I’m guessing the gals entering the border control points will have to take pregnancy tests soon. Perhaps as part of a pre-clearance process.
I thought government workers are protected by qualified immunity from such civil suits.
The people who will lose their jobs will be the people who refuse to enforce Trump’s rules. We saw in Trump’s first administration that immigration police were all too willing to put people in cages and separate kids from their parents. What is it you think they will not do?
It worked for Nixon.
Then the deportee citizen calls a US attorney and they file a lawsuit.
That’s not the same as saying illegal acts are legal as long as the President does it. It just means he is protected from criminal and civil penalties.
I’m not sure, I’m just addressing the possibilities. For instance:
Was Nixon ordering people to do something that he was specifically told not to do by the courts, or was it just a bad idea?
There’s a difference between, “I’ll do what the president tells me to do”, and “I’ll do what the president tells me to do, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal.”
Eventually they’ll have to decide where their loyalty lies, and then we’ll find out what they’re actually willing to do. I’m not really looking forward to the finding out, though, since the results will all be bad. The only difference is in how bad, and the nature of that badness. Do enough people support a criminal president? If not, what happens when the legal president has no power to do anything, because the civil service have collectively told him to piss off? What happens if the civil service splits 50-50, or 60-40?
That’s how.
Right. The way I remember it, the most recent time that happened was back during Andrew Jackson’s day, with the Trail of Tears. If it’s happened since, I must have either not heard about it or forgotten about it.
The program was implemented in June 1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell.[1] The short-lived operation used military-style tactics to remove Mexican immigrants—some of them American citizens—from the United States.
But that wasn’t ruled illegal by the courts at the time it was happening.
Those who are saying Trump can’t do half the stuff he wants to do are largely basing that on the assumption that some court will rule against him, and that this ruling will have some great effect. That’s the great unanswered question.
And now it can be pointed to as precedent.
And now the president is legally immune from breaking the law.
Not when they are sued in their capacity as a public official, to stop doing actions contrary to law.
You do realize that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in very few matters, right? Any suit over immigration policy will originate with a federal or state judge, then go to the Court of Appeals, then get appealed en banc, and then and only then doss the Supreme Court get a chance to look at it, during which time the orders in question will be stayed and unenactable.
That’s not a process that will play out in the span of a single presidential term.
Meanwhile, Trump is also claiming he wants to work with Democrats to help DACAs get citizenship, because his immigration policy is, like the rest of him, confused and incoherent.
https://www.boundless.com/blog/trump-signals-willingness-to-work-with-democrats-on-daca/
Would this be some of the same Democrats he wants dead, or just some he wants jailed?
You may be delusional. If so, you’re my kind of delusional. From your lips to dog’s ear… or your keyboard to dogs eyes … whatever. It all works for me if it happens.
Back in 1976 Gary Trudeau came up with the best way to handle leaders like Trump.
So how does that contradict what I said that he only needs to win in the court of last appeal?
He won’t be president anymore by the time it gets there. “Should several million people be retroactively stripped of their citizenship?” isn’t a question any court is going to be able to resolve quickly.