TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#246001: Jun 18th 2018 at 9:35:23 AM

the Southern Baptists have withdrawn support for the Republican party and dismissed their former leadership.
As I commented on Facebook: the Southern Baptists (largely) started this culture war, and now that they've used a nuclear weapon (Trump) they think they can just end it and pretend that none of it was their fault.
The Alt Right is an anti-religious organization after all.
Their religion is white supremacy, and Trump is their messiah.
I've come to the point where I expect nothing remotely Christlike out of the religious right, Southern Baptists especially, so this is a nice surprise.
Hold on to your surprise and wait for the other shoe to drop. They're still not Christlike, they're just hoping for people to stop thinking they're Obviously Evil.
watch as Westboro gets a membership surge.
I thought the Phelps had torn themselves apart ... but it's more likely that they'll get subsumed into a new alt-right group instead.
So apparently Canada is considering Sanctioning Trump under their version of the Magnitsky Act (The Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act
That would be nice, though I won't hold my breath for it.
Hell, it reminds me of an old psychology experiment where researchers deliberately separated puppies from their mothers at different stages of development, and the ones taken earlier invariably showed more behavioral (and even physical health!) issues. For most people, that'd be a Captain Obvious conclusion, but apparently we're under the impression that Humans Are Special in that regard.
The people making this policy don't care. The dogs are worth more to them than actual children are.
Is there any country in the world except Russia, Israel and North Korea that the US is not intent on pissing off right now?
I'm not so sure about Israel.
You know, there's one thing I'd love to see an answer to from the conservative wing - how much money are we spending on this compared to the previous system? Because given how much they tended towards being deficit hawks under Obama, this is more than a little hypocritical.
What, you didn't notice the change in rhetoric? The budget and deficit is only important when a Democrat is in power. When Republicans run the show, we can drive the country to hyper-inflation to stop things like brown people fleeing drug cartels and giving billionaires free hourly hand jobs.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#246002: Jun 18th 2018 at 9:54:22 AM

The Republican Party has long since passed the point of shame. No one will stop voting for them because of crime, so they might as well commit as much as possible.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#246003: Jun 18th 2018 at 10:08:59 AM

Gallup now has Trump's approval at 45%, tying his highest record (when he entered office). His disapproval is at 50%, a record low. Now, this is only one poll, and the fallout from his international antics and (especially) the immigration detention issue probably isn't being reflected yet. But what is the world supposed to think and do when they see these numbers, hell (God forbid) what do we do if Trump manages to get over 50% despite all of this? At this point we (at least) have to view Republicans, and their voters, as the enemies of our countries.

Perhaps a trade war always create a rally around the flag effect (a small one granted, and probably limited to Republicans and a few Independents), even in the country that unilaterally started it on false and insulting premises. Though a lot of this might be due to North Korea as well.

In better polling news, 538 still has the Dems up about 7% in the generic ballot. Not as high as we'd like of course, but still comfortable and better than it has been.

DHS is doubling down on its child abuse policy BTW.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/kirstjen-nielsen-immigration-policy/index.html

edited 18th Jun '18 10:12:54 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
thatindiantroper Since: Feb, 2015
#246004: Jun 18th 2018 at 10:48:19 AM

“At this point we (at least) have to view Republicans, and their voters, as the enemies of our countries.“

I already do.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#246005: Jun 18th 2018 at 10:49:31 AM

Ann Coulter called the children crying at the border after being separated from parents "child actors." Trump Jr., meanwhile, liked a Breitbart tweet that quoted Coulter, who said the separated children had been "coached" by liberals and "given scripts to read." (The Hill / Newsweek)

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392774-ann-coulter-calls-immigrant-children-child-actors

Can't get a full dump if today's WTF Just Happened Today feed, but this one jumped out at me

kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
DrunkenNordmann from Exile Since: May, 2015
#246007: Jun 18th 2018 at 11:00:11 AM

[up][up] The utter callousness and duplicity required to make such a claim...

We learn from history that we do not learn from history
Steven (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#246008: Jun 18th 2018 at 11:05:35 AM

Holy shit, where would people get the budget to pay all these people "acting" in a crisis? And very young children are notoriously difficult to get to work as actors, no?

Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
danime91 Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#246009: Jun 18th 2018 at 11:12:20 AM

Seriously, if a 3 or 4 year old immigrant kid who's first language isn't even English can be coached to act convincingly and answer questions, I'm pretty sure they can be admitted into the country on merit. It's amazing how utterly divorced from reality Republicans are becoming. I'm hoping it will reach a point where they all spontaneously disappear and ascend (or "descend" more likely) to a different plane of existence.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#246010: Jun 18th 2018 at 11:30:41 AM

[up]If The Leftovers happened, except with just Republicans disappearing, it would be pretty great to be honest.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#246011: Jun 18th 2018 at 11:42:58 AM

[up]

Crowd as much of the 45% as possible onto some of your spare aircraft carriers and tell them they can go invade Somalia and try to set up Libertopia? You'd probably lose a few if they're crewed by your average chickenhawk neocons, but I guess that's a good way to cut your military budget.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#246012: Jun 18th 2018 at 11:45:14 AM

[up]Why would you inflict the GOP on Somalia? No one deserves that.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#246013: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:02:41 PM

[up]

Oh yeah, Somalia has a slightly functioning state again now, so it doesn't work properly as ancap bait. Dammit, guess we have to fall back on getting them to invade Antarctica. We can dress up the stations in the UK territory and lay out a bunch of inflatable tanks as targets Operation Bodyguard style, it'll be great.

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#246014: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:04:02 PM

[up]

Somaliland is quite fine. Somalia itself has suffered in the hands of a newly resurgent al-Shabaab.

Dropping the GOP and their guns in the mix, would be...interesting.

edited 18th Jun '18 12:04:40 PM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#246015: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:06:53 PM

The full dump from today's WTF Just Happened Today?

Day 515: Not on my watch.

1/ Hundreds of children separated from their parents are waiting inside cages in an old warehouse in south Texas while they wait to be turned over to shelters funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. The cages were described as the the type you'd see at a batting cage or a dog kennel. More than 1,100 people are being held inside facility, which is divided into separate wings for unaccompanied children, adults, and mothers and fathers with children. (Associated Press / NBC News)

https://www.apnews.com/9794de32d39d4c6f89fbefaea3780769

Ann Coulter called the children crying at the border after being separated from parents "child actors." Trump Jr., meanwhile, liked a Breitbart tweet that quoted Coulter, who said the separated children had been "coached" by liberals and "given scripts to read." (The Hill / Newsweek)

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392774-ann-coulter-calls-immigrant-children-child-actors

2/ Lawmakers from both parties demanded that Trump stop his policy of separating children from their parents at the border. Republican lawmakers, Laura Bush, a conservative newspaper, and a former Trump adviser joined with Democrats in condemning the policy that has removed nearly 2,000 children from their parents over the last six weeks. Melania Trump, meanwhile, placed the blame on "both sides," saying that she "hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together." (New York Times)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/politics/melania-trump-family-separation.html

3/ The White House continued to falsely blame Democrats for the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant children from their families. The separations stem from Jeff Sessions' "zero-tolerance" policy announced last month. Via tweet, Trump blamed Democrats for being "weak and ineffective with Boarder Security and Crime" while urging them to agree to immigration legislation and to fund his border wall. Trump added that "the United States will not be a migrant camp… not on my watch." (Washington Post / New York Times / NBC News)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-defense-over-separating-immigrant-families-n884306

Jeb Bush called on Trump to end the "heartless policy" of separating parents and children who cross the U.S. border illegally, saying "children shouldn't be used as a negotiating tool." (Politico)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/jeb-bush-trump-child-separations-650883

4/ The United Nations' top human rights official called for the U.S. to immediately stop separating children from their families at the border. Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein condemned the practice as "government-sanctioned child abuse," saying "the thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable." U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley called al-Hussein's statement hypocritical, saying "neither the United Nations nor anyone else will dictate how the United States upholds its borders." (New York Times / The Hill)

http://thehill.com/policy/international/un-treaties/392722-un-human-rights-head-trump-policy-separating-migrant

5/ Trump warned that the U.S. must avoid Europe's immigration problems, falsely claiming that "crime in Germany is way up." The opposite, however, is true. Germany's crime rate has fallen to its lowest level since 1992. (New York Times / Vox)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/18/17474600/trump-tweet-crime-germany

6/ Peter Strzok said he would be willing to testify without immunity and without invoking the 5th Amendment before the House Judiciary Committee and any other congressional committee. Strzok was removed from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election for sending anti-Trump texts. Strzok's lawyer said: "He thinks that his position, character and actions have all been misrepresented and caricatured, and he wants an opportunity to remedy that." Trump, meanwhile, tweeted that Strzok was a "sick loser." (Washington Post / CNN)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/17/politics/peter-strzok-house-judiciary-committee-testify/index.html

