Jeff Sessions is downright evil

[UncleMark]

As much as I appreciate him sticking to his guns and pissing Trump off over his Russian investigation recusal, Jeff Sessions continues to show his disdain for the law, and is proving to be a brutal, immoral, and petty man. This is beyond comprehension:

Jeff Sessions Is Hijacking Immigration Law

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ely-used-provision.html?via=homepage_taps_top

Sessions not only ignored DHS concerns about the case but, as 16 former immigration judges pointed out in their amicus brief, trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerable women. First, he failed to require Couch, the original presiding judge, to make a final decision before sending the case back to the BIA. The regulations controlling immigration appeals allow an immigration judge to send a case to the BIA only after a decision has been issued by the original judge. Next, Sessions failed to wait for the BIA to adjudicate the case before snapping it up for his personal analysis. Even if Judge Couch hadn’t improperly sent the case back to the BIA, Sessions was obligated to wait for the BIA to decide the case before intervening. The self-referral provision permits the attorney general to review BIA decisions, not cases that are merely awaiting adjudication.

Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the question Sessions sought to answer in this case, namely “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum” was not a question considered by any court in Matter of A-B-. Rather, it was one Sessions seemingly lifted directly from hardline immigration restrictionists, knowing that the answer had the potential to all but eliminate domestic violence–based asylum claims.

On June 11, after receiving 11 amicus briefs in support of asylum-seekers like Ms. A-B- and only one against, the attorney general ruled that private activity is not grounds for asylum, including in cases of domestic violence. Ms. A-B-’s case, in Sessions’ hands, became a vehicle by which to rewrite our asylum laws without waiting on Congress.​

 

[Bruce1]

Am I understand correctly? Prior to this change a woman who was being abused by her husband in a foreign country where the norms protect the husband can request asylum in the US with all of the corresponding benefits?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Am I understand correctly? Prior to this change a woman who was being abused by her husband in a foreign country where the norms protect the husband can request asylum in the US with all of the corresponding benefits?

Sort of. You have a problem with that? You don't think victims of marital abuse from countries who steadfastly refuse to protect them from said abuse have a valid reason to seek asylum in another country?

 

[gmhowes]

As much as I appreciate him sticking to his guns and pissing Trump off over his Russian investigation recusal, Jeff Sessions continues to show his disdain for the law, and is proving to be a brutal, immoral, and petty man. This is beyond comprehension:

Jeff Sessions Is Hijacking Immigration Law

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ely-used-provision.html?via=homepage_taps_top

Sessions not only ignored DHS concerns about the case but, as 16 former immigration judges pointed out in their amicus brief, trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerable women. First, he failed to require Couch, the original presiding judge, to make a final decision before sending the case back to the BIA. The regulations controlling immigration appeals allow an immigration judge to send a case to the BIA only after a decision has been issued by the original judge. Next, Sessions failed to wait for the BIA to adjudicate the case before snapping it up for his personal analysis. Even if Judge Couch hadn’t improperly sent the case back to the BIA, Sessions was obligated to wait for the BIA to decide the case before intervening. The self-referral provision permits the attorney general to review BIA decisions, not cases that are merely awaiting adjudication.

Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the question Sessions sought to answer in this case, namely “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum” was not a question considered by any court in Matter of A-B-. Rather, it was one Sessions seemingly lifted directly from hardline immigration restrictionists, knowing that the answer had the potential to all but eliminate domestic violence–based asylum claims.

On June 11, after receiving 11 amicus briefs in support of asylum-seekers like Ms. A-B- and only one against, the attorney general ruled that private activity is not grounds for asylum, including in cases of domestic violence. Ms. A-B-’s case, in Sessions’ hands, became a vehicle by which to rewrite our asylum laws without waiting on Congress.​

He was taught by rocket man in a N Korean monestary.

 

[zeke4ahs]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/us/immigration-separated-children-southern-border/index.html
This is who we have become. And building tent cities for children. Impossible to believe we can't do better than this.

