<< Issue a New Executive Order and Take This One to SCOTUS | Main | Certiorari and Strategy on the Travel Restriction Order >>


News Scan

| 0 Comments
Florida Seeks to Ban Sanctuary Cities: Florida lawmakers have introduced legislation that would target "sanctuary cities" and the public officials who refuse to cooperate with immigration law. Kristen Clark of the Miami Herald reports that  SB 786 introduced by State Senator Arron Bean and HB 697 introduced by Rep. Larry Metz would ban sanctuary policies throughout the state.  "We're also looking at removing the umbrella of your sovereign immunity for elected individuals, boards and constitutional officers," Bean said -- which would allow victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to then sue city and county officials if they don't fully comply with enforcing federal immigration laws.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article130192194.html#storylink=cpy
Uber Driver With Criminal Record Robs Customer:  A female Uber Driver in South Florida, with prior convictions for drug offenses including cocaine possession with intent to distribute and an arrest for second-degree grand theft has been arrested for robbing a customer.  According to David J. Neal at the Miami Herald, the victim who requested to remain anonymous, allowed the woman to enter his home to go to the bathroom.  He subsequently passed out, possibly due to a drugged bottle of water she offered him while driving him home.  He awoke several hours later to find that he had been robbed. The driver took a firearm, a small safe, and his tax returns from 2012-2015 which suggests a possible intent to steal the victims identity. The driver currently faces charges of armed robbery and attempted identity theft.  U.S. Attorney Wifredo Ferrer called South Florida the "epicenter of identity theft."

Different Takes on Ninth Circuit Ruling:  By now everyone has heard about yesterday's 9th Circuit ruling to uphold the stay of President Trump's executive order to temporarily halt immigration from seven Middle East countries.  The contrast in how this ruling is being reported is interesting.  Adam Liptak at the New York Times reports "The appeals court said the government had not justified suspending travel from the seven countries. The government has pointed to no evidence," the decision said, "that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States." The article includes several stories of scheduled reunions of immigrant families and refugees coming to America, quoting the World Relief Corporation which called the ruling "fabulous news" for 275 newcomers who are scheduled to arrive in the next week, many of whom will be reunited with family.
Stephen Dinan & Andra Noble of the Washington Times report the matter differently. "The seven countries singled out in the policy were not chosen by Mr. Trump. They were based on a 2015 law enacted by Congress and a 2016 determination by the Obama administration that those countries didn't have enough infrastructure or cooperation with the U.S. for American officials to trust that the people coming from there were who they said they were. Thursday's ruling contrasts with a federal district judge in Boston, who upheld the Trump policy in a decision last week."  The story included HSS Secretary John Kelly's statement last week, "I'm at a total loss to understand how we can vet people from various countries when in at least four of those countries we don't even have an embassy."  

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives