Which is more important to the president: hurting Muslims or looking tough on terrorism?
Executive order scaled back in attempt to satisfy courts.
Bill would keep states and cities from restraining police cooperation.
No cities in the state have been targeted by the Justice Department for noncompliance, but never mind.
A Yale professor illustrates the tendency to frame what should be critiques of government power as complaints about particular politicians.
Police could be punished if they don’t cooperate with federal requests to detain people to deport.
The federal government says yes, but the Supreme Court seems skeptical.
The feds can’t make cities help them deport immigrants. This is about communication lines.
Report to track uncooperative communities suspended over accuracy issues.
The rule invoked is about communication and doesn’t require cities detain or help deport immigrants.
Around 200 refusals, and many of those were merely charged, not yet convicted.
Trump's main goal is looking tough, not discomfiting Muslims.
The order reportedly exempts visa holders and Iraqis as well as legal permanent residents.
Some argue libertarians must oppose more immigration, because immigrants will vote for more big government and make the country less libertarian. That's either a bad argument or one for total tyranny in the name of liberty.
Customs and Border Protection offer only their authority at the border as excuse for demanding papers from citizens on domestic flight in fruitless search for someone "ordered removed by an immigration judge."
Court decisions have decimated Fourth Amendment protections for people on the edges of the country.
What will the president do to address the 9th Circuit's due process concerns?
When people aren’t safe asking for protection from violence, bad consequences are sure to follow.
Stephen Miller falsely claims "legal permanent residents were not subject to the travel restrictions."