7/ Roger Stone met with a Russian national during the 2016 campaign who wanted Trump to pay $2 million for the political dirt on Hillary Clinton. Stone failed to disclose the May 2016 meeting with Henry Greenberg, who also goes by the name Henry Oknyansky, to congressional investigators. The meeting was set up by Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo. Stone rejected the offer and soon after Caputo texted Stone asking if anything interesting came of the meeting. Stone replied: "waste of time." Both Stone and Caputo did not disclose the Greenberg meeting during testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Caputo said he failed to disclose the encounter because he had "simply forgotten" about the meeting. Mueller is now investigating the previously undisclosed meeting. (Washington Post / NBC News)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/roger-stone-says-he-forgot-meeting-russian-who-offered-clinton-n884181

Roger Stone is "not concerned" that he failed to tell Congress about his 2016 meeting with a Russian national offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. "I just didn't remember. 2016 was a pretty busy year," Stone said. "I don't think a failure of memory constitutes a perjury." (ABC News)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roger-stone-concerned-failed-congress-2016-russia-contact/story?id=55965127

poll/ 56% of Americans oppose the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy of separating undocumented children from their parents. 27% of respondents, meanwhile, said they agreed with the policy. (Daily Beast)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-republicans-approve-of-trumps-family-separation-policy

poll/ 54% of Americans believe it's unlikely that Trump's sit-down with North Korea's Kim Jong Un will lead Pyongyang to give up its nuclear arms. 42%, however, believe the meeting lessened the chance of war. (ABC News)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/skepticism-remains-eased-north-koreas-nuclear-intentions-poll/story?id=55945332

poll/ 57% of Americans site with how Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is handling Trump's personal attack and trade dispute. 37% approve of how Trump is handling the situation. (Globalnews.ca)

https://globalnews.ca/news/4276199/americans-justin-trudeau-trade-spat-donald-trump-poll/

Notables.

The Supreme Court declined to decide two challenges to partisan gerrymandering, allowing controversial district maps to stand and be used in the midterm elections. The justices sidestepped question of whether the the maps are legal. (New York Times / Washington Post / CNN)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering-decision/index.html

Trump will sign a space policy directive making it easier for commercial companies to operate in space. The directive also asks NASA to establish new guidelines to avoid the creation of new space debris. (Politico)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-space-traffic-debris-630189

Trump directed the Department of Defense and the Pentagon to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the Armed Forces, saying: "We are going to have the Air Force and we're going to have the Space Force, separate but equal. It is going to be something, so important." (The Verge)

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/18/17475466/trump-space-force-announcement-national-space-council

The Trump Tower in Chicago has never followed EPA rules for documenting how its use of the Chicago River for cooling water impacts fish. The Trump International Hotel and Tower is one of the largest users of Chicago River water for its cooling systems and is the only one that has failed to comply with the fish-protecting regulations. (Chicago Tribune)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-trump-tower-fish-kill-20180618-story.html

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#246016: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:10:11 PM

Anyone remember the Trump travel ban? Apparently a couple of former Consulate officials have publically and in court stated that there is no waiver process to get into the country legally. Full article text 

Any day now, the Supreme Court will issue its ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, weighing in on the legality of President Donald Trump’s third travel ban. That ban, which was instituted via executive order in September, prevents nearly all individuals from five majority-Muslim countries and North Korea, and a small number of Venezuelans, from entering the United States unless they receive special waivers. In federal court, government lawyers have pointed to that process of offering “case-by-case” waivers to deserving visa applicants as evidence that the administration’s most recent ban doesn’t suffer from the same constitutional infirmities that caused the first ban to get blocked by numerous judges.

Public reports about seemingly deserving applicants whose waiver requests have been rejected have raised questions about whether the waiver process is as “robust“ as the government has claimed. A Yemeni woman who suffered from rheumatic heart disease was told in December that she’d be allowed into the country to join her U.S. citizen husband only to be denied a waiver once the third travel ban went into effect. A widowed 80-year-old Iranian man whose son had just died of brain cancer was denied a waiver to come live with his U.S. citizen daughter; he never learned that he’d been rejected, as he died three weeks before the denial was issued. A 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy—the daughter of an American citizen—was initially denied a waiver, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the government about her individual case during oral arguments in Trump v. Hawaii. The girl has reportedly now been allowed into the United States.

