Judge blocks DHS from ousting Haitians, Salvadorans, blaming derogatory Trump comments

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
“Because there is evidence that President Trump and/or the White House influenced the DHS on the TPS decisions to at least raise serious question on the merits, the remaining issue is whether there is evidence that President Trump harbors an animus against non-white, non- European aliens which influenced his (and thereby the secretary’s) decision to end the TPS designation,” he ruled. “As plaintiffs have catalogued, there is evidence of such as reflected by statements made by President Trump before, during, and after the TPS decision-making process.”

The Justice Department issued a defiant statement blasting the ruling, saying Judge Chen was trampling on the president’s clear security and immigration powers.

“The Justice Department completely rejects the notion that the White House or the Department of Homeland Security did anything improper. We will continue to fight for the integrity of our immigration laws and our national security,” said spokesman Devin O’Malley.

Immigrant-rights activists, meanwhile, cheered the ruling as a major dent in the kinds of immigration policies they’ve been fighting since the beginning of the new administration.

“The hundreds of thousands of workers with TPS who build our cities and keep them running deserve the security of knowing the lives they’ve built in the US are safe. This shows that Trump’s move to terminate TPS was based in his racial motivations and not in any law or consideration of safety,” said Working Families United, an advocacy group.



Judge blocks DHS from ousting Haitians, Salvadorans, blaming derogatory Trump comments
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
“Because there is evidence that President Trump and/or the White House influenced the DHS on the TPS decisions to at least raise serious question on the merits, the remaining issue is whether there is evidence that President Trump harbors an animus against non-white, non- European aliens which influenced his (and thereby the secretary’s) decision to end the TPS designation,” he ruled. “As plaintiffs have catalogued, there is evidence of such as reflected by statements made by President Trump before, during, and after the TPS decision-making process.”

The Justice Department issued a defiant statement blasting the ruling, saying Judge Chen was trampling on the president’s clear security and immigration powers.

“The Justice Department completely rejects the notion that the White House or the Department of Homeland Security did anything improper. We will continue to fight for the integrity of our immigration laws and our national security,” said spokesman Devin O’Malley.

Immigrant-rights activists, meanwhile, cheered the ruling as a major dent in the kinds of immigration policies they’ve been fighting since the beginning of the new administration.

“The hundreds of thousands of workers with TPS who build our cities and keep them running deserve the security of knowing the lives they’ve built in the US are safe. This shows that Trump’s move to terminate TPS was based in his racial motivations and not in any law or consideration of safety,” said Working Families United, an advocacy group.



Judge blocks DHS from ousting Haitians, Salvadorans, blaming derogatory Trump comments
Never seen anything like this mess we are going through today.
Freaking Judges blocking the President from doing his job.
 
Reactions: BOP

Monello

Sexually compliant
PREMO Member
1 just has to look at the situation in Haiti and El Salvador to see what the future of America looks like. Look what happened in Rhodesia and the Congo when rule was turned over to the locals. Once thriving countries and today they can't even feed themselves.
 
Reactions: BOP

This_person

Well-Known Member
“Because there is evidence that President Trump and/or the White House influenced the DHS on the TPS decisions to at least raise serious question on the merits, the remaining issue is whether there is evidence that President Trump harbors an animus against non-white, non- European aliens which influenced his (and thereby the secretary’s) decision to end the TPS designation,” he ruled. “As plaintiffs have catalogued, there is evidence of such as reflected by statements made by President Trump before, during, and after the TPS decision-making process.”
When did Judges get the authority to rule based against their feelings of motive being against the judge's personal beliefs vice actions against or within the law?
 

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
Send the judge with them.

He can hold court there.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
PREMO Member
I know most here don't want to look at this from all angles, only from the angle of Trump's war on Spanish speaking people of color. The judges decision was spot on. The DHS ruling on ending TPS had no factual basis that justified sending people back to countries were conditions have not improved. No decent person would want to take someone who's been living here, working, owning houses, paying taxes, obeying the laws, etc, and tell them all of that is being taken away and they have to go back to a place where they have nothing. People on TPS are not the problem. They are the most vetted (background checks every 18 months) group of people in the United States.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The DHS ruling on ending TPS had no factual basis ....
Um they do not have RIGHT to STAY :shrug: Temporary

tem·po·rar·y
ˈtempəˌrerē/
adjective
adjective: temporary

1.
lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
"a temporary job"

synonyms: nonpermanent, short-term, interim;
More provisional, pro tem, makeshift, stopgap; acting, fill-in, stand-in, caretaker "temporary accommodations" brief, short-lived, momentary, fleeting, passing "a temporary loss of self-control"
antonyms: permanent, lasting

noun
noun: temporary; plural noun: temporaries

1.
a person employed on a temporary basis, typically an office worker who finds employment through an agency.

