Court rules on the issue.


Adding:
CNN: Appeals court says Trump admin can't end DACA
USA Today: Federal appeals court rules against Trump administration effort to end DACA program



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 30173
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#584

Post by Addie » Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:25 pm

WaPo
Trump can’t end DACA, appeals court panel says, setting up Supreme Court fight ...

“To be clear: we do not hold that DACA could not be rescinded as an exercise of executive branch discretion,” wrote Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw. “We hold only that here, where the executive did not make a discretionary choice to end DACA—but rather acted based on an erroneous view of what the law required—the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under settled law.”

The panel of judges, all nominated by Democratic presidents, flatly rejected the administration’s position that courts lacked the power to review the executive branch’s immigration actions.

“The government may not simultaneously both assert that its actions are legally compelled, based on its interpretation of the law, and avoid review of that assertion by the judicial branch, whose ‘province and duty’ it is ‘to say what the law is,’” Wardlaw wrote, borrowing the language of the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision.

Wardlaw wrote that the Obama administration was within its powers to enact DACA because it had to make a choice about how to direct limited resources in deporting illegal immigrants, and decided to spare those who came as children, had not committed crimes and were students or in the military.

“The reality is (and always has been) that the executive agencies charged with immigration enforcement do not have the resources required to deport every single person present in this country without authorization,” she wrote. ...

“Recognizing the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a policy in 2012 that would provide some relief to individuals like Garcia, while allowing our communities to continue to benefit from their contributions,” Wardlaw wrote.

The panel’s decision keeps in place an injuction from the lower court that allows DACA recipients to renew their applications. According to California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, more than 187,000 people “have regained or extended their DACA protections as a result of the court’s injunction, and hundreds of thousands of additional Dr amers are eligible to do so.”



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 19388
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#585

Post by RTH10260 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:22 pm

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/doj-and- ... sylum-rule
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, November 8, 2018

DOJ and DHS Issue New Asylum Rule

Applies President’s authority to suspend entry to asylum

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen today announced an Interim Final Rule declaring that those aliens who contravene a presidential suspension or limitation on entry into the United States through the southern border with Mexico issued under section 212(f) or 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will be rendered ineligible for asylum.

The Acting Attorney General and the Secretary issued the following joint statement:

“Consistent with our immigration laws, the President has the broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens into the United States if he determines it to be in the national interest to do so. Today's rule applies this important principle to aliens who violate such a suspension or restriction regarding the southern border imposed by the President by invoking an express authority provided by Congress to restrict eligibility for asylum. Our asylum system is overwhelmed with too many meritless asylum claims from aliens who place a tremendous burden on our resources, preventing us from being able to expeditiously grant asylum to those who truly deserve it. Today, we are using the authority granted to us by Congress to bar aliens who violate a Presidential suspension of entry or other restriction from asylum eligibility.”

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and INA states that “[w]henever 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.”

Further, Section 215(a) of the INA states that it is “unlawful…for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”

In Section 208(d)(5)(B) of the INA, Congress specified that the Attorney General “may provide by regulation for any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum.”

Today’s new rule applies to prospective presidential proclamations, and is not retroactive.

Asylum is a discretionary form of relief granted by the Executive Branch on a discretionary basis to those fleeing persecution on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The rule does not render such aliens ineligible for withholding of removal under the INA or protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.



The Interim Final Rule can be found here.

Topic(s): Immigration
Component(s): Office of the Attorney General
Press Release Number: 18 - 1474
Updated November 8, 2018



User avatar
bob
Posts: 25974
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#586

Post by bob » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:30 am

FOX: Judge bars US from enforcing Trump administration’s asylum ban:
A federal judge in San Francisco on Monday barred the Trump administration from refusing asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally, likely prompting a legal challenge from the White House.

Trump issued a proclamation on Nov. 9 that said anyone who crossed the southern border would be ineligible for asylum.

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order after hearing arguments in San Francisco.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 30173
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#587

Post by Addie » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:07 pm

Following on Bob's post:
WaPo - Greg Sargent: Another judge just blocked Trump. His ruling contains a warning. ...

A new court ruling released early Tuesday underscores those stakes. Buried in the ruling is a warning from the judge: He flatly asserts that Trump is claiming the authority to close down the southern border to asylum claims entirely. ...

“The judge has sounded a constitutional alarm bell, warning that Trump is claiming unlimited power to bar asylum applications across the entire southern border,” added immigration attorney David Leopold.
WaPo: In blow to Trump’s immigration agenda, federal judge blocks asylum ban for migrants who enter illegally from Mexico



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 20930
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#588

Post by Volkonski » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:03 pm

ABC News

Verified account

@ABC
3m3 minutes ago
More
JUST IN: In an emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration asks the justices to intervene to allow immediate enforcement of Pres. Trump's ban on asylum for immigrants who illegally cross the southern border. https://abcn.ws/2En9ge8


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25974
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#589

Post by bob » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:44 pm

In an emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration asks the justices to intervene to allow immediate enforcement of Pres. Trump's ban on asylum for immigrants who illegally cross the southern border. https://abcn.ws/2En9ge8
The 9th, last week, effectively upheld the injunction.

