Jump to content

Immigration hawk promoted to U.S. homeland security acting deputy


webfact

Recommended Posts

Immigration hawk promoted to U.S. homeland security acting deputy

By Ted Hesson

 

2019-11-14T014536Z_1_LYNXMPEFAD03P_RTROPTP_4_USA-TRUMP.JPG

FILE PHOTO: Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, speaks to the news media at the White House in Washington, U.S. September 27, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration named immigration hawk Ken Cuccinelli to the No. 2 position at the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday, the same day it installed an acting secretary who became the agency's fifth leader in three years.

 

Chad Wolf told department staff in an email he had been sworn in as acting secretary, and that Cuccinelli would become acting deputy.

 

The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Wolf earlier in the day as undersecretary for strategy, policy and plans, a procedural move that allowed the administration to move him into the secretary position on a temporary basis.

 

Wolf, previously chief of staff to former Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, will be the fifth official to lead DHS under Trump. He will replace outgoing acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, whose resignation Trump announced in October.

 

The personnel changes came as Trump has made immigration a central part of his 2020 reelection campaign. The Republican president has railed against illegal immigration, a stance at odds with the Democratic candidates.

 

Cuccinelli joined the administration in June as acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Under his leadership, the agency proposed a range of regulatory changes to toughen the asylum process and other aspects of the legal immigration system.

 

Wolf praised Cuccinelli in his email, calling him "a constant and vocal advocate" for department employees.

 

U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized Wolf's appointment and argued that the best candidates would not agree to work with White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, Trump's leading aide on immigration.

 

"There are people in government who could help run the department temporarily, but when the job requirements include being a yes-man to the president and having Stephen Miller's stamp of approval, no one qualified wants the job," Thompson said.

 

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on the Senate floor on Tuesday that he trusted Wolf would do an "admirable job" if asked to serve as acting secretary.

 

Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan, another immigration hardliner, has been considered as a possible nominee for the job on a permanent basis, according to two former Trump administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

(Reporting by Ted Hesson; Editing by Steve Orlofsky and Richard Chang)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Spike1938 said:

As someone from Jewish heritage myself I am ashamed of Steven Miller. With the centuries of discrimination against Jews he should be ashamed for himself.

Oh, I forgot, he works for "The Chosen One".

You're so right. 

He makes Roy Cohn, 45's early mentor in the dark arts, look like Mother Teresa. 

----

Leaked Stephen Miller emails show Trump’s point man on immigration promoted white nationalism, SPLC reports

 

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller sought to promote white nationalism, far-right extremist ideas and anti-immigrant rhetoric through the conservative website Breitbart, areport released Tuesday by the Southern Poverty Law Center claims.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/12/leaked-stephen-miller-emails-suggest-trumps-point-man-immigration-promoted-white-nationalism/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remarkable how many significant positions are held by "acting" administrators. Often people so inept and/or extreme that they wouldn't be confirmed even by a Republican held Senate.... that is quite a feat. And then there are the other heads who had to resign due to self serving abuse of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Right, because releasing them into the wild to an adult you can't verify their identity is much better. 

Yeah so muxh better to have kids in cages than find an alternative.

 

Especially keep them there until they become adults. 

 

Even better why until then. Just keep them locked up permanently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Right, because releasing them into the wild to an adult you can't verify their identity is much better. 

They were taken away from parents and close family members in the very vast majority of cases and there was never a reason to lock them up.

I worked with migrant children held in detention and a long term study was done on the affects of detention on children and it is devastating.   The only group of young people whom I have worked with that suffered greater psychological damage were child soldiers.  

There is a very big reason why we have laws against holding children in jail or secure facilities unless they present a clear danger to themselves or others.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott said:

They were taken away from parents and close family members in the very vast majority of cases and there was never a reason to lock them up.

I worked with migrant children held in detention and a long term study was done on the affects of detention on children and it is devastating.   The only group of young people whom I have worked with that suffered greater psychological damage were child soldiers.  

There is a very big reason why we have laws against holding children in jail or secure facilities unless they present a clear danger to themselves or others.  

 

 

So you just let them out and say you are free? You release them to people that you do not know the relationship? If it is your kid you want it released to some random guy nick named the mule? As sad as it is, this plays into the tactics. You don't want to be apprehended do not enter the USA illegally. 

 

Do not rent children from cartel members because you assume you can gain entry. If any of those kids is released and harmed there would be outrage. Other than when AOC went down and staged some pics and made bizarre claims, most of the claims about conditions have been debunked. 

 

We have laws against holding children in jails with adults. No American child is ever held mixed in with an adult population. All of that aside what would you do with the kids? If you say let them and their parents through with no consequence that's just crazy and no country in the world conducts its immigration policy that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

So you just let them out and say you are free? You release them to people that you do not know the relationship? If it is your kid you want it released to some random guy nick named the mule? As sad as it is, this plays into the tactics. You don't want to be apprehended do not enter the USA illegally. 

