A month before he became the first President since 1992 to lose reelection, Donald Trump stood in front of a cheering crowd and declared that Biden would “turn Minnesota into a refugee camp.”
He went on to lose Minnesota by nearly 6 points more than 2016.
President Trump has run on a platform of immigration restrictions since the first day he came down that escalator and talked about Mexican rapists.
In 2016 many people thought he was bluffing.
Less than one week into his presidency, he issued the Muslim Ban. It wasn't a bluff.
The last four years showed us conclusively that the politics of attacking immigrants does not work.
Separating families, imposing wealth tests on immigration, and throwing ever-more immigrants into ICE jails did not gain Trump support.
It had the exact opposite effect.
If there can be any mandate taken from this election, it is that Americans are ready to embrace a politics that is welcoming of immigrants. A politics that does not turn away the stranger, that embraces the better parts of our nation's history and leaves the worst behind.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
!! Incredible FOIA victory from @DMRS_ElPaso, obtaining key operational documents from MPP’s early rollout, including this memo from Chad Wolf—then acting head of Office of Strategy—concluding that MPP wouldn’t have any singular effect on migration flows. dmrs-ep.org/dmrs-vs-ice-fo…
There’s also this memo from May 2019, previously reported on but never released publicly, where the decision is made to create tent courts along the border and where EOIR admits backlogs are massively growing and resolving all MPP cases timely would require 1/3 of all judges.
Here are talking points for a meeting attended by every major immigration person at DHS.
“MPP is a priority for this Administration, and we must do everything in our power to implement and expand it.”
ZERO mention of concerns about dangers in Mexico for people subject to MPP.
The District Court's opinion vacating the public charge rule acknowledges that the 7th Circuit's opinion upholding its preliminary injunction controls the issue and requires it to enter summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs. So there's no new legal analysis on the merits.
The government tried to get the District Court to limit relief only to the plaintiff, Cook County. The District Court disagreed, finding that vacating a rule in its entirety is the appropriate remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act, and it isn't a nationwide injunction.
The question from @RepJerryNadler to Nielsen asked about reducing CBP capacity "to process X number of people" per day, and @DHSOIG reveals that Nielsen not only knew that "X = 650," she personally signed off on those policies herself five months earlier.
The @HouseJudiciary report also sheds more light on the fact that family separation was the goal of the Trump administration from Day One.
High-level administration officials met to begin planning separations within a month of Trump taking office, and floated plans to CNN.
Within six months of taking office, the Trump administration had begun a family separation "pilot project" in El Paso.
Despite separating 281 families during a four-month period, the Trump administration never disclosed the project to the agency in charge of childrens' shelters.