 

[sglowrider]

 

[Ohio Guy]

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

All of that is truly sickening, depressing and shameful. I'm truly ashamed that my country is allowing this to happen. Anyone who feels they can defend this is truly a reprehensible, morally corrupt human being who is beyond repair. And while I place the blame for this squarely at the feet of the current administration - this isn't an 'R' or 'D' thing. If this had somehow happened under a democratic president, I'd have the same feelings of disgust.

And to the (hopefully) smaller subset of people who'd defend this by propping up arguments about Trump getting elected as the lesser of two evils because he'll appoint far-right conservative supreme court justices or he'll undo everything the Obama administration did, go eff yourself.

 

[sglowrider]

All of that is truly sickening, depressing and shameful. I'm truly ashamed that my country is allowing this to happen. Anyone who feels they can defend this is truly a reprehensible, morally corrupt human being who is beyond repair. And while I place the blame for this squarely at the feet of the current administration - this isn't an 'R' or 'D' thing. If this had somehow happened under a democratic president, I'd have the same feelings of disgust.

And to the (hopefully) smaller subset of people who'd defend this by propping up arguments about Trump getting elected as the lesser of two evils because he'll appoint far-right conservative supreme court justices or he'll undo everything the Obama administration did, go eff yourself.

Used to be compassionate, generous country.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Sort of. You have a problem with that? You don't think victims of marital abuse from countries who steadfastly refuse to protect them from said abuse have a valid reason to seek asylum in another country?

Jan Ting had some interesting thoughts



AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

We're going to dive into a decision that Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued earlier this week, one that dramatically changes who's eligible for asylum in this country. Sessions had intervened in the case of a Salvadoran woman who says she suffered horrific abuse at the hands of her husband. On Monday, Sessions overturned a court ruling that had allowed her to stay.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

JEFF SESSIONS: Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems, even all serious problems, that people face every day all over the world.

CORNISH: And the attorney general wrote this in his decision - (reading) the mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes cannot itself establish an asylum claim.

In a few minutes, we're going to hear from an attorney who has successfully represented many victims of domestic violence. First, though, to Jan Ting. He's a professor of law at Temple University's Beasley School of Law. He largely agrees with Sessions' interpretation of asylum law.

JAN TING: It's been a dispute all along, right? All the attorney generals have said, gee, this as a difficult issue. You know, you're trying to find the right balance of trying to protect the people that the statute is meant to protect and yet not throw the definition of refugee so broadly that we're kind of overwhelmed. I mean, I think there's a political consideration here, too, that for those of us who believe in the asylum statute and the protection that it provides, you can't throw the doors so wide open that you lose political support for that concept, as is I think happening now.

CORNISH: But one argument people are saying is that there's such thing as gender-based violence, for instance, and therefore, if you have a government that cannot or will not control or protect people who are struggling - right? - and that there's systematic dysfunction in that justice system, those people should be able to apply for asylum.

TING: Well, you can make that argument for all kinds of groups of people - right? - I mean, people who are threatened by criminal violence, and the government can't do anything about criminal violence. People who are threatened by civil war - right? - their homes are being bombed, and the government can't stop the bombing from going on. They can't stop the civil war. So there are all kinds of life-threatening situations and, frankly, sympathetic situations for the people that are involved. But we have to ask ourselves the question is this who the statute was intended to protect?

And I think it's clear both internationally and in the United States that the statute was drafted to protect a discrete and limited number of people. They carefully defined who was to be protected. You have to have been a victim of persecution or threatened with persecution. What is persecution? You know, it's not discrimination. It's not that a volcano exploded and there's ash falling on your home. It's not that there are no jobs in your area. Even if the government is doing nothing about creating jobs for you, that's not persecution. So I think people were conscious of the fact that this was to provide protection for a limited and discrete number of people.

CORNISH: People are going to be hearing some pretty awful stories of immigrants fleeing gang violence, of women fleeing all kinds of abuse; are you effectively saying put that out of your mind because America's doors, we just can't accommodate them?

