Venezuela
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you want an undeniable example of judicial activism, here you go.
Temporary Protected Status is granted based on circumstance of a nation specifically for 6, 12, or 18 month periods. It is meant for handling emergencies that would make return unsafe, it is not meant to be indefinite, but it can be extended if dangerous conditions persist, at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security (previously the Attorney General, before DHS existed).
In January of last year, the Biden administration attempted to extend Venezuela's TPS status in advance of its expiration, so as to get it in before Trump took office. The Trump administration just didn't follow through with that. Other than the requirement that the status be done in full 6, 12, or 18 month intervals, the only other timing limit is that notification of it ending must be published more than 60 days in advance of it ending. TPS for Venezuela was set to end, published February 3rd, 60 days in advance of the end of the current 18 month TPS period, as the law requires.
Had they violated the timing restrictions here, there'd be a court case. Frankly, the previous administration trying to extend early knowing they were not the ones who get to make that decision would seem to violate the requirement of consistently managed 6, 12, and 18 month designations with a 60 day window of notice. And ultimately, the judges have to rely on this timing issue, going so far as to suggest the Secretary could have instead "terminated a country's TPS, effective upon the expiration of the current TPS period", without even a hint of awareness that they are describing literally what happened. They had to use that language, as it is the precise language of the law, the Secretary can end TPS designation with greater or equal to 60 days notice before the end of the current TPS period. There is no language in the law that would marry the government to a decision made a month ahead of time, so long as the decision to vacate took place within the current period and gave people 60-days notice.
But the most ridiculous part is that the decision they wrote can't seem to keep track of how it's reaching the decision. They mention a couple times that Noem based the decision to vacate on it not being in US interests to extend it, as though they were going to argue that reasoning is invalid, but then never come back to it, it's just an irrelevant point. They spend multiple pages making the argument that they have the power to review her decisions as to why TPS should or should not be granted in spite of the law explicitly stating that it is not subject to judicial review , and then ultimately they just don't use her reasoning in their decision at all. Like, they spent days gearing up for the fight on why they were allowed to say no even if the law as passed by Congress told them they couldn't even review it, and then decided that was probably a bad idea, but left the whole argument in anyway.
And of course all of this is short-sighted insanity. I don't think these judges even want to imagine a world where Trump in 2028 can lame duck a bunch of executive decisions that the next administration is not allowed to undo.
To listen to you pretend to care about the letter of the law, after you strenuously argued it was fine to not only deport but imprison innocent Venezuelans while TPS was still fully in effect, is really something.
All of which was in accordance with the law. It took a very long time and a lot of arguing for you to find a single example of someone for whom the Alien Enemies Act was even required to deport, a law that can meet one of the stated exceptions to TPS.
Federal court disagreed.
No: I provided a list long before I ever mentioned that individual example. You responded by shifting the goalposts ("find me examples of citizens"), and never addressed the illegal treatment of non-citizens who nonetheless were there fully legally and had active protections.
Numerous people had TPS status. It was still in effect. They broke no rules. The government deported and imprisoned them, and you argued it was fine and good.
An inapplicable law.
That's not at all what happened, either here or there, but you are immune to reason, so I'm not going to bother.
You tend to say this when you've got nothing.
TPS status was active. They were deported and imprisoned regardless. Federal court found what was done was in violation of the law. None of this is a matter of opinion.
You didn't give a shit about the law of TPS back then, so don't pretend to now.
No doubt because the DJT admin pressured Mexico to do so.
Presumably in that case the CIA have a new kingpin lined up they want to take over.
Because a strong Mexico is good for the common people of both countries(economically a strong Mexico lowers prices, and increase choices for consumers, and means less drug overdoses) but bad for both elites of the US, and the Cartels. If the US wanted to get rid of the cartels we would Columbia(FBI & DEA cooperation, negotiating with FARC.) or even El Salvador them out of existence. This is why you don't vote for idiots like Jill Stein since she works for Putin who wants Republicans who want to destabilize Mexico more than the democrats who are more likely to not look at geopolitics as ruthlessly as the republicans.