 

Do not rent children from cartel members because you assume you can gain entry. If any of those kids is released and harmed there would be outrage. Other than when AOC went down and staged some pics and made bizarre claims, most of the claims about conditions have been debunked. 

 

We have laws against holding children in jails with adults. No American child is ever held mixed in with an adult population. All of that aside what would you do with the kids? If you say let them and their parents through with no consequence that's just crazy and no country in the world conducts its immigration policy that way.

Number 1:  You Do NOT remove children from their parents unless the child is in danger.   Number 2:   You do not put a child who is removed from a dangerous situation in a worse situation.  

With the exception of a very small number of children who are unaccompanied minors, none of them needed to be removed from their parents custody.  

 

They should be reunited with parents or family members immediately.   Those that cannot should be placed in STATE LICENSED child care facilities in the least restrictive setting possible, as mandated by law.

 

You can stop with the kids being rented by cartels and the other unsubstantiated nonsense.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

Number 1:  You Do NOT remove children from their parents unless the child is in danger.   Number 2:   You do not put a child who is removed from a dangerous situation in a worse situation.  

With the exception of a very small number of children who are unaccompanied minors, none of them needed to be removed from their parents custody.  

 

They should be reunited with parents or family members immediately.   Those that cannot should be placed in STATE LICENSED child care facilities in the least restrictive setting possible, as mandated by law.

 

You can stop with the kids being rented by cartels and the other unsubstantiated nonsense.  That is what the real agenda is.

 

 

Just opening the borders completely is much simpler. That is usually the main agenda which dictates the smaller arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Just opening the borders completely is much simpler. 

I am not going to get into a discussion with you, but it's clear you see a very limited number of solutions.   There are many.   They have been tried elsewhere and work fine.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

I am not going to get into a discussion with you, but it's clear you see a very limited number of solutions.   There are many.   They have been tried elsewhere and work fine.  

 

 

No further discussion with you is a result I can live with. It's not like I feel I can discuss things with you freely as an equal anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

So you just let them out and say you are free? You release them to people that you do not know the relationship? If it is your kid you want it released to some random guy nick named the mule? As sad as it is, this plays into the tactics. You don't want to be apprehended do not enter the USA illegally. 

 

Do not rent children from cartel members because you assume you can gain entry. If any of those kids is released and harmed there would be outrage. Other than when AOC went down and staged some pics and made bizarre claims, most of the claims about conditions have been debunked. 

 

We have laws against holding children in jails with adults. No American child is ever held mixed in with an adult population. All of that aside what would you do with the kids? If you say let them and their parents through with no consequence that's just crazy and no country in the world conducts its immigration policy that way.

Yes, Trump's actions were inspired by concern for the children:

"By early June 2018, it emerged that the policy did not include measures to reunite the families that it had separated.[11][12] This created a child migration crisis.[13][14] Following national and international criticism,[15][16][17][18][19][20] on June 20, 2018, President Trump signed an executive order ending family separations at the border.[21][22][23]"

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott said:

They were taken away from parents and close family members in the very vast majority of cases and there was never a reason to lock them up.

I worked with migrant children held in detention and a long term study was done on the affects of detention on children and it is devastating.   The only group of young people whom I have worked with that suffered greater psychological damage were child soldiers.  

There is a very big reason why we have laws against holding children in jail or secure facilities unless they present a clear danger to themselves or others.  

 

As always, the go to expert opinion on this subject, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pegman said:

As always, the go to expert opinion on this subject, thanks.

Thanks.   I know various options that have been used in various countries, including the US.   In most countries the camps have been in relatively remote areas, so there was little need to secure the camps.   In many countries they were free to leave and buses were available.   Families were either provided with housing, or with the means to build a house -- this was usually in tropical places where putting a shelter together was not too difficult.  

In other places, housing was found in the vicinity.   Sometimes this was abandon buildings, sometimes it was existing facilities that were re-purposed.  

 

When the large number of Kurds were taken out of Iraq after the 2nd Gulf War and Saddam's re-invasion of Northern Iraq, they were transported to Guam and families were placed in housing on the military bases.   I believe there was barracks for single people, however, most of these traveled in family groups.  

 

Given the very remote areas along the border (anyone who has followed the murder of the women and children on the Mexican side) will have an idea of both the remoteness and hostile conditions).   On the US side, either OPEN camps can be built for families and children can remain with their family.   There are existing military bases that most likely have housing that would also be suitable.

 

This would cut the number of children who need care away from their family.   Those would be children whose parents have been charged with a criminal offense, such as drug trafficking and unaccompanied minor children.

 

As it now stands the thousands of children being kept in cages are being done so under less than adequate conditions and in violation of the laws of most states.   Oh, and the US gov't is paying a healthy price of around $800 per child/PER DAY.  

 

I suspect that most states would be more than willing to absorb unaccompanied minors into the foster care system at a cost that would be MUCH less than what is currently being paid.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...