AT THE BORDER - Reuniting Families

IMHO:  It is so refreshing to have a President with a companionate heart in the White House.

"How the US plans to reunite more than 1,000 families that remain separated at the border" PBS NewsHour 5/3/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The White House announced Monday it would reunite four families that U.S. officials separated at the southern border during Donald Trump's presidency.  Over 5,500 children were taken from their parents to deter illegal immigration since July, 2017.  Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the move, which he has called "Just the beginning."

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - Reuniting Separated Families

aka 'Trump Anti-immigrant Racism'

"Why it was so difficult for HHS to reunite separated migrant families" PBS NewsHour 3/5/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A new watchdog report reveals troubling details about how the U.S. government handled the separation of migrant families as a result of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy.  The litany of failures includes communication breakdown, lack of planning and insufficient care.  Lisa Desjardins talks to Ann Maxwell, Assistant Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.

ON THE BORDER - Asylum Seekers

Again, I do not dislike the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on principle.  I DO dislike how some Boarder Patrol Agents act, they have in effect become Trump's Storm Troopers treating all immigrants as criminals (5 year old children?!) just because they are seeking a better life in America.  Asylum is the law and Asylum seekers should NOT be treated as criminals.

"What’s happening to U.S. asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico" PBS NewsHour 2/14/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A new report from Human Rights Watch finds that the Trump administration’s controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy forces asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border to wait in crowded, unsafe and unsanitary conditions.  Many said they lived in constant fear of violence, with some reporting that they had actually been attacked.  Amna Nawaz speaks with Human Rights Watch's Michael Garcia Bochenek.

TRUMP BUDGET - The Rich First, the People Last

[Advertisement]  "Fire Sale, bargain basement prices! National Monuments and Parks, Easy Access to all agencies!"  Contact 'Trump Sales" at 1-800-666-SALE (all payments made through Trump PAC)  Brown people need not apply.

"What Trump’s proposed 2021 budget says about his policy priorities" PBS NewsHour 2/10/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump unveiled a $4.8 trillion budget proposal for the 2021 fiscal year on Monday.  His plan includes cuts to Medicaid and other social safety net programs, as well as an increase in funding for the Department of Homeland Security.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Amna Nawaz to discuss how the president’s “wish list” illustrates his continued commitment to a hardline stance on immigration policy.

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION - 'Migrant' vs 'Refugee'

In Trump's eyes there is no difference, they are all 'bad-actor' brown people.

"Is the distinction between migrant and refugee meaningful?" PBS NewsHour 11/18/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Under President Trump, American immigration policy has been in the spotlight.  While Trump may talk the most about stopping illegal entry into the U.S., he is also taking action to reduce the volume of legal migrants the country accepts as refugees.  But what makes one immigrant a refugee and another simply a migrant?  Writer Dina Nayeri offers her Humble Opinion questioning that distinction.

IMMIGRATION POLICY - Ongoing Family Separations at U.S. Concentration Camps

"How the Trump administration explains ongoing family separations at the border" PBS NewsHour 7/30/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The American Civil Liberties Union says the Trump administration has continued to separate migrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, despite a federal judge’s 2018 ruling to stop the practice.  Amna Nawaz talks to the ACLU’s Lee Galernt about how many kids have been affected, why the numbers are rising and what the administration’s rationale is for the separations.

IMMIGRATION - Will 'Dreamers' Have no Home?

"Some ‘Dreamers’ face painful reality of no country to call home" PBS NewsHour 5/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The immigration policies of the Trump administration have dramatically changed life for young undocumented Mexicans who came to the U.S. as children.  Under DACA, which President Obama implemented in 2012, they were protected from deportation.  Now, many have been forced out of the U.S. or left out of fear of deportation, finding they belong in neither country.  NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro reports.

TRUMP ANTI-IMMIGRATION - 'Overhaul' of Immigration

"Trump to propose overhaul of U.S. immigration system" PBS NewsHour 5/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump is returning to a familiar issue: immigration.  On Thursday, Trump is expected to deliver a speech in which he proposes an overhaul of the U.S. immigration system, including the number of immigrants accepted, development of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, and how visas are granted.  Yamiche Alcindor talks to Amna Nawaz about the plan’s details and its likely reception by Congress.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - The Boot of a Dictator

Trump again proves he is a dictator-want-to-be and will not accept that the Constitution, Congress, or the courts can limit him.  Trump does not believe in the rule of law.

