Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Feb 2017 19:16 UTC
Legal

In the days after Donald Trump won November's presidential election, immigration and civil liberties advocates began assessing how the new president might carry out his promises to create a registry of Muslims and deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Almost immediately, it became clear the Trump administration would need data, and a lot of it, in order to not only peg people's religious affiliation and immigration status but also allow federal agents to verify their identities and track their whereabouts. Information that could be used for such purposes is collected and stored by a variety of state agencies that issue driver's licenses, dispense public assistance, and enforce laws.

[...]

In Washington state, The Verge has learned, Democratic governor Jay Inslee has directed members of his policy and legal staff to work with a handful of state agencies to identify data that could be utilized by Trump’s deportation officials, and how, if possible, to shield any such information from federal authorities engaging in mass deportation. In California and New York, Democratic lawmakers have proposed legislation to block state data from federal immigration authorities. Democratic legislators have also proposed bills in Washington state, California, New York, and Massachusetts that would prevent state data from being used by federal authorities to build a registry of people belonging to a certain religion.

The Republican party, Trump, and its supporters are avid advocates of states' rights, so I'm sure the Republican Trump regime will welcome these moves with open arms.

Thread beginning with comment 640642
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Trump regime
by segedunum on Fri 3rd Feb 2017 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Trump regime"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

What behaviour? See cognitive dissonance above.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Trump regime
by vtpoet on Sat 4th Feb 2017 01:02 in reply to "RE[6]: Trump regime"
vtpoet Member since:
2013-12-31

Yeah. English Dictionary defines regime as "a government, especially an authoritarian one". So, no, not feeling the cognitive dissonance. An authoritarian doesn't compromise. When Trump wants a supreme court justice, he tells Mitch to go nuclear. That's an authoritarian talking. We'll see what the next four years hold, but so far, Trump's regime is a regime.

By the way, see "Regime", Oxford English Dictionary.

Edited 2017-02-04 01:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Trump regime
by segedunum on Sat 4th Feb 2017 22:09 in reply to "RE[7]: Trump regime"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Looks ever more like cognitive dissonance........

The only authoritarian actions we are seeing are those who don't like the result of the election that happened for very good reasons and are probably more afraid for their own pointless jobs.

The travel ban, I'm afraid, is based on a piece of legislation derived by Obama and passed by congress. Trump's order merely enacts it. There is nothing authoritarian about it, but, the cognitive dissonance says we have to see authoritarianism everywhere and Trump must be Hitler. He must be. If he isn't many people are going to look very stupid.......

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Trump regime
by The1stImmortal on Mon 6th Feb 2017 01:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Trump regime"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

An authoritarian doesn't compromise.


Not an essential quality of an authoritarian. Anyone with a sense of righteousness may refuse to compromise.
When a single party happens to control all branches of government, there's not even anyone to compromise with. That's normal.

When Trump wants a supreme court justice, he tells Mitch to go nuclear. That's an authoritarian talking.


"Go nuclear" just means to override senate standing orders on procedure to eliminate the faux fillibuster risk.

It's entirely legal and arguably reasonable.

We'll see what the next four years hold, but so far, Trump's regime is a regime.


All he's done is issue a bunch of executive orders, all within the legal and historically accepted bounds of the office, with the exception of the immigration freeze, which is being challenged through the courts as it should be when legality is in doubt.

Come back to us when he actively starts ignoring courts, overriding the law/constitution or congress.

By the way, see "Regime", Oxford English Dictionary

Reply Parent Score: 1