No decent person would want to take someone who's been living here, working, owning houses, paying taxes, obeying the laws, etc, and tell them all of that is being taken away and they have to go back to a place where they have nothing.
Oh No Decent Person .... :sarcasm:

Governing has little to do with 'what feels' right ...

They are the most vetted (background checks every 18 months) group of people in the United States.
So What ? :shrug: Temporary Protected Status


if you do not like Temporary Petition Congress to change the law and give them a path to citizenship
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
PREMO Member
Um they do not have RIGHT to STAY :shrug: Temporary

tem·po·rar·y
ˈtempəˌrerē/
adjective
adjective: temporary

1.
lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
"a temporary job"

synonyms: nonpermanent, short-term, interim;
More provisional, pro tem, makeshift, stopgap; acting, fill-in, stand-in, caretaker "temporary accommodations" brief, short-lived, momentary, fleeting, passing "a temporary loss of self-control"
antonyms: permanent, lasting

noun
noun: temporary; plural noun: temporaries

1.
a person employed on a temporary basis, typically an office worker who finds employment through an agency.



Oh No Decent Person .... :sarcasm:

Governing has little to do with 'what feels' right ...



So What ? :shrug: Temporary Protected Status


if you do not like Temporary Petition Congress to change the law and give them a path to citizenship


Your points here have no relevance to the legal proceedings.....


https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/ramos-v-nielsen-order-granting-preliminary-injunction-case-18-cv-01554-emc.pdf
 

Smokey1

Active Member
1 just has to look at the situation in Haiti and El Salvador to see what the future of America looks like. Look what happened in Rhodesia and the Congo when rule was turned over to the locals. Once thriving countries and today they can't even feed themselves.
Exactly, the presumed motivation for those particulars is irrelevant to the law. It is completely improper for a judge to strike down a regulation based on what be believes was the reason for the reg.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
PREMO Member
Exactly, the presumed motivation for those particulars is irrelevant to the law. It is completely improper for a judge to strike down a regulation based on what be believes was the reason for the reg.

Apparently, the reg in question is the Administrative Procedure Act.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
IAW what you linked us to:
  1. AG makes the determination
  2. Determination is good for a maximum of 18 months, but may be extended in six month intervals.
  3. For the AG's determination, the situation in the original country must be a temporary condidtion.
  4. These people have been here for at least 3 administrations, which means at the very least more than 12 years.
  5. 12 years is NOT "temporary"
  6. No judicial review of the AG's determination is allowed.
  7. This is a judicial review of the AG's determination.
  8. The court does not seem to care it is violating the law it is trying to uphold. "Precedent"; which means, "we did it wrong before, so.... #### y'all, we're doing it again."
  9. The predominent concern seems to be, per the judge, that it is the Trump administration's policy. Not that removing these people would somehow be harmful to the United States, but rather listening to what Trump wants would be harmful to the United States.
  10. The problems in the original countries are not linked to the Temporary condidtions that brought them here, and the court just doens't care.
  11. The court is essentially disagreeing with the determinations made, because the Court feels the DHS Secretary (who makes the call for the AG) just doesn't see the problems the way the Court does. The Court is usurping the Executive.
 

Monello

Sexually compliant
PREMO Member
Time to start packing, the courts ruled for the Trump administration. Adios.

A federal appeals court has effectively greenlighted the Trump administration’s plan to expel more than 300,000 undocumented immigrants from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Sudan from the U.S. by ending the “temporary protected status” they have enjoyed for as long as two decades.

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 Monday that a federal judge in San Francisco erred in 2018 when he blocked the administration’s move to terminate the deportation protections granted to nationals of four countries because of natural disasters, wars or other upheavals in their homelands.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department said officials are "pleased" with the 9th Circuit ruling. "For approximately two years, the district court's injunction prevented the Department of Homeland Security from taking action that Congress has vested solely within the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security — action that is statutorily precluded from judicial review. We applaud the Ninth Circuit's recognition of the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its rejection of the baseless accusations of animus behind the actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security," the spokesperson said.
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
Monday that a federal judge in San Francisco erred in 2018 when he blocked the administration’s move to terminate the deportation protections granted to nationals of four countries because of natural disasters, wars or other upheavals in their homelands.

Son of a bitch, a leftist pos judge legislating from the bench.... color me shocked as shiit.
 

Louise

Active Member
PREMO Member
Monday that a federal judge in San Francisco erred in 2018 when he blocked the administration’s move to terminate the deportation protections granted to nationals of four countries because of natural disasters, wars or other upheavals in their homelands.

Son of a bitch, a leftist pos judge legislating from the bench.... color me shocked as shiit.
I know. I was like what am I reading. It all seems conflicted. God bless the USA.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
PREMO Member
It's not quite over yet.


This will have to go before the full 9th Circuit and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court before all is said and done. DHS has already said that it will not initiate any action until March, at the earliest. At that point, the people involved will be given a year to eighteen months before deportation begins. Assuming Trump ultimately wins this case.
 
Top