DEMOCRAT BACKS UP OCASIO-CORTEZ: MIGRANT SHELTERS 'ARE LIKE CONCENTRATION CAMPS'
TWEET SHARE MORE 6/26/2019
A top House Democrat backed up Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday after the freshman lawmaker drew backlash for comparing detention centers housing undocumented immigrants to “concentration camps.”
"These are like concentration camps. I’m not afraid to use that word because we are concentrating people, children, in one place in horrible, unacceptable conditions," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) told Hill.TV during an appearance on “Rising.”
"If these children, if these individuals were prisoners of war we would be — the United States would be in violation of international law," she said, adding, "You can’t treat people like that."
Schakowsky, a senior chief deputy whip in House Democratic leadership, did not mention Ocasio-Cortez by name during the interview.
The New York Democrat's original remark earlier this month in which she said U.S. detention centers for migrants are "exactly" like "concentration camps" has continued to draw criticism.
A number of Republicans and Trump administration officials have blasted Ocasio-Cortez over the remark while some Jewish groups also took issue with the term, which is generally associated with the Holocaust.
“The regrettable use of Holocaust terminology to describe these contemporary concerns diminishes the evil intent of the Nazis to eradicate the Jewish people,” the nonpartisan Jewish Community Relations Council said in a statement last week.
The freshman lawmaker has repeatedly defended her use of the phrase, tweeting last week: “I will never apologize for calling these camps what they are. If that makes you uncomfortable, fight the camps - not the nomenclature."
In her interview Wednesday, Schakowsky addressed recent reports of unsanitary conditions and a lack of resources like food and soap at some facilities that are being used to house detained migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced Tuesday that more than a 100 migrant children had been moved back to a controversial border station in Clint, Texas, near the border.
Attorneys who visited the facility had told The Associated Press that the children didn’t have enough food and had gone without a shower for days.
Multiple outlets citing the Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Refugee Resettlement reported that nearly 250 children held at the facility were expected to be moved to other shelters and facilities this week.
Trump says immigration raids will happen after July 4
Trump says immigration raids will happen after July 4 BY JORDAN FABIAN 1,698 TWEET SHARE MORE President Trump said Monday that delayed immigration raids will begin after the July 4 holiday.
The president made the announcement in the Oval Office while signing legislation providing $4.6 billion in funding to address the influx of migrants from Central America at the southern border.
“After July 4, a lot of people are going to be brought back out,” Trump told reporters.
Trump said late last month he was temporarily delaying the sweeping raids and told Congress it had two weeks to pass new restrictions on asylum laws, a policy opposed by Democrats who control the House.
The raids planned by Immigration and Customs Enforcement were called off after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Trump and urged him to scuttle the operations. There were also concerns inside the administration that leaks about the raids could have jeopardized them.
Trump telegraphed that the raids are likely to take place after his two-week deadline passes, telling reporters Saturday at a news conference in Osaka, Japan, they would take place “sometime” after July 4 “unless we do something pretty miraculous.”
The two-week time period was mostly consumed by July 4 recess, when members of Congress are not in Washington. House Democrats had cited the recess as a reason to further delay the raids.
The ICE operation was set to take place in 10 major cities and target up to 2,000 immigrant family members living illegally in the U.S. for deportation, according to multiple media reports.
Ex-Homeland chief slams prior terror designation of Iran resistance group as 'naive,' wrong Ex-Homeland chief slams prior terror designation of Iran resistance group as 'naive,' wrong By Organization of Iranian American Communities Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says the Clinton administration's 1990s designation of the main Iranian resistance group as a terror... Read More Trump’s raids are the latest hard-line measure taken by the administration in an effort to deter migrants from making the journey from Central America to the U.S.
The president and the Department of Homeland Security have said the recently struck migration deal has already resulted in the number of migrants traveling to the U.S. by 25 percent.
But critics say the measures have done little to deter migrants and that the fall in border apprehension is mostly due to the rising heat in the summer months, when they are historically less likely to cross into the U.S.
July 03, 2019 - 05:36 PM EDT DOJ reverses, says it's trying to find ways to include citizenship question on 2020 census
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN TWEET SHARE MORE A lawyer with the Department of Justice (DOJ) said Wednesday that agency officials have been ordered to determine whether there is a way the administration can include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, hours after a tweet from President Trump raised confusion over the status of the question.