In those oral arguments, Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor asked the government whether the waiver process was mere “window dressing.” Solicitor General Noel Francisco responded that the State Department’s consular officers have been tasked with ensuring the legitimacy of that process. The “waiver process actually is applied automatically by consular officers,” Francisco said. “If you’re not subject to [one of the ban’s other] exception[s], then the consular officer, him or herself, turns to the waiver provision and applies the criteria of the waiver provision.”

In justifying the ban, Francisco described a straightforward waiver process, one reminiscent of the procedures carried out under presidents including Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. But new, previously undisclosed statements from two consular officers tasked with implementing the travel ban’s provisions contradict this depiction. Both say consular officers had no discretion to offer waivers themselves. One described the waiver process as a “fraud.” In the days before the Supreme Court is set to release its ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, these claims raise significant questions regarding the government’s assertions about the travel ban.

Two weeks ago, Christopher Richardson submitted a sworn affidavit in the case of Ahmed Alharbi et al. v. Stephen Miller et al. That case, which is being heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, was brought by Yemeni plaintiffs seeking to obtain visas they were approved to receive but were never granted after the latest ban went into effect. (The judge in that case recently issued an injunction demanding the government issue the visas.) Richardson, who most recently worked as the American Citizens Service Chief in Madrid, was a State Department official from 2011 until March of this year, when he resigned. (Disclosure: Richardson and I are acquaintances.)

In his sworn declaration, acquired by Slate, Richardson said that—counter to Francisco’s claim before the Supreme Court—consular officers were not allowed to use any discretion to grant visa waivers.

As a Consular officer previously employed by the State Department my impression and interpretation of how we as officers were to apply the waiver process was as follows:

(a) They gave us a list of things and we would go down the list one by one until we were able to determine at all possible cost that the person was not eligible to even apply for the waiver. My understanding was no one is to be eligible to apply.

(b) If for some reason an applicant made it through the list and we had no choice but to determine we could find an applicant eligible to apply, regardless of the [Presidential Proclamation] instructions that we had “discretion to grant the waiver,” we were not allowed to exercise that discretion. We were mandated to send to Washington that we found this applicant eligible to apply and Washington would then make the decision to grant or deny the waiver.

Richardson’s assertion that consular officers had no discretion to grant waivers directly contradicts both the claim made by Francisco at the Supreme Court and the text of Presidential Proclamation 9645, i.e. the September executive order delineating the third travel ban. That executive order states that “a consular officer, or the Commissioner, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner’s designee, as appropriate, may, in their discretion, grant waivers on a case-by-case basis.”

The claims in Richardson’s affidavit also contradict a letter the State Department sent to Sen. Chris Van Hollen in February. The letter, echoing the language of the presidential proclamation, stated, “The entry restrictions of the Proclamation may be waived if a consular officer determines that the applicant meets each of the following three criteria: (1) denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship; (2) entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; and (3) entry would be in the national interest.” The letter to Van Hollen—the most detailed publicly available guidance on how the waiver process is supposed to work—stated that waiver reviews were to be undertaken by the consular officers themselves (emphasis mine):

First, to satisfy the undue hardship criterion, the applicant must demonstrate to the consular officer’s satisfaction that an unusual situation exists that compels immediate travel by the applicant and that delaying visa issuance and the associated travel plans would defeat the purpose of travel. Second, the applicant’s travel may be considered in the national interest if the applicant demonstrates to the consular officer’s satisfaction that a U.S. person or entity would suffer hardship if the applicant could not travel until after visa restrictions imposed with respect to nationals of that country are lifted.

Per the letter, the third and final criteria, national security, was to be assessed by the consular officer in “consultation with the Visa Office,” with a final determination to come with “the concurrence of a consular manager.” Slate requested comment from the State Department regarding Richardson’s declaration as well as what “consultation with the Visa Office” and “the concurrence of a consular manager” mean in practice. A State Department official replied, “The Department does not comment on litigation.”

In the letter to Van Hollen, the State Department reported that from Dec. 8, 2017, through Jan. 8, 2018, it received 8,406 visa applications from nationals subject to Presidential Proclamation 9645 and approved a total of two waiver requests, meaning that 0.02 percent of applicants received waivers. Since Van Hollen publicized those numbers, the number of waivers issued has ticked up. In March, Reuters reported that the waiver total had reached about 100. At oral arguments in April, Francisco told the Supreme Court that the number of waivers issued was “over 400.” And as of Friday, the State Department says, “at least 809 applicants were cleared for waivers after a consular officer determined the applicants satisfied all criteria and completed all required processing.”