He wants a 'Pennywise' in charge of Homeland Security.

"Why Trump decided Nielsen wasn’t tough enough on immigration" PBS NewsHour 4/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On Sunday, President Trump announced the resignation of Homeland Security Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen, who reportedly was forced to step down amid Trump’s growing frustration with the growing number of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.  Amna Nawaz reports and joins Judy Woodruff with Yamiche Alcindor to discuss why Nielsen fell out of favor with Trump and what the shakeup means for immigration policy.

ON THE BORDER - Complete Political Failure

"Why current U.S. immigration challenge reflects ‘complete political failure’" PBS NewsHour 3/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Federal immigration officials in El Paso say they're overwhelmed by a massive influx of families seeking asylum.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection has responded to the surge by moving personnel in from other areas, but that could exacerbate the problem by further slowing processing of asylum requests.  Amna Nawaz reports and talks to Bob Moore of Texas Monthly about the ‘completely new’ situation.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/4/2019

"Shields and Brooks on government shutdown, new Congress" PBS NewsHour 1/4/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including the continued government shutdown, why the new Congress is more “representative” of the American people and how the parties might evolve.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  As we reported earlier, the partial government shutdown is now two weeks old, and its impact is growing.

Each night it lasts, we're going to share with you some of the many ways it is directly affecting people.

American farmers are starting to feel the hit at a crucial time of the year.  That's because many of the offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture around the country are closed, at the very time farmers ordinarily show up to apply for loans to pay some of last year's bills or to plan on loans for this year's plantings.

If the shutdown drags on, that's not the only big hit.  The Trump administration pledged $12 billion in direct aid to soy, pork and dairy farmers to help deal with some of the losses they are suffering as a result of the trade war with China.  But farmers must apply at USDA offices by mid-January.

And, again, those offices are closed.  The USDA says that it will decide later whether to extend the deadline.

The partial shutdown is also temporarily stopping private companies from moving forward with an initial public offering, or IPO, this month.  That's when a company starts selling its stock to other investors.  However, companies must get guidance and advice from the federal Securities and Exchange Commission before going public.

With the SEC at minimal staff, those deals will have to wait, and companies may miss filing deadlines.

And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, topic-A, David, is what we were just talking about, the shutdown.  The two — government remains — a big chunk of the government remains closed.  The Democrats and the White House don't seem to agree.  What are we — I mean, here we are.  What are we now, two weeks into this.  What are we learning about these — our leaders?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, I have talked myself into deranged, but minimal optimism.

(LAUGHTER)

I think there's — substantively, I think there's a solution here, and people in the Senate are talking about it, which is that they exchange some money for a wall of some sort in exchange for a path to citizenship for the dreamers, for the DACA kids.

And that's something that was talked about last year at much higher rates than — $25 billion for the wall, not $5 billion.  And there was a lot of momentum for it then.  And so I think, substantively, that would be a good deal.

Donald Trump won election on a wall.  He can get some money for a wall.  Democrats feel strongly about the dreamers .  They can make progress on the dreamers.  Seems like that's a deal by including a lot more immigration package as part of it.

The problem is the theater of it, and that nobody wants to be seen to be giving in.  Both sides kind of enjoy standing up to the others.  So getting past the optics and getting to the substance turns out to be a major challenge.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Mark, are we closer to a solution than it looks like we are?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I'm not sure, Judy.

But I will say that the closing of the sizable faction of the United States government is being felt by real people.  I mean, there are no clinical trials at National Institute of Health, where sick children are being admitted.

The FBI, which is involved in the safety of the country, the TSA, the air traffic control, I mean, are all depleted.  And we're seeing people being forced to go into jobs in the private sector or to leave their posts, I mean, their public services.  The country's less safe, whether it's in checking food safety, whatever.

And government does matter.  It touches people's lives.  And there will be a human tragedy.  There will be a — there will be a human tragedy and it'll be directly traceable to this slowdown, shutdown of the federal government.

Just on a political note, it's paralyzed the immigration courts.  So you have undocumented immigrants who were scheduled to be deported, now that's no longer the case.

So, what will happen?  I think David has proposed what is a sensible, rational alternative and compromise.  It's been considered, but I'll be very frank.  Dealing with Donald Trump right now is not seen as a starter.

