Like seriously even without my dad's lecturing and ranting, I learned how awful these assholes are myself by, you know, directly fucking dealing with them. How does a grown ass woman not understand what was perfectly clear to me when I was 14?Christ how do you do that to someone you're married to unless your secret plan is to get rid of them?
An internal Department of Homeland Security assessment obtained by The Washington Post shows the agency has already found 33,000 more detention beds to house undocumented immigrants, opened discussions with dozens of local police forces that could be empowered with enforcement authority and identified where construction of Trump's border wall could begin.The agency also is considering ways to speed up the hiring of hundreds of new Customs and Border Patrol officers, including ending polygraph and physical fitness tests in some cases, according to the documents.But these plans could be held up by the prohibitive costs outlined in the internal report and resistance in Congress where many lawmakers are already balking at approving billions in spending on the wall and additional border security measures.Administration officials said the plans are preliminary and have not been reviewed by senior DHS management, but the assessment offers a glimpse of the behind the scenes planning at DHS to carry out the two executive orders Trump signed in January to boost deportations and strengthen border enforcement.
On Tuesday, though, Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, asserted that scientific studies showed that pot "is not only psychologically addictive, but can have profound negative impacts on the still-developing minds of teens and people up into their mid-20s."He promised that the Transportation Security Administration would take "appropriate action" when marijuana is found at baggage screenings, and that its possession and distribution would be "essential elements" in building cases to deport people who were in the country illegally.Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article145262514.html?#emlnl=Breaking_Newsletter_M#storylink=cpy
WASHINGTON -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. tried to test the limits of the government's position at a Supreme Court argument on Wednesday by confessing to a criminal offense."Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone," the chief justice said, adding that he had not been caught.The form that people seeking American citizenship must complete, he added, asks whether the applicant had ever committed a criminal offense, however minor, even if there was no arrest."If I answer that question no, 20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, 'Guess what, you're not an American citizen after all'?" Chief Justice Roberts asked.Continue reading the main storyRobert A. Parker, a Justice Department lawyer, said the offense had to be disclosed. Chief Justice Roberts seemed shocked. "Oh, come on," he said.The chief justice asked again whether someone's citizenship could turn on such an omission.Mr. Parker did not back down. "If we can prove that you deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes," he said.The exchange was among several moments of indignation and incredulity during the argument in Maslenjak v. United States, No. 16-309. Several justices seemed taken aback by Mr. Parker's unyielding position that the government may revoke the citizenship of Americans who made even trivial misstatements in their naturalization proceedings.Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had heard enough."Your argument is demeaning the priceless value of citizenship," he told Mr. Parker. "You're arguing for the government of the United States, talking about what citizenship is and ought to mean."Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about the failure to disclose an embarrassing childhood nickname. Justice Elena Kagan said she was a "little bit horrified to know that every time I lie about my weight it has those kinds of consequences."Mr. Parker said the law applied to all false statements, even trivial ones.Justice Stephen G. Breyer said it was "rather surprising that the government of the United States thinks" that the naturalization laws should be "interpreted in a way that would throw into doubt the citizenship of vast percentages of all naturalized citizens."Chief Justice Roberts added that the government's position would give prosecutors extraordinary power. "If you take the position that not answering about the speeding ticket or the nickname is enough to subject that person to denaturalization," he said, "the government will have the opportunity to denaturalize anyone they want."The Trump administration has sought to strip the citizenship of a convicted terrorist, and President Trump has said that loss of citizenship may be a fit punishment for burning the American flag.Wednesday's case concerned Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb who said she had faced persecution in Bosnia. She was granted refugee status at least partly on that basis in 1999 and became a United States citizen in 2007.Along the way, she apparently lied about her husband, saying she and her family had also feared retributions because he had avoided conscription by the Bosnian Serb military. In fact, he had served in a Bosnian Serb military unit, one that had been implicated in war crimes.When this came to light, Ms. Maslenjak was charged with obtaining her citizenship illegally. She sought to argue that her lie was immaterial, but the trial judge told the jury that any lie, significant or not, was enough. Ms. Maslenjak was convicted, her citizenship was ordered revoked, and she and her husband were deported to Serbia.Christopher Landau, a lawyer for Ms. Maslenjak said that the trial judge had applied the wrong standard and that she was entitled to be tried under the right one.Much of the argument was concerned with what sort of causal relationship the government had to prove between the lie and the grant of citizenship.Justice Kagan asked Mr. Parker, the government lawyer, subtle questions to tease out his position. Then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered her own approach."This may be a simple-minded question," Justice Ginsburg said, "but how can an immaterial statement procure naturalization?""That's such a shorter statement of my question," Justice Kagan said. "It's perfect."