Mediaboss Marketing

Protests over police violence had eclipsed concern over the coronavirus for several weeks, but last week brought some renewed focus on the pandemic, which, despite Trumps best attempts to move past it, remains stubbornly present. The numbers of people testing positive are skyrocketing now in prospective November swing states, including Arizona, North Carolina, and even Texas. (The virus likely had some effect on the turnout at the rally in Tulsa too: Trumps base is still excited about him, but many supporters seemed rightfully wary about attending an event that required signing a waiver of liability for sickness.) On Thursday, the Labor Department announced that 1.5 million new unemployment claims had been filed in the preceding week, another sign that the rapid recovery Trump has heralded isnt coming.

The past week also dealt Trump several setbacks in court. On Monday morning, the Supreme Courtin a 63 decision written by Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointeeruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ people from employment discrimination. The Trump administration had argued that the law didnt apply to this population, and the government appeared to be caught off guard by the ruling. Three days later, the Court ruled that the presidents cancellation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was invalid because he hadnt followed proper procedures.

Each of these decisions was a blow to the administration, because it went against the position staked out by the executive branch. The DACA case undermines Trumps promises to get tough on illegal immigration, though he went wobbly on Dreamers long ago. But the twin defeats have additional political ramifications, given that both are also major disappointments for conservatives.

The president has argued that his power to select Supreme Court justices is the ultimate reason why conservatives who are otherwise wary of him must support him. Trump can try to use these defeats to argue that giving him another term is essential, because new Supreme Court appointments seem likely in the next four years. But the losses may also undermine enthusiasm. Despite his two appointments to the Court already, he lost these two casesand his own pick wrote the Civil Rights Act decision. Do you get the impression the Supreme Court doesnt like me? Trump whined on Twitter. Its not the cry of a winner.

On Saturday, Trump suffered another loss in a lower court, where a judge refused to block the release of former National Security Adviser John Boltons damning memoir, saying that because the book had already shipped, the damage is done.

David A. Graham: John Bolton plumbs the depths of Trumps depravity

No kidding. Boltons memoirwhich leaked on Wednesdayis full of horrifying news about Trumps handling of national security. Bolton writes of a Trump who makes every decision with an eye to his reelection campaign, for whom obstruction of justice [was] a way of life, and who shrugged at Chinese concentration camps for Uighurs. In interviews, Bolton has said that Trump is unfit for office. Bolton, whose politics might appropriately be described as severely conservative, has even vowed to vote against Trump in 2020.

Read more from the original source:
The Night Trump Stopped Trying - The Atlantic

in News 19-06-2020 01:00:00 6 Comments

Over the past six months the Algarve region has seen 48 illegal immigrants from North Africa entering the country, with the last case recorded on 15 June in Vale do Lobo, when a vessel with 22 Moroccan migrants was intercepted.

In December 2019, a group of eight immigrants arrived on the Algarve coast and in January this year 11 Moroccan citizens were detected off the island of Armona, in the municipality of Olho.

On 6 June, seven migrants from North Africa were detected off Olho, and on 15 June a vessel with 22 men, allegedly of Moroccan origin, was intercepted when the crew prepared to disembark at Vale do Lobo beach.

In light of this new emerging trend, the Minister of Internal Administration, Eduardo Cabrita, said in January this year that it was premature to consider that this was a new migration route to Portugal.

It is very premature. There were tens of thousands of arrivals in Spain and we will not be able to draw any conclusions from the most recent arrivals in Portugal. We are attentive, I am in talks with Spanish and Moroccan authorities, and I hope to establish, in the coming weeks, a direct meeting with my Moroccan counterpart on several topics, including this one, said Eduardo Cabrita.

Eduardo Cabrita underlined that, at the moment, Portugal has three legal migration agreements pending with Morocco, India and Moldova.

What we want with Morocco is to open a mechanism for legal and prepared migration, he said, arguing that illegal immigration should be the object of investigation and legal treatment.

We have to be attentive. We have to be very attentive to that possibility because it is not very different to go to Spain or to go to the Algarve, it is just a matter of choice, he said.

In that sense, he added, it is necessary that the police authorities -SEF, the Maritime Police and the Republican National Guard, namely through the Coastal Control Unit - maintain the monitoring of such phenomena, as well as border surveillance.