I mean, he's a man who broke his word on the — on the closing of the government.  He had agreed to deferring this issue until February 6.  And just criticism from Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and he caved like a $2 suitcase.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, if Mark is saying it's the President who is the problem, I mean, does one side or another bear most of the responsibility here?

David Brooks:  Well, there's plenty of blame to go around.

I don't see why Nancy Pelosi says there can't be any money for a wall.  I mean, we have got 30 percent of the budget — of the border right now, our southern border, has some sort of fencing.  If that goes up to 40, that doesn't seem like a moral issue to me.

I don't think the wall is a particularly wise investment.  And it's really not where legal immigration comes from.  It's not where drugs come from.  It comes from people overstaying their visas.  But it's what Donald Trump wants.  He runs on it.  Giving him a little of what he wants doesn't seem to me like a moral issue and building a little more fencing on the southern border doesn't seem to be a big moral crime.

So I don't see why the Democrats are so rigid on that.  I do think they have to make a call.  Can we deal with this guy about anything?

If they decide Donald Trump is just not a functional player, then we're in for a world of hurt.  They may decide that.  And they may be right about that.

But I think that Schumer, Pelosi and Trump have to feel each other out, which they're doing now, and saying, is this a man we can do business with, or is he not?

And that's kind of just a character judgment they have to make and will have big implications for the next two years.

Mark Shields:  Just one point of dissent.

Nancy Pelosi is a grownup.  I mean, Nancy Pelosi came to office as speaker of the House, and was faced with a Republican President, George W. Bush, with whom she had disagreed on the war.  And she provided the votes to keep the country's economy from absolutely going off the cliff.

I mean, she absolutely submerged.  The Republicans couldn't do it.  John Boehner tried mightily, and he failed.  And Nancy Pelosi did it.  Nancy Pelosi saved the automobile industry in this country and saved Wall Street after the crisis.  I mean, she's done this.

I mean, Donald Trump has — the toughest thing he's ever done was to ask Republicans to vote for a tax cut.  The people who have given you the most money to your campaign, I want to give them a tax cut.  Will you vote for it?  Well, I will, you know, because that's what we stand for.  We really stand for tax cuts.

And so I just think we're talking with one person who's a professional, who stood up in the last campaign, supported members in her own party — remember this — who refused to support her for speaker, and she backed them, and enthusiastically, and wanted them to win.

Donald Trump, the slightest criticism, and he goes after Mark Sanford and beats him, and strikes terror and tremor through the entire Republican ranks to this day, where Mitch McConnell is paralyzed to do anything.

Judy Woodruff:  But what about, just quickly, David's point that because Trump ran on this, it was a central plank of his campaign, why can't — I mean, for the sake of argument, why can't the Democrats just say, OK, we're going to give you some of what you're asking for, in order to…

Mark Shields:  They did Judy, and he reneged on it.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Mark Shields:  I mean, and they have gone to 2.6.

I don't know.  I mean, if you had a deal with him, would you have it in writing?  Would you get it from Mitch McConnell on DACA, as David suggests?  Kevin McCarthy shows no — he is an invertebrate.  He's criticizing the new congresswoman from Michigan, whose profanity you alluded to earlier.

He was mute when Donald Trump attacked the Khan family.  He was mute when Donald Trump suggested Barack Obama wasn't born in the country.

David Brooks:  The Democrats have to make a decision.

Either the only — this guy — is — we can't deal with this guy and the only route is impeachment, or maybe we can deal with this guy.  And they have to make that call.

I personally think it's worth trying to work out a deal.  It's the right thing to do, given that we're in a government shutdown, and this can't last forever.

Mark Shields:  I am not — I'm not for not working with him.

You have to have it in writing.  You have to have him in public, I mean, because we saw what he did, David.

Judy Woodruff:  Because he backed down…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  Backed down completely.

David Brooks:  I agree with that.

Judy Woodruff:  Let's talk about the new Congress.

David, Mark mentioned Nancy Pelosi.  She's the leader of the Democrats there.  We have got a new reality in Washington.  How different is it going to be?  What — is there a message you feel coming clearly from the Democrats now?

David Brooks:  Well, I mean, it's — whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, the Congress should look like the country.  It's called the House of Representatives.  It should be representative.

And so the fact that the House looks marginally more like the country is a good thing.  You got people from different perspectives, from different points of view.  And people can look at the U.S. Congress and say, yes, that sort of looks a little more like me.