Joseph Hunt, an assistant attorney general with DOJ’s civil division, said Wednesday that the department has been “instructed to examine whether there is a path forward, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, that would allow us to include the citizenship question on the census.”
“We think there may be a legally available path under the Supreme Court's decision. We're examining that, looking at near-term options to see whether that's viable and possible,” Hunt said, according to a transcript of a teleconference held in federal court in Maryland.
ADVERTISEMENT The DOJ official said the agency currently plans to file a motion in the Supreme Court that would “govern further proceedings in order to simplify and expedite the remaining litigation and provide clarity to the process going forward.”
“It’s very fluid at present because we are still examining the Supreme Court's decision to see if that option is still available to us,” Hunt added, according to the transcript.
Judge George Hazel, an Obama appointee, who is currently overseeing the federal lawsuit over the citizenship question in Maryland, gave the Trump administration until 2 p.m. Friday to say that it will no longer pursue adding the question to the census.
ADVERTISEMENT If not, he asked for a proposed schedule on how he should move forward on reviewing equal protection claims in relation to the question’s addition to the 2020 census.
During Wednesday's teleconference, lawyers opposing the citizenship question suggested that Hazel could issue an order that would halt further speculation about the citizenship question's status.
"Given the way in which this has developed and given the inconsistent statements that we're hearing from the Justice Department and the Commerce Department, on the one hand, and from the president on the other hand, we think that to effectuate the relief that we've sought, which is an injunction barring the inquiring of citizenship status on the 2020 census, this is the kind of relief that's necessary," Shankar Duraiswamy, who is representing some of the parties in the Maryland case, said on the call. "And it's appropriate and within the power of the court."
The call was held after President Trump tweeted earlier Wednesday that his administration would continue to pursue adding the question to the 2020 census, after officials initially said Tuesday that the administration would drop that effort.
ADVERTISEMENT Hazel said during the call that he scheduled the conference in light of Trump’s tweet.
“I don't know how many federal judges have Twitter accounts, but I happen to be one of them, and I follow the president, and so I saw a tweet that directly contradicted the position” the DOJ had given the day before, Hazel said, according to the transcript.
“I think I'm actually being really reasonable here and just saying I need a final answer by Friday at 2 p.m. or we're going forward,” the judge said.
Hazel, an Obama appointee, has been tasked with reviewing whether there was a discriminatory intent behind the citizenship question’s addition to the 2020 census, a different legal question than the one addressed by the Supreme Court last week. That case could be potentially be dropped if it’s determined that the question won’t appear.
Joshua Gardner, another DOJ lawyer, indicated during the call that he wasn’t aware of the change in the status of the citizenship question efforts ahead of Trump’s tweet.
ADVERTISEMENT “The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the president's position on this issue, just like the plaintiffs and Your Honor. I do not have a deeper understanding of what that means at this juncture other than what the president has tweeted,” Gardner said. “But, obviously, as you can imagine, I am doing my absolute best to figure out what's going on.”
Judge Jesse Furman, in federal court in New York, has also given DOJ until 6 p.m. on Wednesday to state their “position and intentions” on the citizenship question.
That order came after groups challenging the question requested that Furman, an Obama appointee, hold an emergency hearing on the question’s status, citing the president’s tweet stating that the administration would continue to pursue adding the question to the 2020 census.
Trump administration officials had said Tuesday that the 2020 census would be printed without a citizenship question, but Trump’s tweet appeared to contradict those statements.
“Because this statement is not consistent with the representations Defendants’ counsel made to Plaintiffs and a federal court yesterday, and because proceeding with a citizenship question at this point would violate this Court’s injunction — which the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce — Plaintiffs request an immediate status conference so the Court and the parties can determine Defendants’ current position and whether any emergency relief is needed,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, the American Civil Liberties Union and other attorneys wrote.
Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which is involved in the Maryland lawsuit, said in a statement that under the Trump administration, “there's no accounting for doubling down on stupid."
“Unfortunately, and embarrassingly for our nation, today's reversal from yesterday's certainty repeats the pattern of this entire affair, which began with Secretary Wilbur Ross — who inexplicably remains in the Cabinet — lying to Congress and the public about the reason for the late attempted addition of a citizenship question to Census 2020,” Saenz said.
ADVERTISEMENT “MALDEF is fully prepared to demonstrate in court that racism is the true motivation for adding the question, and by doing so, to prevent the question from appearing on the census."