In turn, the Mayor of Olho, Antnio Manuel Pina, revealed his concern for this growing trend and called for a correct framing of the situation, which, in his opinion, should not be attributed to the status of refugee.

It is true that we have to be welcoming, we are humans just like these Moroccan citizens, but we also should not confuse, in my opinion, these cases with citizens and migrants in the Mediterranean, in Syria, in Libya, where there are, in fact, fleeing from war and deplorable life situations, with these situations, said the mayor of Olho.

As long as they are not considered illegal immigrants and returned to their countries, groups of migrants will continue to try to reach the Algarve coast in boats, said Pina who is also the president of the Intermunicipal Community of the Algarve (AMAL).

Antnio Miguel Pina said that the various cases of small boats that have arrived in the Algarve with migrants on board since last year, and the interception of the latest vessel with 22 migrants, allow us to think that there is an organised structure for illegal immigration to the south coast of Portugal.

This new arrival only reinforces our concerns, which have already been expressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs, because those who arrived a week ago were from the same location as the others from the previous year.

Antnio Pina said he disagrees with the possibility of these young people being considered exiles or political refugees, because the situation in Morocco, the country from which they say they come from,is different from the situation in the Mediterranean, with people from countries where there is war, such as Syria or Libya.

Antnio Pina has called for an appropriate response to be quickly given to cases of illegal immigration, which is their return to their country of origin, instead of the granting of refugee or exile statutes that allows these citizens to remain in Portugal.

As long as this is not done, it gives the signal that this is possible, because nothing happens. These 22, in our opinion, even begin to configure some possibility of extra aid. This very small vessel, with 22 people, is the same size as the one in which seven people came in previously and this raises the concern that a more fixed route to help illegal immigration may have already been created here, he said.The President of AMAL has now called on the Government to give a clear signal to these citizens that they may not be considered exiles and will be returned to their countries of origin, because only in this way will it be possible to give an adequate response to discourage others from also trying to cross in the future, he defended.

Asked if the appearance of the 22 migrants intercepted on Monday in court could be a sign of the change in attitude of the Portuguese authorities, Antnio Pina replied that he will wait to understand what the final outcome of the case will be.

See the rest here:
Illegal migrants crossing to the Algarve increasing - The Portugal News

The Tarrant County Commissioners Court voted 3-2 on Tuesday to allow law enforcement to continue its partnership with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to question and possibly detain illegal immigrants who have been arrested and brought to the Tarrant County Jail.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act authorizes agreements between ICE and local law enforcement agencies to perform limited immigration law enforcement functions after receiving appropriate training, according to the ICE website.

Tarrant County engages in the Jail Enforcement Model which involves identifying and processing removable aliens who are arrested and being booked into the Tarrant County jail. It does not involve seeking out illegal immigrants in the community.

Sheriff Bill Waybourn said the agreement gives us a solidified policy of how we are going to deal with immigration and those investigations are not taking place in the field. Tarrant County currently has seven officers trained under the 287(g) program.

25 counties in Texas have entered into 287(g) agreements with ICE. Tarrant County is the most populous of those.

In its presentation to the commissioners court, the Tarrant County Sheriffs Office (TCSO) submitted that 52,388 people were booked in the county jail from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020.

Of those, over 1,400 inmates had immigration detainers by ICE, most of which were applied by other law enforcement agencies. Out of the total number booked in that year, 309 inmates (0.59 percent) had immigration detainers placed on them by the TCSO officers in the jail trained by ICE.

TCSO released 236 inmates to ICE during the year. Of those, about 70 were deported and 61 voluntarily returned to their country of origin.

According to the TCSO, the 287(g) program costs about $18,000 per year.

Of the current 3,807 inmates in the jail, 264 have immigration detainers, most from other agencies. Detained inmates based on the 287(g) program amount to 56 of the total jail population.

Current inmates with detainers have been arrested for a variety of charges such as robbery, sex offenses, assault, burglary, DWI, drug offenses, and even homicide. Felonies and class A & B misdemeanor offenses are subject to 287(g) inquiries. Those who commit Class C misdemeanor offenses in Tarrant County are not subject to 287(g) immigration inquiries.

A representative from the Tarrant County District Attorneys office explained that even without a 287(g) agreement, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure legally obligates county law enforcement to honor ICE detainers. The Penal Code makes failure to comply with an immigration detainer a Class A misdemeanor for which the sheriff could be removed from office based on Local Government Code section 87.031.

Additionally, the Texas Legislature passed a law in 2017 that prohibits law enforcement agencies from interfering in the enforcement of immigration laws.

Its important to note that ICE would still be in the jail even without a 287(g) agreement, the district attorneys representative pointed out.

Dozens of persons appeared before the commissioners court to express their position on the 287(g) agreement, most in opposition. The commissioners only received in-person comments on the June 16 agenda items rather than allowing call-in remarks as has been the courts habit since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

Those in opposition expressed concerns about separating families, wasting taxpayer dollars, straining relations with minority communities, and violating rights of those detained if the officers are not properly trained. Some also accused the commissioners and sheriff of racism and promoting white supremacy.

Those who supported the continuation of the program spoke about the importance of the rule of law and holding those whove broken the law accountable.

Judge Glen Whitley (R) along with Commissioners Gary Fickes (R) and J.D. Johnson (R) voted for the agreement while Commissioners Roy Charles Brooks (D) and Devan Allen (D) opposed it.

In expressing his opposition to the 287(g) agreement, Commissioner Brooks said he found the agreement unnecessary as he believed that immigration status inquiries would take place in the jail without it. He also is concerned that it allows people to be transferred to ICE without due process.

Commissioner Johnson pointed out that Brooks voted for the 287(g) agreement two years earlier.

Judge Whitley supported the agreement, saying he knew it was something that many of the speakers would not be happy about. But if it stops one person from being assaulted, Im glad I did it.

After the vote, the crowd chanted for the removal of the sheriff and commissioners who voted in favor of the agreement for several minutes.

Disclosure: Unlike almost every other media outlet, The Texan is not beholden to any special interests, does not apply for any type of state or federal funding, and relies exclusively on its readers for financial support. If youd like to become one of the people were financially accountable to, click here to subscribe.

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

View post:
Tarrant County Continues with ICE Agreement for Immigration Enforcement - The Texan

Its rare that candidates get to see a batch of television ads from their opponents campaign before they air, but thats what happened in the Kansas Senate race.

Plumbing company owner Bob Hamilton is one of nearly a dozen Republicans running for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. The political newcomer has been airing television ads since the beginning of May, but an online survey with five, fully-produced unaired ads was sent out last week and one survey found its way to someone supporting another candidate in the race.

Getting feedback on ads is commonplace in big races, particularly for statewide and presidential campaigns. For decades, that was done with an in-person focus group where a moderator shows the potential ad on a screen and asks for feedback. While more ad testing was moving online even before the coronavirus changed social protocols, its rare that opposing campaigns and reporters get to see ads before they are on the air.

In this case, potential respondents were texted a link last week to a survey where they could watch five different ads. After each one, the person was given a multiple-choice question, Did the advertisement make you more likely or less likely to vote for Bob Hamilton? If the ad made no difference on your vote, please just say so.

At the end, respondents were asked to choose a favorite. Of the 5 ads shown, which advertisement stood out to you the most? The video about making puns about what hell do in Washington. The video about not being establishment and fixing Washington politics. The video about illegal immigration, sancturary [sic] cities and China. The video about not being a sumo wrestler and not giving away pizza and cable. The video about law & order, riots, and the media. Not sure.

Continued here:
Kansas Senate candidate's ad survey hits the wrong inbox - Roll Call

In my last post, I briefly analyzed proposed regulations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plan to roll out today as part of a Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (JNPR). The first of those proposals is to place aliens subject to expedited removal who have established a credible fear of persecution, or a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture, into asylum- or withholding-only proceedings (respectively), instead of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) where their cases are currently referred. This move is truer to Congress' intent and the expedited-removal statute than current policy, and will streamline cases in immigration court.

Pursuant to the current regulations, certain aliens seeking asylum, statutory withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) are not entitled to be placed into section 240 removal proceedings, but may only have their claims heard in asylum- or withholding-only proceedings.

Specifically, identified alien crewmembers, stowaways, applicants for admission under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), aliens admitted under the VWP who overstayed, applicants who are seeking admission or who have been admitted as witnesses or informants on S nonimmigrant visas, and applicants for admission and aliens who have been admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) pursuant to the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program and overstayed their visas can only have their protection claims heard in asylum-only proceedings.

