The Jury Talks Back


Arizona Democrat Works To Hasten Removal Of Migrants Without Valid Claim For Asylum

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 1:57 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Immigration advocates are strongly opposing this effort by Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz), as expected:

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is pushing for the implementation of a pilot program along the U.S.-Mexico border that aims to more quickly screen and remove migrant families without valid legal claims for asylum in the United States.

Sinema, D-Ariz., joined a bipartisan group with eight other senators who sent a letter Wednesday to acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan describing their proposed program, dubbed “Operation Safe Return.”

How the program would work:

The program would allow the Department of Homeland Security to deport certain migrants within 15 days, according to the letter, and would help alleviate overcrowding at border facilities, Sinema said.

“This pilot program would apply to families who aren’t claiming ‘credible fear,’ which of course is the first threshold in seeking asylum,” Sinema told The Arizona Republic. “If someone says ‘I left my country because I can’t make a living,’ (or) ‘it’s hard to take care of my family’ — that’s what we call an economic migrant.”

Sinema, who is one of the creators of the program, explained how the program came about:

Sinema said she came up with the idea for the pilot program in response to a meeting with White House and Trump administration officials who she said were focused on changing asylum laws and challenging court rulings like the Flores Settlement Agreement, dictating how the government treats certain migrants.

“I just felt those weren’t the right answers,” Sinema added. “We wanted to solve the problem. We wanted to protect the asylum process for valid applicants … and we want to respect the Flores decision.”

And speaking of Arizona Democrats bucking their Party on immigration, U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kelly flashed his own independent streak when he voiced opposition to making Tuscon a sanctuary city:

Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate Mark Kelly blasted an initiative to make Tucson a “sanctuary city,” saying that he will not vote for the measure.

“(I’m) strongly against this, I’m not going to vote for it,” Kelly said Tuesday, “I think it’s a mistake.”

In November, voters will decide whether Tucson declares itself Arizona’s first “sanctuary city,” which limits local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration agents.

Kelly… said cities and states should follow federal laws.

“This is contrary to that so I’m not in favor of that. I think it’s also detrimental to the City of Tucson in that it could impact some federal funding it receives,” he said.

Ironically, this stand puts him on the same page as his Republican opponent, Sen. Martha McSally.

But Kelly didn’t just buck Democrats on sanctuary city policies: He also said “no” to extending health care to illegal immigrants, a position all of the Democratic presidential candidates support:

‘We’re having a hard time providing good healthcare for all Americans,” Kelly said, “providing free healthcare coverage for folks who are here illegally, I’m just against that.”

Moreover, the Democratic candidate also said he was not in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings:

Kelly disagreed with the more progressive candidates in the presidential field who want to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings.

“I am not in favor of decriminalizing that it makes border security more difficult,” he said.

I’m liking these Arizona Democrats.


UN Recognizes Israel As Only Country To Violate Women’s Rights

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 12:43 pm

[guest post by Dana]

The hell:

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan were among members of the UN’s 54-nation economic and social council, a principal organ of the world body, who voted to single out and condemn Israel yesterday as the only country in the world that violates women’s rights.

The Jewish state was harshly and repeatedly condemned in a resolution, adopted 40 to 2 with 9 abstentions and 3 absent (see breakdown below), for allegedly being the “major obstacle” for Palestinian women “with regard to their advancement, self-reliance, and integration in the development of their society.”

Out of 20 items on the UN Economic and Social Council’s 2018-2019 agenda, only one — Item No. 16 against Israel — focuses on condemning a specific country. All the other focus areas concern global topics such as disaster relief assistance and the use of science and technology for development.

The resolution completely ignores how Palestinian women’s rights are impacted by their own governing authorities—the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza—nor does it mention how women are discriminated against within patriarchal Palestinian society.

Moreover, ECOSOC concluded its annual session by ignoring the world’s worst abusers of women’s rights, refusing to pass a single resolution on the situation of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, or DR Congo, all of which ranked in the top ten worst countries in last year’s Global Gender Gap Report, produced by the World Economic Forum.

Here is the breakdown of the vote on condemning Israel for violating women’s rights:

YES: Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Benin, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Korea, Russia, St. Vincent, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yemen.

NO: United States and Canada

ABSTAIN: Brazil, Cameroon, Germany, Jamaica, Mexico, Romania, Togo, Ukraine, and United Kingdom

Tell me this organization isn’t just one festering cesspool of unabashed hypocrisy. Some things never change. They just get worse.


(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


About This Ridiculous Argument that Mueller Inverted the Burden of Proof

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 8:09 am

I watched some of the Mueller hearings yesterday and realized I have nothing in common with the Republicans any more. They were all up there trying to pretend that this was a giant witch hunt and waxing indignant about how poor Trump was the most oppressed guy ever. Example:

“Mr. Mueller, I want to focus on one word in your report. It’s the second to the last word. It’s “exonerate.”… What I’m putting up here is the United States code. This is where the attorney general gets his power, and the Constitution, and the annotated cases of these, which we’ve searched. We even went to your law school.… I thought maybe your law school teaches it differently. Mr. Mueller, nowhere in these is there a process or description on “exonerate.”… You don’t have the power or authority to exonerate Trump. You have no more power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him Anderson Cooper.” Congressman Michael Turner, R-Ohio

Thanks to Bugg for the quote.

“Let’s pretend different rules don’t apply to the President and then feign indignation” Congressyapping is my favorite Congressyapping. Mueller twisted himself into a pretzel applying the rule that says Presidents can’t be indicted. He took that rule it so seriously that when he had a provable obstruction case — one that would get anyone else on Earth indicted — he not only didn’t indict, but he won’t even say the obvious: that he would have indicted absent that rule. But, not wanting to send the false suggestion that he failed to indict because he lacked the evidence, he said that he could not exonerate the president.

Then people like Michael Turner (consistent with his surname) turned that perhaps overly careful example of rule-following on its head, and converted it into an example of Mueller supposedly being unfair to Trump.

And the people who love conservative talk radio applauded.

If you can’t see that Mueller is bending over backwards to be fair to Trump here, you might be a redneck hopeless partisan.

Don’t fret. You have plenty of company.

Let me put it a different way: if you really think Mueller is being unfair because he’s not applying all the standard rules to Trump regarding the burden of proof, then I’m sure you’ll agree with me when I say: let’s apply all the standard rules to Trump — including the one that says that guilty people get prosecuted. How about we apply the rule when a prosecutor builds a mountain of evidence against you showing your obstruction of justice, you get indicted. Let’s see how well that works out for poor oppressed Mr. Victim of a Witchhunt then.

Until then, save your complaints. They don’t convince anyone whose judgment has not been clouded by partisan politics.

Powered by WordPress.