TING: Well, I guess I am saying that there's a lot of terrible stuff going on in the world, and the solution to all the terrible stuff that's going on in the world cannot be let's bring every single person who's a victim of anything to the United States and let them live here with their families forever. That can't be the right answer. Well, what is the right answer? The right answer is whatever Congress says the right answer is. Congress has spoken on this issue. We've set up this immigration procedure. Congress has given us statutes that tell us who can immigrate permanently to the United States and who is removable from the United States. And that's what the system is designed to enforce. Congress can change the laws any time.

CORNISH: Jan Ting - he is a professor of law at Temple University. Thank you for speaking with ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

TING: It's always a pleasure. Thank you.

Here is his bio:
https://www.law.temple.edu/contact/jan-ting/

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I would like to know how many domestic violence claims (if any) have been made for asylum. Then I’d like to know how many applied to bring the spouse doing the abuse in chain migration later. I’m sure it has happened.

 

[UncleMark]

Well, what is the right answer? The right answer is whatever Congress says the right answer is. Congress has spoken on this issue. We've set up this immigration procedure. Congress has given us statutes that tell us who can immigrate permanently to the United States and who is removable from the United States. And that's what the system is designed to enforce.

If you read the report I linked, you'll understand that the whole point was that the procedure was being followed, but Sessions has interjected himself improperly, and is using that power to rewrite the policies and procedures in place as laid out in the law. He's not trying to simply enforce current law, he's trying to subvert it.

 

[Quix0te]

Sort of. You have a problem with that? You don't think victims of marital abuse from countries who steadfastly refuse to protect them from said abuse have a valid reason to seek asylum in another country?

Problem is that there is no way to verify such claims and these people are being coached to claim domestic violence/gang violence as a means to game the system. And if true, they should be seeking asylum in Mexico, not the US.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/24/illegal-immigrants-coached-how-avoid-deportation/

 

[Bruce1]

Sort of. You have a problem with that? You don't think victims of marital abuse from countries who steadfastly refuse to protect them from said abuse have a valid reason to seek asylum in another country?

Yes, I do. That would open the door to a huge number of people From countries that have different customs, values, etc. the Middle East, Africa, India, China and so on...

I have a question. How many legal immigrants shout we allow in our country every year?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

All of that is truly sickening, depressing and shameful. I'm truly ashamed that my country is allowing this to happen. Anyone who feels they can defend this is truly a reprehensible, morally corrupt human being who is beyond repair. And while I place the blame for this squarely at the feet of the current administration - this isn't an 'R' or 'D' thing. If this had somehow happened under a democratic president, I'd have the same feelings of disgust.

And to the (hopefully) smaller subset of people who'd defend this by propping up arguments about Trump getting elected as the lesser of two evils because he'll appoint far-right conservative supreme court justices or he'll undo everything the Obama administration did, go eff yourself.

The people who elected Trump, and all the policies/decisions that go along with it, call themselves Christians.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes, I do. That would open the door to a huge number of people From countries that have different customs, values, etc. the Middle East, Africa, India, China and so on...

I have a question. How many legal immigrants shout we allow in our country every year?

There's an annual quota for refugees allowed into the United States. Sessions' decision doesn't change how many get in. It just limits who is allowed to apply to be part of the process.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

There's an annual quota for refugees allowed into the United States. Sessions decision doesn't change how many get in. It just limits who is allowed to apply to be part of the process.

Hannity and Limbaugh didn’t tell Bruce this stuff. They also didn’t tell Bruce that just because you can apply for asylum doesn’t guarantee you’ll get it.

Bruce thinks people from south of the border walk up and say “I want asylum” and we say “Great! Here’s your free house, free car, and all the food stamps you’ll ever need!!!”

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

The people who elected Trump, and all the policies/decisions that go along with it, call themselves Christians.

.... and we will be forgiven if wrong..... Grace.

 

[UncleMark]

Bruce thinks people from south of the border walk up and say “I want asylum” and we say “Great! Here’s your free house, free car, and all the food stamps you’ll ever need!!!”