Denise Hulett, the national senior counsel at MALDEF and the lead attorney for the group in the Maryland case, said that administration’s actions “will result in the same kind of misinformation that leads our communities to be reluctant to participate in the Census, at a time when the Census Bureau should be actively encouraging everyone’s full participation.”
Hulett said that Trump's tweet "has some of the same effects that the addition of the question would in the first place and some of the same effects on the 18-month battle that was just waged over the citizenship question."
"So we strongly believe that we're going to need some affirmative commitment, whether it's through a stipulation or by order of this court, an affirmative commitment from the government to counter misinformation wherever in the government that it comes from, a commitment that they will respond quickly and comprehensively to that kind of misinformation," Hulett continued.
Hazel replied by saying that he didn't think the lawyers were asking him to "enjoin the President of the United States from tweeting things," adding that if so, it would "raise some concern."
However, Hazel raised the possibility of him issuing an order requiring "the Census Bureau or the Department of Commerce to take whatever steps are necessary to counteract any such message, which, again, I this is an odd place for the judiciary to be."
Gardner, the DOJ attorney, replied by noting that "this is a very fluid situation which we are trying to get our arms around."
Furman said in his order that he will determine whether an emergency hearing should be held after the Trump administration makes its filing.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last week to block the citizenship question from appearing on the census for the time being, finding the administration’s argument that the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act didn’t line up with evidence provided in the case.
Trump officials appeared to have conceded that the question wouldn’t appear on the 2020 census: Both the Justice Department and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Tuesday that printing would begin for census materials without a citizenship question.
But the president cast that outcome into doubt on Wednesday, when he tweeted that reporting based on his own administration’s statements was “fake news.”
“We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question,” Trump tweeted.
ACLU Voting Rights Project Director Dale Ho vowed Wednesday to continue fighting the issue in court.
"The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s effort to add a census citizenship question was illegal because it was based on a ‘contrived’ rationale. Despite that, and despite DOJ’s repeated statements that the census questionnaire cannot be changed after June 30, the administration is now examining whether it can concoct a ‘new rationale’ for its citizenship question," he said in a statement. "The answer is no, it cannot — at least not a legal one. Any attempt at an end run around the Supreme Court’s decision will be unsuccessful, and will be met swiftly in court.”
BY BRETT SAMUELS TWEETSHAREMORE The specter of sweeping immigration raids this week in several major cities has sparked unrest among advocates and Democrats as the Trump administration escalates its efforts to deport those in the country illegally. The operation, expected to begin Sunday, fulfills a pledge from President Trump, who earlier this month vowed the raids would commence after delaying them for a few weeks. “People come into our country illegally, we’re taking them out legally. It’s very simple,” Trump told reporters Friday. “It’s not something I like doing.” ADVERTISEMENT The move has riled up critics and lawmakers who have in recent weeks sought to shine a light on the Trump administration's treatment of migrants. Democrats and immigration advocacy groups have warned that the raids could lead to further family separations and increase populations in already overcrowded detention facilities. The exercise was originally scheduled to take place last month. But after its details were widely publicized, the president tweeted on June 22 that the raids would be delayed for two weeks to give lawmakers an opportunity to hammer out changes to the nation's immigration laws. The odds of such an agreement were practically zero given control of Congress is divided and recent proposals to address the asylum system have failed to gain any traction. ADVERTISEMENT As a result, the raids will start on Sunday and could last through Friday. “There’s nothing to be secret about,” Trump said last Friday. “If the word gets out, it gets out. Because hundreds of people know about it. It's a major operation.” Sergio Gonzales, deputy director of The Immigration Hub, said the progressive group is anticipating federal agents will target between 5,000 and 7,000 people with a focus on 10 major cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York and San Francisco. An ICE spokesman declined to comment on the specifics of the undertaking, citing concerns for the safety of agents. The agency will prioritize the arrest and removal of those who pose a security threat, but the spokesman acknowledged others found during the raids without proper documentation may be subject to arrest and removal. ADVERTISEMENT “[Trump] continues to carry out these really wide, sweeping operations that have huge adverse impacts and also inflict a lot of pain on people,” Gonzales said. “And in a lot of cases amount to what you would call human rights abuses.” The plans have been met with resistance among Democrats, immigration advocacy groups and local officials whose cities are likely to be targeted. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said Wednesday that city police would not assist in the raids. Denver Mayor Michael Hancock said Friday that the city “will never support” round-ups that are “only meant to spread fear.” The American Civil Liberties Union preemptively filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration days before the raids began in an effort to protect asylum seekers from deportation, and advocacy groups nationwide have mobilized to inform immigrant communities about their rights and legal resources. The raids could lead to family separations if single parents or individual children are detained, a point of concern among Democrats. ADVERTISEMENT “Families belong together,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a press conference Thursday. “Every person in America has rights. These families are hardworking Members of our communities and our country. This brutal action will terrorize children and tear families apart.” The arrests of family members could produce striking images at a time when Democrats are hammering the Trump administration over its treatment of migrants. The House Oversight Committee held a hearing on Friday focused on the administration's family separation policy, where lawmakers testified that they witnessed migrants living in shoddy conditions without proper hygiene or access to basic necessities. Gonzales, the Immigration Hub official, accused the Trump administration of hypocrisy by simultaneously arguing it needs additional resources to handle the influx of migrants and rounding up scores of individuals who must be processed and in some cases held in detention facilities. “Now you’re going to be sending more people into these places where there’s well documented abuses and mistreatment,” he said. ADVERTISEMENT But administration officials and Republican lawmakers have defended the decision to move forward with the raids, attempting to downplay who will be targeted by the sweeps and blaming Democrats for failing to compromise on legislation. Trump claimed the operation is focused on “criminals” and “bad players,” though opponents argue the president tends to broadly paint immigrants in those terms. Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, portrayed the deportations as a necessary law enforcement mission and downplayed concerns that the round-ups will further stress an already taxed system. “You cannot forfeit the other parts of the pipeline,” he said on CNN last week. “The end of the pipeline of illegal immigration is deportation.” Government data showed the number of border crossings dropped by nearly 30 percent in May, and Trump has been complimentary of Mexico for increasing its efforts to control the surge of migrants headed for the southern border. Despite progress on that front, Trump portrayed the raids as a necessary measure as he seeks to prove he's willing to enforce his hard-line immigration agenda. “I have an obligation to do it,” Trump said Friday. “What the Democrats should be doing now is they should be changing the loopholes. They should be changing asylum.”
The Trump administration is moving to end asylum protections for most Central American migrants, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced Monday. According to text of the rule set to publish in the Federal Register on Tuesday, asylum seekers who pass through another country before reaching the United States will be ineligible for asylum when they reach the southern border.
The move marks an acceleration in the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the number of migrants crossing the U.S. border with Mexico and has the potential to considerably reduce the number of asylum claims. The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice announced the Interim Final Rule (IFR) in a joint statement Monday. “The Departments are amending their respective regulations to provide that, with limited exceptions, an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum,” states the text of the rule. Under the rule, those who have been the victims of trafficking are granted exceptions. The rule also allows exceptions for migrants passing through countries that have not signed major international refugee treaties and for migrants who have been denied asylum in the countries they traveled through. Trump administration officials described it as necessary to reduce the burden placed on the U.S. by the growing number of immigrants seeking asylum at the southern border by allowing agencies to more quickly process cases by weeding out individuals trying to “exploit” the asylum protections. “The United States is a generous country but is being completely overwhelmed by the burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of aliens along the southern border,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. “This Rule will decrease forum shopping by economic migrants and those who seek to exploit our asylum system to obtain entry to the United States—while ensuring that no one is removed from the United States who is more likely than not to be tortured or persecuted on account of a protected ground,” Barr said. In addition to ending asylum protections for most Central Americans, the rule is also likely to add a new hurdle for asylum-seekers as they go through legal proceedings to remain in the U.S., as it would require officers and immigration judges “to apply this new bar on asylum eligibility” during “credible-fear” interviews, according to the text of the rule. The rule applies only to those who enter or arrive in the U.S. on or after the rule’s effective date, which is expected to be Tuesday. The move is likely to face legal challenges. The American Civil Liberties Union promised to "swiftly" counter the new restrictions in court shortly after the rule's announcement. “The Trump administration is trying to unilaterally reverse our country's legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger," Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project said in a statement. This new rule is patently unlawful and we will sue swiftly.” Central Americans make up the bulk of non-Mexican migrants attempting to enter the United States through the