And so that by itself is a good thing.  I also think we're going to get to see as frankly — and this may be a gendered comment — we're going to get to see a lot more attention paid to certain issues, which I think they're the core issues of American life.

I spent a lot of time over the course of my career trying to get senators to talk about and members of the House to talk about early childhood education, which I think is a major issue for this country.  And I would always get a pat on the head by a lot of, frankly, the older males, and because the real issues are about defense and banking and taxes.  Those are what real men deal with.  Dealing with little things like childhood education, that's like a second-rate issue.

And now I'm hoping, as we get a more representative Congress, there will be a little more attention paid to issues that are relational, that are about the social fabric of this country.  So I'm being hopeful about that.

Judy Woodruff:  So, will thanks change, Mark?

Mark Shields:  They will.

I think David makes a good point.  I would point out, in 1989, Judy, there were 29 women in the House of Representatives, 16 Democrats, 13 Republicans who were women.  Today, there are 102.  There's still 13 Republican women.  There's 89 Democratic women.

I mean, the Republican Party is a hemorrhage of defecting groups.  It's women.  More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on a percentage basis, than did Democrats.  And yet today the Republican Party is absent any — there's one woman of color in the entire Republican Congress.

It's a party that is all white, increasingly male.  It's a party that is not welcoming to immigrants or immigrants' families.  And that's a real problem for our country and for our two-party system.  I mean, the Democrats are guilty of and have yielded too often to identity politics and trumping — trumpeting their differences.

But, I mean, the point is, if you're talking about the face of America and the reality of America, one party does represent it, and the other party doesn't.

TRUMP IMMIGRATION - Kids in Custody

"Troubling video sparks more questions about treatment of migrant children in shelters" PBS NewsHour 12/31/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Troubling videos from inside an Arizona migrant children’s shelter appear to show employees of a government contractor treating children roughly.  The footage, which was taken in September, was obtained through an open records request by Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic, who joins Amna Nawaz to discuss the disturbing content and why it's "a bit of a mystery" what occurs at these facilities.

QUESTION:  Is the "concern for privacy rights" really a way to hide what is happening?  Especially when those in government who are responsible remain silent.  In other words, wouldn't transparency be a better way to protect these immigrant children.

TRUMP XENOPHOBIA - New Border Policies

NOTE:  This is partly political, and Trump is using Joseph Goebbels (head of Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda) playbook.  Identify a person or group and use them to (falsely) blame them for all ills in your nation.  In Goebbels' case the Jews, in Trump's case immigrants.

"How Trump’s border decisions represent ‘completely new’ American policy" PBS NewsHour 11/26/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As immigration policy takes center stage, we analyze the administration's recent moves on border closures and asylum requests.  Scott Shuchart worked on immigration for the Department of Homeland Security under both President Obama and President Trump.  He's now a senior immigration fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Washington Post contributor, and he joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

OPINION - Brooks and Marcus 11/23/2018

"Brooks and Marcus on what’s fueling the President’s ‘ramped up’ rhetoric" PBS NewsHour 11/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Ruth Marcus join John Yang to discuss the week in politics, including President Trump’s rhetoric on immigration policy and the federal judiciary, his denial of Saudi involvement in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the upcoming U.S. Senate runoff in Mississippi.

John Yang (NewsHour):  And to the analysis of Brooks and Marcus.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Ruth Marcus.

David, Ruth, thank you for coming in and joining us.

The President, judging by social media, has been spending Thanksgiving worrying a lot about the border, threatening to through shut the border down, close it all altogether, railing against this — the migrants moving their way north.

David, what's going on?  Is this just base maintenance here, or what's going on?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I'm going with bluster.

Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:  I had bluster.

(LAUGHTER)

You steal my bluster?

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  Yes, it looks like Teddy Roosevelt tweeting up San Juan Hill.  But you have to remember the troops that are down there, the actual military troops, according to Secretary Mattis, will not be carrying weapons.  They will be in the background somewhere.  They're there in a supportive role, which is a null and void role, basically.

So I'm pretty sure the President — I can understand why he's upset.  There's been more illegal immigration under his term than under President Obama.  But it's hard to believe this administration wants — after the separation of families, wants more bad pictures coming out of the border.

So I'm sure some — I'm not sure — reasonably confident this is mostly bluster and they will find some muddling solution.