Neal Katyal, in arguing for the plaintiffs at the Supreme Court, noted that the government had not offered an update on the number of visa applications it has received since January. If applications have come in at a similar rate as they did in the proclamation’s first month, the waiver rate would now be at about 1.5 percent. The Washington Post also reported last month that immigrants’ rights “advocates believe the number of people who actually have received visas through waivers is much lower” than the total number of “accepted” waiver applicants. In other words, there’s no guarantee that applicants who’ve been granted waivers have been issued visas.

In his affidavit, Richardson said consular officers received guidance on how to implement the administration’s executive orders on immigration from “sample Q’s and A’s” distributed by the State Department. Richardson said that “guidance cables, sample Q’s and A’s and instructions regarding executing all three orders were sent via email to consular posts, and the cable and the corresponding Q’s and A’s were at the top center of the [Consular Affairs office’s] internal homepage for 3 to 4 months.” He added, “Having seen all these documents to the best of my recollection NONE of the documents were classified.”

Despite Richardson’s contention that the documents aren’t classified, they haven’t been released for public inspection. In January, Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights issued a FOIA request for any internal government documents pertaining to the waiver process. On Wednesday, the group told me they have yet to receive a response beyond the standard notification of receipt. Julie Goldberg, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Alharbi case, said she has also attempted to obtain these documents several times during legal proceedings. “Even the ones that are unclassified, they’re just not turning them over,” she told me. “The best I’ve got is the government has turned it over for in-camera review and the court is yet to release it.”

Richardson said in his sworn statement that these documents would reveal crucial information about how the waiver process does and doesn’t work:

I can certainly understand why the government would not want [to] release all of them because when read together with our training, it is understood that there really is no waiver [process] and the Supreme Court was correct to point out that the waiver [process] is merely “window dressing.”

Another person who has worked as a consular officer during the time frame of Trump’s travel ban affirmed Richardson’s assessment of the waiver process. In communications viewed by Slate between this individual and a longtime immigrants’ rights advocate, the consular officer said “the waiver process is fraud.” (Slate has granted the immigrants’ rights advocate anonymity to protect the consular officer’s identity.)

This second consular officer also said that the “Q&A” document, if revealed to the public, would demonstrate that the waiver process has “no rational basis.” The officer also affirmed Richardson’s contention regarding the State Department guidance to consular officers, saying that “none of the material is classified” and that there’s no reason for the government to withhold the material. “The Q&As have to come out,” the officer added. “Only then will people realize how this is one step away from [the] Soviet politburo.”

If further evidence were to emerge indicating that the waiver process works differently in practice than the administration has claimed, that information could have a serious effect on the legality of the travel ban. In arguments before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the government asserted that the travel ban writ large was not reviewable under a long-standing legal doctrine known as “consular nonreviewability.” This legal theory, which was affirmed as recently as 2015, gives consular officers broad discretion to reject or approve individual visa applicants without those decisions being subject to judicial review. The 9th Circuit rejected the argument that consular nonreviewability could apply to broad presidential proclamations. It’s possible, though, that the courts could find that decisions to grant or deny individual waivers under the current travel ban—with those decisions purportedly made on a discretionary basis by consular officers—are indeed protected from scrutiny because of the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. If that happens, the administration could claim consular officers are making individualized, discretionary, nonreviewable decisions, while at the same time dictating what precisely each of those “discretionary” decisions should be.

In his affidavit, Richardson said the administration had done just that.

In essence what the administration was doing was “hiding” behind the doctrine of consular non-reviewability for the benefit of issuing a Muslim ban and [at] the same time usurping all of our authority given by both Congress and the [presidential proclamation] by disallowing the consular officer to make a decision.

The second consular officer made a similar assessment.

“[The] government will insist that material is non-reviewable under consular non-reviewability but it’s an intentional Catch 22, just like the waiver process [was] designed,” the consular officer said. The officer added, “They usurped our authority yet make it seem like we still have [authority] to decide.”

The veracity of the government’s claims about the waiver process matters for the purposes of the Supreme Court’s travel-ban case, Trump v. Hawaii. At oral arguments, the government claimed that the existence of the waiver process demonstrated that Trump’s third travel ban was in line with what past presidents had done. Given that, the government argued, the travel ban did not violate either the Establishment Clause or the immigration statute that bars nationality-based discrimination. (Slate sent several questions to the Department of Justice asking about waiver-process protocols and possible inconsistencies between Francisco’s statements to the court and the testimony offered in Richardson’s affidavit. “Because this case is pending, we decline to comment beyond what we argued before the Supreme Court,” DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec said.)