Southwest border to claim asylum, but recent years have seen an increase in prospective asylees from the Caribbean, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The announcement is the latest of several efforts by the Trump administration to tighten asylum rules at the border. The president has railed against asylum-seekers, and announced earlier this year that he would seek to adopt a series of restrictive measures aimed at those hoping to obtain asylum within the U.S. Monday’s announcement also landed after immigration raids took place across the nation this weekend. The ACLU filed a preemptive lawsuit ahead of the raids aimed at protecting the rights of asylum-seekers within the United States. Barr earlier this year issued an order that would allow for certain asylum-seekers to be detained indefinitely during immigration proceedings. But a federal judge in Seattle struck down that rule, finding it unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is now hearing briefings on the appeal of the order. The administration also implemented a “Remain in Mexico” policy earlier this year that requires that some asylum-seekers stay in Mexico while their cases are processed. A district judge in California initially ruled against the policy and blocked it from going into effect, but the Ninth Circuit has since allowed it to be enforced during the appeals process. Trump has for months decried U.S. immigration laws as the “dumbest” and “worst” of any country in the world. He has repeatedly called on Congress to tighten asylum laws in particular, but legislation to do so has failed to gain traction in either chamber. Lawmakers late last month passed a funding package that included $4.5 billion in resources for agencies responding to the influx of migrants at the southern border. Apprehension numbers surged in the first half of 2019, with a sharp decrease coming in June. Acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kevin McAleenan said in a statement Monday that the additional funding was insufficient on its own, and that the interim rule will “reduce overwhelming burdens” on the immigration system in the meantime. The rule announcement comes on the heels of visits to the border by several lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence. Democrats expressed outrage after they said they witnessed migrants being held in shoddy conditions without access to basic hygiene and other resources.
Pence visited detention facilities in Texas last week, and was joined by Republican senators. Images and video quickly circulated of hundreds of men crowded into cages who said they had not showered in days and lacked access to basic resources. Pence said he was “not surprised” by the images, but credited border agents for their “compassionate work.”
President Trump on Monday stepped up his attacks on four progressive, minority Democratic lawmakers, which were widely condemned by Democrats as racist and unbecoming of an American president. One day after Trump said the women should “go back” to their home countries, even though all are U.S. citizens, the president denied he was being racist and expressed no remorse when told that white nationalist groups found common cause with his message. “It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me,” Trump told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House during an event designed to highlight American manufacturing. ADVERTISEMENT Trump said the members of Congress “hate our country,” harbor hatred of Jews and love for terrorist groups and are “free to leave” the U.S. if they choose. “They can leave. And you know what? I’m sure there will be many people that won’t miss them. But they have to love our country. They’re congresspeople,” he said. The president’s attacks were aimed at Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). The first three were all born in the U.S. and the latter is a naturalized citizen who was a refugee from Somalia. ADVERTISEMENT “I’m saying that they’re socialists definitely. As to whether or not they’re communists, I would think they might be,” the president continued, adding in an apparent shot at his critics that “politicians can’t be afraid to take them on.” Trump’s sustained barrage appeared to be aimed at firing up his mostly white political base ahead of the 2020 presidential election. But it also galvanized infighting-plagued Democrats in the House and exposed rifts within the Republican Party over Trump’s rhetoric. Trump spoke shortly after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rallied support for a forthcoming resolution that would condemn the president’s statements as xenophobic. The move came after the president doubled down on his criticism of the lawmakers in a string of Monday morning tweets, in which he called on them to apologize for their “foul language & racist hatred.” The president responded by accusing Pelosi of making “a very racist statement” when she said he wanted to “make America white again.” ADVERTISEMENT “If they want to gear their wagons around these four people, I think they’re going to have a very tough election because I don’t think the people of the United States are going to stand for it,” Trump said of the Democrats. After remaining silent over the weekend after Trump leveled his initial attacks, a growing number of GOP lawmakers who mostly represent swing states and congressional districts criticized the comments. “I am confident that every Member of Congress is a committed American. @realDonaldTrump’s tweets from this weekend were racist and he should apologize. We must work as a country to rise above hate, not enable it,” tweeted Rep. Michael Turner, a Republican who represents a safe Ohio district, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday urged House Democrats to support a resolution to condemn President Trump for tweeting that four Democratic congresswomen of color should "go back" to their countries, even though all are U.S. citizens.