Aliens who are subject to reinstated orders of removal under section 241(a)(5) of the INA and aliens who have been administratively ordered removed under section 238 of the INA (as a result of convictions for aggravated felonies), on the other hand, are eligible to apply only for statutory withholding of removal and CAT in withholding-only proceedings.

In those proceedings, the removability of the alien is not at issue they have either waived the right to removal proceedings or are deemed removable by law. Rather, the only issue is whether they are eligible for asylum, statutory withholding, or CAT (as the case may be) they may not seek other forms of relief or privileges under the INA.

This contrasts with section 240 removal proceedings, in which the immigration judge (IJ) must first determine whether the alien is removable before assessing whether the alien is eligible for any form of protection or relief. Not only does that initial determination of removability (which can involve complex issues of fact and law) take up the court's time, but in section 240 removal proceedings, an alien respondent is not limited in the forms of relief that he or she can seek (although few if any aliens in expedited removal proceedings apply for relief other than asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or CAT).

In addition, in section 240 removal proceedings, DHS must establish that the alien is removable as charged if he or she fails to appear in order to obtain an in absentia order of removal. In FY 2019, there were 17,786 such in absentia orders issued in cases originating with a credible fear claim. Assuming 10 minutes of court time for each, that is 2,964 hours or 370.5 eight-hour days wasted on the IJs' dockets.

In asylum-only or withholding-only proceedings, on the other hand, if the alien does not appear, the application is simply found to be abandoned: The alien has already been found removable.

The language of the expedited removal provisions in section 235(b)(1) of the INA demonstrates that Congress did not intend for aliens found to have a credible fear to be placed into those section 240 removal proceedings, however.

Specifically, section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA states: "If the [asylum] officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution ... , the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum." [Emphasis added.]

Contrast the language in this provision with section 235(b)(2)(A) of the INA, which pertains to aliens seeking admission who are not subject to expedited removal (expressly excluded from the coverage of that provision under clause 235(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the INA), crewmen, stowaways, and aliens who are inadmissible on security and related grounds. It states that:

[I]n the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 240 [of the INA]. [Emphasis added.]

Note that there is no reference to removal proceedings or section 240 of the INA in the expedited removal provision (section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA) only in section 235(b)(2)(A), although Congress added both of these provisions to the INA, in section 302 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

That makes sense, because in expedited removal proceedings, a DHS immigration officer has already made the determination that the alien subject to expedited removal is removable. The only remaining question is whether the alien is eligible for asylum which is properly resolved in asylum-only proceedings.

And, as the conference report for that legislation explains:

The purpose of these provisions is to expedite the removal from the United States of aliens who indisputably have no authorization to be admitted to the United States, while providing an opportunity for such an alien who claims asylum to have the merits of his or her claim promptly assessed by officers with full professional training in adjudicating asylum claims. [Emphasis added.]

Also note that there is no reference to statutory withholding or CAT in the expedited-removal provision. Those were additional, extra-statutory protections that were added to the credible-fear regulation during the Clinton administration. The JNPR does not remove references to those forms of protection from the credible-fear regulation, although I have previously explained why authority to grant CAT should more properly be vested with DHS instead of the IJs not just in expedited removal cases, but more generally.

That notwithstanding, however, it is only appropriate that aliens in expedited removal proceedings found to have a credible fear of persecution or a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture should only have their claims heard in asylum- and withholding-only proceedings. Not only does the current regulation unduly burden IJs' dockets, but it is contrary to Congress's at least implied, if not express direction in section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA.

Put more simply, the only purpose for referring such a case to the IJ is for "further consideration of the" alien's application for protection not for a de novo review of the respondent's removability.

This is not a new idea, by the way just one that took a while to come to fruition. In fact, in May 2019, I wrote a post captioned "President Wants 'Asylum Only' Hearings for Credible Fear Claimants: Why wasn't this done earlier?". I explained therein:

On April 29, 2019, the president issued a "Memorandum on Additional Measures to Enhance Border Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System", which (among other things) calls on the secretary of Homeland Security, to: "propose regulations to ensure that aliens who receive positive fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)" are placed in asylum-only proceedings or withholding-only proceedings, as the case may be.

As I noted at the time: "This is such a commonsense proposal, the only question is why no one thought of it before." Now I can add: or issued a proposed regulation doing so before June 15, 2020. Better late than never.

More here:
DHS/DOJ: Send Credible-Fear Claimants to Asylum- and Withholding-Only Proceedings - Immigration Blog