INTEGRITY IN WRITTEN AND VIDEO NEWS, featuring newsOS integration and a growing interactive community of interested and increasingly well-informed readers and viewers who help make us who we are… a truly objective news media resource with full disclosure of bias, fact-checking, voting, polling, ratings, and comments. Learn about our editorial policies and practices (below). Join us today by subscribing to either our FREE MEMBERSHIP plan, or our PLATINUM PAID SUBSCRIPTION plan; each plan offers an unparalleled suite of benefits to our subscribers. U.S. DAILY RUNDOWN:Your News, Your Voice.
Tag: executive immigration authority
Trump’s Immigration Enforcement Expansion: Legal Foundations, Policy Impacts, and Constitutional Tensions
Trump's Immigration Enforcement Expansion: In his second term, President Donald Trump has intensified his administration's immigration enforcement efforts, implementing a series of policies aimed at curbing illegal immigration and enhancing national security. These measures include expanding the authority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), increasing deportations, and utilizing unconventional legal frameworks to expedite removals. While supporters argue these actions are necessary for upholding the rule of law and protecting American citizens, critics contend they raise significant legal and ethical concerns, particularly regarding due process and civil liberties.
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Trump Era Immigration Policy: Legal, Political, and Humanitarian Implications
The United States Supreme Court’s decision to review the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy—officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)—marks a critical juncture in American immigration law and executive authority. Introduced in January 2019 under the Trump Era Immigration Policy, the MPP mandated that certain noncitizens seeking asylum at the southern border be returned to Mexico while their claims were adjudicated in U.S. immigration courts. Though ostensibly justified as a procedural streamlining mechanism and deterrent against fraudulent asylum claims, the policy drew immediate and sustained criticism for what many viewed as a stark departure from long-standing humanitarian principles embedded in U.S. and international law.