Ruth Marcus:  Well, this is bluster — I get to say it too — with a little bit of a purpose, though probably not a very effective one, which is the congressional lame-duck session has begun.

And there is — are funding bills to be done, as there are at this time of year, it seems, every year.  And the President still hasn't gotten, after two years in office, what he insisted he was going to get from Mexico before he was elected, which is funding for his wall.

And so I think a little bit of this bluster, he will end up standing down on it, is trying to raise the prospect of a government shutdown.  That wouldn't make a lot of sense, when the House and the Senate — the House just for another brief few weeks — and the Presidency are all controlled by the same party.

If you're shutting down the government in that situation, you're not doing very well.  But that's a little bit of the shut-down-the-border rhetoric that we're seeing ramped up right now as well.

John Yang:  He's saying that we need to get a deal now that includes money for the wall.  But he has said this every time, and every time it doesn't happen.

David Brooks:  Yes.

To me, one of the questions is, has anything changed because of the election?  Is his mood changed?  Is his emotional state changed?

So, previously, there was a pretty good method, that he would bluster his way toward something, and then there'd be some bad press, and then he would quietly backtrack.  And somebody compared it to vaporware.  You just send something out there that you don't really have, send a policy out there, even though there's no policy.

The question becomes, has he decided he's rattled by the election, he's angered by the election, he is angered by everybody else around, and that's something has changed?  So far, there's been no evidence that his mental state has changed.

John Yang:  Ruth?

Ruth Marcus:  Ooh, evidence that his mental state has changed.

(LAUGHTER)

He doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of accepting the reality that, yes, his — he and his party suffered a fairly massive and near historic defeat in the House.

And while they are have slightly expanded their Senate majority, which is important, that's one piece of reality he hasn't taken in and that might affect his mood.

There is also the looming Mueller situation.  And this report — it does come from a while ago.  So maybe the mood has been bad for a while.  But the reports about arguing that we should have prosecutions of Hillary Clinton and prosecutions of Jim Comey don't suggest a President with a great mood.

John Yang:  The list of people that the President has public spats with or feuds with in social media grew this week.

John Roberts, the chief justice, responded to something that the President said.  And the President, the famous counterpuncher, punched back.

Ruth, you covered the Supreme Court.  How unusual is this that John Roberts would do this in a public way?  And, also, what does this mean, that these two people are going at it in public now?

Ruth Marcus:  So, it's remarkable.

Presidents get into fights with the Supreme Court, not all the time, but on regular basis.  Richard Nixon ran against that Warren court when he was running for President.  President Obama famously criticized the justices to their face over the Citizens United decision.  And President Trump has criticized the court and Justice Roberts in particular in the past.

What's really unusual — and you have to stretch back to well before I covered the court to the New Deal — is to have the court bite back.  When FDR was trying to do his court-packing plan, the chief justice then famously helped to torpedo that plan by sending a critical letter to the Senate.  They didn't have either Twitter or probably a court press officer to respond these days.

The fact that the chief justice could not be a more different human being than President Trump — if you had two polar opposites and personalities, this is who you would have, a very restrained — he was judicious before he was a judge, the chief justice, human being.

The fact that he chose to respond to the President's assault on judges, Ninth Circuit judges, Obama judges just suggests how alarmed he is, and — by the President's behavior and how out of the ordinary the President's behavior is.

David Brooks:  Yes.

And I would say what's interesting is what — they weren't arguing about a case.  And if Justice Roberts responded about a decision, I think that would be out of bounds.  It was just defending the idea of an independent judiciary.  And so justices normally do that.

And I do think it's important to maintain the truth — at least the three-quarters truth — that there are no such thing as Obama judges and Bush judges.  There are conservatives and liberals.  And it's true the court, Supreme Court, votes more on party line than they used to, but it's still not totally true that they are political appointees.

They have — they do have some sense of independence.  And most of the cases are not 5-4, are not strict Republican-Democratic cases.  There are lots of different modes of argumentation that come into these things.  And maintaining that in public seems to me tremendously important if we're going to respect decisions.

And if Trump wants to delegitimize the court by saying, oh, it's just Republican vs. Democrat, it's just like Congress, that really does undermine our trust, the credibility and the deference we should pay to judicial judgments.

John Yang:  The fact that he punched back against someone like John Roberts, who is not a liberal justice, is — does that threaten him with his base, with the Republicans?