"The House cannot allow the President’s characterization of immigrants to our country to stand. Our Republican colleagues must join us in condemning the President’s xenophobic tweets," Pelosi wrote in a letter to House Democrats announcing a "forthcoming" resolution from Reps. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), who was born in Poland, Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and other Democratic members who were born abroad.
"This weekend, the President went beyond his own low standards using disgraceful language about Members of Congress," Pelosi added. "Rather than attack Members of Congress, he should work with us for humane immigration policy that reflects American values."
Omar, who came to the U.S. as a refugee from Somalia, is the only one among the four who was born in a foreign country.
"So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run," Trump wrote in a series of tweets Sunday morning.
The House resolution would offer Democrats a chance to unite after internal strife over the past week when the four freshman lawmakers sparred with party leaders. Ocasio-Cortez had suggested in an interview with The Washington Post last week that Pelosi was engaging in a pattern of "explicit singling out of newly elected women of color."
Pelosi defended Ocasio-Cortez and the three other progressive lawmakers on Sunday after Trump's tweets.
"When @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to 'Make America Great Again' has always been about making America white again," Pelosi tweeted. "Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power."
The resolution, depending on how it's worded, could pose a test for House Republicans and the growing number of GOP lawmakers who are criticizing Trump for his weekend remarks.
While most Republicans were silent about the issue on Sunday, several have since come out and chastised the president.
Rep. Will Hurd (Texas), the only African American House Republican, was the first to GOP lawmaker to characterize Trump's tweet as "racist."
Other Republicans who criticized Trump stopped short of describing the remarks as racist. Many of the GOP critics represent districts that will be Democratic targets in 2020.
"The Tweet President Trump posted over the weekend about fellow Members of Congress are not reflective of the values of the 1,000,000+ people in Texas 22. We are proud to be the most diverse Congressional district in America. I urge our President immediately disavow his comments," tweeted Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), whose district Democrats are eyeing for next year's elections.
"The president's remarks to my colleagues across the aisle are inappropriate and do not reflect American values," tweeted Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), who serves as recruitment chair for the House GOP arm but is retiring.
Republican leaders in the House and Senate have yet to comment on Trump's tweets.
Trump has not retreated from his initial remarks. On Sunday evening, he doubled down after Pelosi defended the four freshman lawmakers.
"So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our Country and who, in addition, hate Israel with a true and unbridled passion. Whenever confronted, they call their adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi, 'RACIST, '" Trump tweeted.
"Their disgusting language and the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged. If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior, then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020!" Trump added.
Trump later said his tweets were "not at all" racist.
“Not at all,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday when asked if his tweets about the lawmakers were racist. “If somebody has a problem with our country, if somebody doesn’t want to be in our country, they should leave.”
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) is also drafting a resolution to condemn Trump for his tweets. A spokesman for Jackson Lee said that her office is in discussions with House leadership.
OPINION Trump's immigration deal with Mexico is working by Jan Brewer | July 16, 2019 12:00 AM Print this article
The Democrats have underestimated President Trump yet again. His bilateral immigration deal with Mexico is already proving to be far more effective than his critics had predicted.
With Democrats in Congress still refusing to provide the necessary resources for border security despite the massive surge in illegal immigration that has taken place in recent months, Trump turned to Mexico as an unlikely partner to help get the humanitarian and national security crisis under control. Predictably, Trump’s critics lambasted the idea from the outset. First, they insisted that his threat to impose across-the-board tariffs on Mexican goods would never lead to an agreement. Then, after Mexico quickly acceded to a deal before the tariffs could take effect, liberals changed course and argued that the actions Mexico had committed to take, such as deploying thousands of their National Guard troops to assist with immigration enforcement and requiring migrants to stay in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed by American authorities, would have no impact on illegal immigration into the U.S.