Does that work if you head north to Kanuckistan?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Problem is that there is no way to verify such claims and these people are being coached to claim domestic violence/gang violence as a means to game the system. And if true, they should be seeking asylum in Mexico, not the US.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/24/illegal-immigrants-coached-how-avoid-deportation/

LOL.

"Immigrant-rights groups released a new video Monday coaching illegal immigrants on their constitutional rights."

This is literally how the story that you imply points out something nefarious starts.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Yes, I do. That would open the door to a huge number of people From countries that have different customs, values, etc. the Middle East, Africa, India, China and so on...

I have a question. How many legal immigrants shout we allow in our country every year?

I have a question. What do you think the plaque on the Statue of Liberty means? Should we take it down? Because we very obviously don't live up to its ideals any longer.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Last week also Sessions announced the DOJ would no longer be defending the pre existing conditions part of Obamacare. I expect this to be a boost for Dems as an election issue. That piece is very popular.

 

[rocket_knight]

I have a question. What do you think the plaque on the Statue of Liberty means? Should we take it down? Because we very obviously don't live up to its ideals any longer.

We have a large group of Americans black and white that the system has failed for generations. A lot of wasted talent rotting behind bars because of lady liberty's open arms giving away the opportunity..

 

[zeke4ahs]

We have a large group of Americans black and white that the system has failed for generations. A lot of wasted talent rotting behind bars because of lady liberty's open arms giving away the opportunity..

How exactly did she give away their opportunities? So your vote is to take it down.

 

[meridian]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/us/immigration-separated-children-southern-border/index.html
This is who we have become. And building tent cities for children. Impossible to believe we can't do better than this.

They keep telling me that this is a Christian country.

 

[MaxCoke]

.... and we will be forgiven if wrong..... Grace.

No, I don't think so ... more likely Karma will kick you in the ass.

 

[twenty02]

I've long shared my disdain for Jeff Sessions. I don't know much about this topic, but it couldn't possibly lower my opinion of the man, because that would basically be impossible.

 

[Noodle]

Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

 

[Lucy01]

Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

Yes very Shameful.

 

[Bruce1]

There's an annual quota for refugees allowed into the United States. Sessions' decision doesn't change how many get in. It just limits who is allowed to apply to be part of the process.

How many immigrants do you think we should let in?

 

[Bruce1]

I have a question. What do you think the plaque on the Statue of Liberty means? Should we take it down? Because we very obviously don't live up to its ideals any longer.

How many immigrants to you think we should allow into our country every year?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

We have a large group of Americans black and white that the system has failed for generations. A lot of wasted talent rotting behind bars because of lady liberty's open arms giving away the opportunity..

LMAO

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

How many immigrants to you think we should allow into our country every year?

How has immigration negatively effected your life?

 

[Bruce1]

How has immigration negatively effected your life?

No it hasn’t. I am a proponent of legal immigration. The reason I keep asking the question for which no one will answer is to highlight a basic problem. That is regardless of how many we allow there will be 100 times more that want to come here. So what do we do? I am waiting for someone to discuss this rather than overreacting to every sensationalized news report.

 

[IUCrazy2]

They keep telling me that this is a Christian country.

You keep reminding us that it is not and cannot be. Your side threw God out of public life, you can't drag him back in only when you feel it suits your needs.

 

[Bruce1]

Jan Ting had some interesting thoughts

View embedded media

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

We're going to dive into a decision that Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued earlier this week, one that dramatically changes who's eligible for asylum in this country. Sessions had intervened in the case of a Salvadoran woman who says she suffered horrific abuse at the hands of her husband. On Monday, Sessions overturned a court ruling that had allowed her to stay.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

JEFF SESSIONS: Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems, even all serious problems, that people face every day all over the world.

CORNISH: And the attorney general wrote this in his decision - (reading) the mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes cannot itself establish an asylum claim.

In a few minutes, we're going to hear from an attorney who has successfully represented many victims of domestic violence. First, though, to Jan Ting. He's a professor of law at Temple University's Beasley School of Law. He largely agrees with Sessions' interpretation of asylum law.