David Brooks:  No.

(LAUGHTER)

No, I wouldn't think so.

It's of a piece, which is that the only kind of power he [Trump] acknowledges his personal power, not institutional power.  And the idea that the attorney general or a judge has some independent mandate to do a constitutional role, that's not really part of his mental vocabulary.  And so it's all, are you loyal to me or are you not loyal to me?

And this, by the way, if you look at how — I don't to want get hysterical here, but if you look at the way regimes decay all across the world from democracy toward authoritarianism, this is a classic thing that happens in almost every case, where the institutional power gets devolved back into personal power, and you return toward the rule of the clan.

TRUMP ANTI-IMMIGRATION - Making Seeking Asylum Illegal

REMINDER:  Seeking Asylum is law. and what Trump did maybe legal but is immoral.

"How Trump plans to limit who can seek asylum in the U.S." PBS NewsHour 11/8/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration has announced a plan that would limit the number of non-citizens permitted to claim asylum by barring those who have crossed the border at places other than designated checkpoints?  Judy Woodruff learns more from Yamiche Alcindor and Alan Gomez of USA Today about the rationale and potential challenges.

TRUMP IMMIGRATION - Lock Children Up Policy

"Investigation finds government contractor violated policy while transporting immigrant children" PBS NewsHour 11/5/2018

More than 200 children remain separated!  All hale our immoral President....NOT!

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When migrant children were separated from their parents this summer, a defense contractor hired by the federal government helped carry out the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy by transporting some to facilities.  Special correspondent Aura Bogado from The Center for Investigative Reporting's Reveal team offers a look at one family’s experience and possible policy violations.

TRUMP AGENDA - Shafting Legal Residents

"Proposed immigration policy penalizes legal residents for use of public benefits" PBS NewsHour 10/18/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration has proposed reinterpreting a piece of immigration law intended to screen whether legal immigrants are likely to be self-supporting or end up consuming public benefits.  Known as the “public charge” rule, it’s sowing concern even among green card holders and permanent residents, who fear that signing up for social services may jeopardize their ability to stay in the U.S.

TRUMP AGENDA - Immigration, Sofi's Story

A story of a heartless Trump policy.

"For 7 weeks, Sofi begged to go home.  Now reunited, her journey isn’t over" PBS NewsHour 8/10/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When a young girl named Sofi and her grandmother came legally to a U.S. immigration checkpoint, they tried to apply for asylum but were separated by U.S. officials.  After 47 days, their story took a happier turn late Thursday in California.  Amna Nawaz joins William Brangham to share an update.

"3-year-old ‘Sofi’ reunites with her mother" PBS NewsHour 8/10/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Seven weeks ago, Angelica and her 3-year-old granddaughter, Sofi, were separated after they crossed the U.S.-Mexico border at a legal point of entry, seeking asylum.  On Thursday, they were reunited in San Francisco.  The PBS NewsHour’s Amna Nawaz has been following their story.

TRUMP AGENDA - Make Toddlers Cry

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/29/2018

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s Supreme Court politics, Ocasio-Cortez’s primary upset" PBS NewsHour 6/29/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the retirement and legacy of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a shocking Democratic victory in Queens, and the continued fallout over the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy and family separation.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, welcome.

Big news, the equivalent of an earthquake, I guess, in Washington, political earthquake.

Mark, what does it mean that Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the Supreme Court?  What does it mean for the court?  What does it mean for the city, for the country?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  It’s significant.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  No, let me just say, God likes Donald Trump, because she has now given him a second appointee to the Supreme Court, something that Barack Obama, in eight years, got two.  Bill Clinton in eight years got two.  George W. Bush in eight years got two.  He’s getting two in 18 months.

Anthony Kennedy is getting encomiums of praise, in large part, Judy, two sources.  One, he was a gentleman.  He was considerate to those around him.  He didn’t — there was no personalizing or polarizing to him.  And that is welcome and refreshing in this Washington.

But the second thing is, he was a liberal on individual rights and sort of social issues.  He wasn’t on economic issues.  He always came down on the side of corporations against consumers and the side of the employer against — the boss.

And he wrote probably the worst opinion, in my judgment, in the history of American politics, the campaign — permitting corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions, and allowing the gushing of water — of money into campaigns.