These new claims from Richardson and the second consular officer are particularly significant because the key justice in the case seemed particularly taken by the government’s argument that Trump’s executive order is in keeping with past presidential actions. During oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who as per usual appears to hold the decisive vote, appeared swayed by the notion that this was just like any other executive order on immigration. “In fact, if you compare this proclamation to the Reagan and the Carter proclamations, which I think were one or two sentences, this is longer than any proclamation that—that I’ve seen in this particular area,” the swing justice said, adding seconds later that it was both longer and more detailed than other such proclamations. “This is the most detailed proclamation ever issued in American history,” Francisco responded.

When Sotomayor noted that this proclamation—which again covers five majority-Muslim countries, North Korea, and a small number of Venezuelans—was much broader than previous ones, Francisco responded by citing the ban’s supposedly typical waiver process. “President Carter’s actually applied to all immigrants but then had an exception much like the waiver provision here for national interests and humanitarian concerns,” Francisco argued. “So I think President Carter’s was actually very similar to the proclamation here.”

The full truth of how the waiver process works remains unknown to all but a small group of government officials. It may ultimately be up to the courts to decide how much the public will be allowed to know about the reality on the ground, and when—if ever—we’re allowed to know it.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#246017: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:13:28 PM

[up][up]

It is a sad testament to these interesting times that the most interesting things there are the bottom two. On one hand, oh god please don't militarize space, but on the other hand Space Force seems so gloriously cheesy it makes my inner five year old want to break out my old Thunderbirds toys.

What's even left of the EPA at this stage after two years of being beaten on and being ran by a climate change denier?

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#246018: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:14:45 PM

On Ann Coulter... does she actually believe the bile she spews, or is it just to rile people up to buy her books? It's horrible either way, but it's always interesting to find out if they're true-believers or just cynics out for the money.

DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#246019: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:17:06 PM

Didn't Coulter and Trump have some kind of falling-out a while back?

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#246020: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:21:51 PM

[up][up]Coulter is a genuine fascist, and that is not hyperbole.

I'm seeing reports that a few blue states (Massachusetts and New York from what I can tell) are refusing to send their National Guard units to the border over concerns about detainee treatment/child abuse. Also, I think Colorado is reducing its cooperation with the feds on this file.

edited 18th Jun '18 12:25:16 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#246021: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:28:42 PM

[up] I love when we take Dog Whistles and turn them on their head.

Imca (Veteran)
#246022: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:39:30 PM

"Japan isn't an autocratic state"

Yes and no, it's not Putinist, but it is 100% one party with some very shady shite that has destroyed democracy.

Things like the LDP engaging in wide scale media supression, labling opposition parties terrorists, indoctinating at a school book level....

There every thing the Republican party wishes they were.

edited 18th Jun '18 12:43:16 PM by Imca

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#246023: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:42:52 PM

Nah, LDP is too...polite to be the Republican ideal. They want to be Putin. They want to murder journalists. They want to jail people for blasphemy. They want to legalize corruption. They want to use their military, at home and abroad, without regard for the consequences.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Imca (Veteran)
#246024: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:51:47 PM

[up] I guess that is fair.

That's true but misleading. Japanese elections are free and fair, but actual governance is even further from the voting public's hands than in Yes, Minister, and due to a lack of any kind of freedom of information in Japan, it's very difficult to actually run against government policies because it's hard to actually pinpoint who's responsible for what.

Still, Abe is not a Putin-style autocrat. You're not going to see Japan's eminently fair legal system used to suppress political dissent - that would require publically admitting that said dissent exists.

I keep wanting to quote this post because for the most part it hits the issue perfectly from the prespecitve of a native....

With one rather big catch, which is why I edited it out of the last post.

You're not going to see Japan's eminently fair legal system used to suppress political dissent - that would require publically admitting that said dissent exists.

This is wrong, they sic the koanchosa cho on any party left of the constitution party (which is already pretty far right), declaring them as terrorists.... including the party of actual pacifists.

There not quite murdered or arrested for there beliefs unlike Putin, but the government does every thing it can to suppress them by observing, and attempting to break up gatherings.

edited 18th Jun '18 12:52:40 PM by Imca

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#246025: Jun 18th 2018 at 12:59:53 PM

Concerning that Ann Coulter bile...As repulsive as that is, a cursory look at Coulter's history shows that this is par for the course with her.

She's human garbage, is what I'm saying.

edited 18th Jun '18 1:00:10 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

Total posts: 417,856
Top