JAN TING: It's been a dispute all along, right? All the attorney generals have said, gee, this as a difficult issue. You know, you're trying to find the right balance of trying to protect the people that the statute is meant to protect and yet not throw the definition of refugee so broadly that we're kind of overwhelmed. I mean, I think there's a political consideration here, too, that for those of us who believe in the asylum statute and the protection that it provides, you can't throw the doors so wide open that you lose political support for that concept, as is I think happening now.

CORNISH: But one argument people are saying is that there's such thing as gender-based violence, for instance, and therefore, if you have a government that cannot or will not control or protect people who are struggling - right? - and that there's systematic dysfunction in that justice system, those people should be able to apply for asylum.

TING: Well, you can make that argument for all kinds of groups of people - right? - I mean, people who are threatened by criminal violence, and the government can't do anything about criminal violence. People who are threatened by civil war - right? - their homes are being bombed, and the government can't stop the bombing from going on. They can't stop the civil war. So there are all kinds of life-threatening situations and, frankly, sympathetic situations for the people that are involved. But we have to ask ourselves the question is this who the statute was intended to protect?

And I think it's clear both internationally and in the United States that the statute was drafted to protect a discrete and limited number of people. They carefully defined who was to be protected. You have to have been a victim of persecution or threatened with persecution. What is persecution? You know, it's not discrimination. It's not that a volcano exploded and there's ash falling on your home. It's not that there are no jobs in your area. Even if the government is doing nothing about creating jobs for you, that's not persecution. So I think people were conscious of the fact that this was to provide protection for a limited and discrete number of people.

CORNISH: People are going to be hearing some pretty awful stories of immigrants fleeing gang violence, of women fleeing all kinds of abuse; are you effectively saying put that out of your mind because America's doors, we just can't accommodate them?

TING: Well, I guess I am saying that there's a lot of terrible stuff going on in the world, and the solution to all the terrible stuff that's going on in the world cannot be let's bring every single person who's a victim of anything to the United States and let them live here with their families forever. That can't be the right answer. Well, what is the right answer? The right answer is whatever Congress says the right answer is. Congress has spoken on this issue. We've set up this immigration procedure. Congress has given us statutes that tell us who can immigrate permanently to the United States and who is removable from the United States. And that's what the system is designed to enforce. Congress can change the laws any time.

CORNISH: Jan Ting - he is a professor of law at Temple University. Thank you for speaking with ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

TING: It's always a pleasure. Thank you.

Here is his bio:
https://www.law.temple.edu/contact/jan-ting/

This is a Long post but clearly speaks to the real issue. Outside of our borders there are billions of people who suffer tremendously in other countries for many causes. How many can we realistically bring here?

 

[IUCrazy2]

No it hasn’t. I am a proponent of legal immigration. The reason I keep asking the question for which no one will answer is to highlight a basic problem. That is regardless of how many we allow there will be 100 times more that want to come here. So what do we do? I am waiting for someone to discuss this rather than overreacting to every sensationalized news report.

You will not find that here.

 

[sglowrider]

How many immigrants to you think we should allow into our country every year?

You should that a Native American that question.

 

[Cortez88]

You keep reminding us that it is not and cannot be. Your side threw God out of public life, you can't drag him back in only when you feel it suits your needs.

I would say the same to you. You cannot stand on religious principles and yet support people and policies that are anathema of those alleged principles.

 

[zeke4ahs]

You keep reminding us that it is not and cannot be. Your side threw God out of public life, you can't drag him back in only when you feel it suits your needs.

How exactly did "our side throw God out of public life? "
Your side does a great job of dragging him in and ignoring him when they want to. Hence the evangelical support of the Godly Donald Trump.

 

[IUCrazy2]

How exactly did "our side throw God out of public life? "
Your side does a great job of dragging him in and ignoring him when they want to. Hence the evangelical support of the Godly Donald Trump.

I love when you all play dumb.