But he will — he has been a key vote on capital punishment, on a whole host of issues, including gay marriage and ratifying Roe v. Wade.  So, in that sense, the nominee will be to the right of him, and it will perhaps energize Republicans who were not energized about 2018.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see his legacy first?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, first, it struck me that a lot of my progressive friends are reacting like losing Kennedy is like losing, I don’t know, Franklin Roosevelt.

Like, suddenly, they’re all on his side, which is odd to me, because, in most of his decisions, Citizens United and Bush v. Gore, he voted very solidly with the conservatives.

But it shows the prominence of two issues for progressives, which is abortion and gay marriage, and it shows how the social issues really are what motivate people these days.

I would say I would characterize him as a pragmatic libertarian, tended to emphasize individual rights and freedoms.  And so sometimes that went a little — a lot of time, it went a little right.  Sometimes, it went a little left.  But it tended to be an individualistic mind-set, which had some good virtues.

I thought it — in general, it weakened any sense of community, any of sense of, we have a shared nation, because his world view was so individualistic.

Nonetheless, he was just a very cordial man, a very good man to be around in Washington, an exemplar of an old style public servant.

As for the politics, I agree with Mark.  It’s just a total gift for Republicans.  It will unify the right.  It will energize the right.  It will energize the left, too, but more — in the coming campaign, it puts pressure on the people in the middle.

And so Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins on the Republican side, it puts some pressure on them, but I don’t think a whole lot.  They voted for Gorsuch.

Mark Shields:  Gorsuch, that’s right.

David Brooks:  But it puts a bunch of pressure on the centrist Democrats who are running in the red states.  And I think puts more pressure on the Democrats than it does on the Republicans.

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  Yes, I agree with David.

Joe Manchin in West Virginia, who I think has to be favored for reelection, as a Democrat in a state, Donald Trump’s best state, he won by 42 percent, that is going to be a difficult vote for him, especially if Mitch McConnell, in all likelihood, holds the vote around Halloween to keep attention riveted on the issue.

Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, a state that Donald Trump carried by 36 percent, Democratic incumbent.  Joe Donnelly in Indiana that he carried by 17 percent.  And Claire McCaskill in Missouri that Donald Trump carried by 19 percent.  It’s going to be a lot of political pressure for them.

Judy, the key to me is, this is a bigger issue, the Supreme Court has been, for conservatives and Republicans than it has been historically for Democrats.

For example, in the exit polls in 2016, the Clinton-Trump race, 26 percent of the Republican voters said the Supreme Court and who sat on it was an urgent vote matter to them, to the point that it affected and influenced their votes.  Only 18 percent of Democrats said it was for them.

So, it’s a built-in emotional advantage at a time when Republican enthusiasm and interest in the 2018 campaign has been sapping and had been draining.

David Brooks:  That may — I wonder if that will change now because this pick obviously puts Roe v. Wade right at the center of our politics.

And it will actually open up something very interesting.  I don’t think it’s — the nightmare scenario on either side, I don’t think it’s probably going to happen.

Mark Shields:  Which is?  What is…

David Brooks:  Which is that Roe v. Wade will suddenly be overturned.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  Because there is a precedent which Secretary — Justice Roberts has maintained through most of the terms — and the Obamacare case is a good example — of saying, I may agree, I may not agree, but what is settled law is settled law.

He has tended to be biased in that direction.  And as we go through the hearings, whoever the nominee is, that’s what they are going to say.  And so they may disagree in principle on Roe v. Wade, but it is — it’s reasonably settled, so they may hedge it or something.  But it — I’m not sure we’re looking at some massive overturn of Roe v.  Wade either way.

Judy Woodruff:  But neither one of you sees any hindrance, anything standing in front of the President getting his choice for the court?

Mark Shields:  Sure, the choice himself.

We have had nominees rejected before because of something that was discovered or and their position.

I would just take one exception to David, and that is, over the last generation, Gallup has polled every single year.  Americans have more — far more tolerant and far less censorious about having a child out of wedlock, or gay rights, or extramarital relations.

But moral acceptability of abortion remains divided exactly where it was 25 years ago.  So it is an organizing and galvanizing issue still to this day, even though I think David’s right that the status quo or precedent works to the advantage of those who would preserve it.

But how about it if it becomes the central issue in the campaign of 2018?  Does that help the Democrats or not?  Does it turn out Republicans who might not have — who might have sat home?