Jay "torture memo" Bybee authored the 65-page, 2-1 order denying the government's request for a stay.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3080
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#590

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:51 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:44 pm
In an emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration asks the justices to intervene to allow immediate enforcement of Pres. Trump's ban on asylum for immigrants who illegally cross the southern border. https://abcn.ws/2En9ge8
The 9th, last week, effectively upheld the injunction.

Jay "torture memo" Bybee authored the 65-page, 2-1 order denying the government's request for a stay.
Justice Elena Kagan has given the legal groups challenging Trump's ban until Monday, Dec. 17, to present their response to the administration's emergency application.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-a ... d=59759357

It is a request for Writ of Certiorari, so it take 4 to even hear it? Is that right?


"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25974
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#591

Post by bob » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:52 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:51 pm
It is a request for Writ of Certiorari, so it take 4 to even hear it? Is that right?
It is a stay application, so it'll need five SCOTUS votes.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 20930
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#592

Post by Volkonski » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:40 am

Mike Scarcella

Verified account

@MikeScarcella
Follow Follow @MikeScarcella
More
Big new ruling against Trump's new asylum rules -- from US District Judge Emmet Sullivan in DC:


10:17 AM - 19 Dec 201


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 20930
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#593

Post by Volkonski » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:41 am

Mike Scarcella

Verified account

@MikeScarcella
Follow Follow @MikeScarcella
More
Judge Emmet Sullivan: "The Court orders the government to return to the United States the plaintiffs who were unlawfully deported and to provide them with new credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws."

10:18 AM - 19 Dec 2018


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 30173
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#594

Post by Addie » Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:03 pm

The Hill
Judge strikes down bulk of Trump asylum policy

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down most of the policies former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued that made it almost impossible for victims of domestic and gang violence to seek asylum.

Judge Emmet Sullivan, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said the policies, which created a stricter test to satisfy the “credible fear” standard for asylum claims, were unlawful.

He also ordered the government to return to the United States the plaintiffs who were unlawfully deported under the policy. ...

Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, said Sessions’s ruling created an arbitrary and capricious general rule. He said “there is no legal basis for an effective categorical ban on domestic violence and gang-related claims.”

He also found that the rule violated federal immigration law, which requires credible fear claim determinations to be made on an individual basis. If an immigrant is found to have a credible fear, they are removed from expedited removal proceedings to pursue their asylum claims in immigration court.

“Many of these policies are inconsistent with the intent of Congress as articulated in the [Immigration and Nationality Act]” Sullivan wrote.

“And because it is the will of Congress — not the whims of the Executive — that determines the standard for expedited removal, the Court finds that those policies are unlawful,” he wrote.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 30173
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#595

Post by Addie » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:06 pm

Associated Press
Supreme Court rejects Trump plea to enforce asylum ban for immigrants who illegally cross US-Mexico border
That's all it says right now.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 25974
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#596

Post by bob » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:08 pm

SCOTUS denied the president's stay application, 5-4 [The Chief joined the liberal wing].


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10168
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#597

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:09 pm

Addie wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:06 pm
Associated Press
Supreme Court rejects Trump plea to enforce asylum ban for immigrants who illegally cross US-Mexico border
That's all it says right now.
Per SCOTUSBlog, 4 dissenters (conservative wing minus Roberts) would have granted the Stay.

Edit: Ninjaed


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 30173
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#598

Post by Addie » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:14 pm

NBC News
Supreme Court rejects Trump's asylum ban in 5-4 ruling as Chief Justice Roberts sides with liberal judges

The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that blocked the president's proclamation.


The Supreme Court on Friday refused to allow the government to enforce President Donald Trump's ban on asylum for immigrants who attempt to cross the southern border illegally.

The court voted 5-4 to leave a lower court ruling in place that blocks enforcement of the crackdown.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative judge who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, voted with the court's four liberals. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, one of the courts liberal judges, also voted before the 85-year-old jurist underwent a pulmonary lobectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City to remove cancerous growths from her lung. ...

The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that blocked the president's proclamation that stopped the government from considering requests for asylum from anyone who'd crossed the southern border illegally. Only asylum claims made at border checkpoints would be considered. ...

After Trump signed the proclamation, an immigrant rights group immediately sued and, on Nov. 19, Federal District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the administration to stop enforcing the new rules.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 20930
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#599

Post by Volkonski » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:15 pm

Bob Moore

@BobMooreNews
Follow Follow @BobMooreNews
More
El Pasoans trying to respond to a developing humanitarian crisis downtown after Images. 1/

Bob Moore

@BobMooreNews
14h14 hours ago
More
Annunciation House, which normally would house them, is out of space. Many say they haven’t eaten today. @kategannon and I brought 50 pounds of oranges and 100 granola bars. Thanks to @ClaudiaKFOX_CBS for breaking this story. 2/
Bob Moore

@BobMooreNews
13h13 hours ago
More Bob Moore Retweeted Bob Moore
Current headcount is 211. Destination still unclear. Police and Greyhound officials have been awesome. Can’t say enough about El Pasoans who have responded with food and water.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 20930
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#600

Post by Volkonski » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:16 pm

Simon Williams

@SimonKFOX_CBS
4h4 hours ago
More
These are people who were reportedly in ICE’s custody as and dropped off by ICE. We spoke with 2 migrants—one from Honduras and one from Guatemala. We reached out to ICE asking more questions, but with the government shutdown the spokesperson for ICE isn’t required to respond.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”