Chief Political Correspondent Byron York on the expanded Washington Examiner magazine Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads “I think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved,” Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said at the time. “These are agreements that Mexico had already made and, in some cases, months ago.” Some even argued that the bilateral immigration deal with Mexico was a pipe dream to begin with. They predicted that Trump’s effort to pressure our southern neighbor with tariffs would backfire. “President Trump has a habit of talking tough and then retreating, because his policies often can’t be implemented or don’t make sense,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in early June. He was implying that there would be no immigration deal with Mexico because Donald Trump’s tariffs were an empty threat. After just four weeks, though, we now have concrete proof that Trump knew what he was doing all along. Thanks to Mexico’s deployment of National Guard troops to intercept migrants on their way to the U.S. border, the number of illegal immigrants apprehended at the border declined significantly in June after remaining at abnormally high levels throughout the first half of the year. According to the latest figures from Homeland Security, the number of border apprehensions declined from 132,880 in May to 94,897 in June, a 29% drop in the space of just a few weeks. The improvement was even more dramatic for family units and unaccompanied minors, two categories that have accounted for an unusually large share of the recent flood of illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, the expanded “Remain in Mexico” policy that was put in place under the agreement is easing the pressure on our immigration enforcement agencies, which have been overwhelmed by the sheer number of people caught illegally crossing the border. Before Trump negotiated the deal with Mexico, Homeland Security had to release more than 1,200 illegal immigrants into the U.S. interior every single day because Congress had not allocated enough resources to process and care for the huge number of detainees in custody. Now that asylum-seekers have to wait in Mexico until their cases are adjudicated, rather than being released into American communities to await their hearings, fewer than 200 illegal immigrants are being released each day, an 85% decrease. Of course, when Trump first announced the joint border security agreement with Mexico, his opponents vehemently insisted that the progress he had just achieved was illusory, predicting that the deal wouldn’t actually help to solve the illegal immigration crisis. That was clearly just wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats, whose ultimate objective is to dismantle our entire immigration system and open our borders to anyone who wishes to enter the country for any reason. After being humiliated by the unexpected ease with which Trump convinced Mexico to help fight illegal immigration, liberals tried to save face by pretending that the deal was toothless. Now they have been humiliated yet again by the undeniable impact the agreement has had in a remarkably short period of time. In truth, the Democrats have only themselves to blame for underestimating Trump’s border security deal with Mexico. Their radicalism clouded their judgment, just as it has throughout the Trump presidency, and they’ve offered no indication that they’re ready to start accepting reality any time soon.
The release of border crossers and illegal aliens into the United States interior by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been cut by 85 percent in the four weeks since President Trump announced a migration deal with Mexico. Between July 2 and July 9, DHS released about 1,500 border crossers and illegal aliens into American communities, federal data confirms. This indicates that DHS is releasing about 188 border crossers and illegal aliens every day into the country.
This is a significant drop in the catch and release of border crossers and illegal aliens in just four weeks, since Trump announced a deal with Mexico that mandates foreign nationals seeking asylum wait in Mexico while their claims are processed. Four weeks ago, for example, about 1,214 border crossers and illegal aliens were being released every day into the interior of the U.S. From June 4 to June 11, about 8,500 border crossers and illegal aliens were released into the country. The data indicates an 85 percent reduction of catch and release of border crossers and illegal aliens into the country since Trump announced the Mexico migration deal. As Breitbart News has chronicled, the release of illegal aliens into the country has steadily dropped over the last three weeks. Over the last week, about 1,000 border crossers and illegal aliens were released into San Antonio, Texas, while about 500 were released in San Diego. Since December 21, 2018, at least 214,500 border crossers and illegal aliens have been released into the U.S. by DHS. The catch and release process often entails federal immigration officials busing border crossers into nearby border cities — as well as flying them into the interior of the country — and dropping them off with the hope they show up for their immigration and asylum hearings. The overwhelming majority of border crossers and illegal aliens are never deported from the country once they are released into the U.S. Today, there are anywhere between 11 million and 22 million illegal aliens living across the country — the majority of which are concentrated in states like California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Illinois. Former Kansas Secretary of State and U.S. Senate candidate Kris Kobach has detailed exclusively at Breitbart News three executive actions the Trump administration and DHS officials could take to immediately end catch and release — including creating additional detention space where immigration court hearings can be heard quickly. Kobach has also warned that wage hikes for America’s blue-collar and working class will not continue while illegal immigration levels continue soaring at current rates. Every year, the U.S. admits about 1.2 million legal immigrants with the overwhelming majority, nearly 70 percent, coming through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign nationals to the country. The mass inflow of legal immigrants is in addition to the hundreds of illegal aliens who are added to the U.S. population annually.
A catholic doesn’t accept abortions to support fake global warming or illegal immigration Nobody against legal immigrants Problem with criminal and illegal The progressive want to make illegal immigration not a criminal issue Even Obama officials refuse this