Tanya Domi and Clinton Fein met 20 years ago when acclaimed author Randy Shilts was writing his tour de force book, “Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military,” the 1993 historical account of gays who had served in the military. Domi was a subject of the book and Fein was the digital artist and producer of a companion CD-ROM which contained interviews of some of the veterans depicted in the book. Today, Domi and Fein are thinking of Randy Shilts and his legacy work. Shilts died in 1994 from AIDS.
A conversation.
TANYA: Clinton, while the entire country is seized with the debt ceiling crisis, we can for the moment celebrate today’s decision by the Obama Administration to certify Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), indicating to the Congress that the Department of Defense is ready to accept openly gay soldiers in the military. It is long, long overdue and feels anticlimactic to me, especially in light of the facts. During President Obama’s tenure approximately 700 soldiers have been discharged under DADT and America is a minority among our allies on gay equality in the military. For example, Britain and Canada have had openly gay soldiers serving since the early 1990s. Even Poland’s military has a non-discrimination policy.
When the history books are written about the repeal process, it will be a historical account about America’s intolerance of gays and Obama’s agonizing leadership style. The White House had to be pressured and fortunately GetEQUAL delivered the requisite pain, forcing the Administration’s hand to repeal one year earlier than originally planned.
Whatever happened to American pluck and “can-do� It seems to have dissipated along with America’s bankrupt politics and treasury. I am ashamed that our country had to be dragged kicking and screaming through an excruciating process, supported by countless empirical studies, before repealing DADT. At its very core, DADT is thoroughly anti-American, particularly with respect to First Amendment rights. Let the record reflect that in the U.S. we do regulate, even censor speech as it relates to sexual orientation.
Let there also be no doubt that the Log Cabin Republican case, subject of a recent flurry of action in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also provided necessary pressure enabling certification today.
The Department of Justice’s request for an emergency injunction last week to reinstate DADT followed the 9th Circuit’s decision on July 6 directing the Pentagon’s to cease enforcement of the policy was a low moment for the community and its relationship with the Obama Administration (more about the enablers and apologists later).
CLINTON: I agree with you – the certification for the repeal is anti-climactic. It took me a while to wrap my head around what was going on with DADT in last week’s development in the Ninth Circuit.
Something had to happen, given the glacial pace of certification of the DADT repeal. As of today, despite the repeal, servicemembers are still being discharged for being gay. Four that we know of since the repeal, but even one, at this point, is one too many. Now that the Pentagon is set to announce certification of the repeal today, there is still an inexplicable 60-day wait before it actually takes effect. Given the way this repeal has been handled to date, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if we see servicemembers discharged for being gay in the next 60 days.
Sergeant 1st Class Leroy Arthur Petry, who was just awarded a Medal of Honor, was deployed eight times with two tours to Iraq and six tours to Afghanistan. We are engaged in three wars (officially). How dare anyone claiming to care about national security think we are in a position to discharge servicemembers for being gay? I’m glad you mentioned the manufactured debt ceiling crisis, because it’s the same fundamental inability to grasp reality that has the likes of John Boehner focused on overturning the repeal of DADT and bringing federal abortion legislation to the floor, when he should be focused on creating jobs – not spending money to eliminate them by trying to fire committed servicemembers we spent a fortune training to begin with.
TANYA: Everyone should keep in mind that DADT as a policy is not over until the 60 days has expired, absent further interference by the Congress. Indeed Howard McKeon, chair of the House Armed Services Committee issued a statement this afternoon expressing his “disappointment that Obama has not properly addressed the concerns of the military service chiefs” (don’t expect them to give up).
Lawyers are advising service members not to come out until the 60 days has officially expired. The Log Cabin Republican case may be mooted, but that remains an open question, as only time will tell. We could obtain a future decision that speaks to broader constitutional rights of LGBT persons, which the government is clearly trying to avoid.
Bridget Wilson, a San Diego based attorney-at-law who is a military administrative law expert and an Army veteran (also consulting counsel to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network), shared with me earlier this week her view that the Ninth Circuit’s response to the government’s injunction indicated that they were not pleased that the government was trying to have their cake and eat it too. Wilson said, “I was rather amused by the latest court missive in which the stay was lifted in part but still prohibits the government from investigating, processing or discharging service members under DADT. It was rather a ‘screw you’ to the government in the case. Sure, you can argue your case, but we will hold your feet to fire and not let you use the opportunity to purge a few moreâ€.
“The Ninth Circuit does not appear to be buying the government’s argument. But remember this is primarily [emanating from Chief Judge] Alex Kosinski, The Ninth is no longer the ‘liberal’ circuit. For example, Judge Jay Bybee of the ‘torture memo‘ was appointed by President George W. Bush.”
Wilson added, “I think the slow crawl through the Pentagon has not helped them.” Indeed, the slow rollout has been an agonizing process to monitor, while most Americans thought the deed was actually done in December. Obama brilliantly framed DADT as repealed, without explaining the next two steps before gays were actually freed.
CLINTON: The legal machinations are pretty complicated, but the government’s move to fight the Ninth Circuit’s ruling suggests that a definitive ruling by the courts that DADT is unconstitutional is critical.
And not because I’m a lawyer – I’m not – but because the historically the courts have always given deference to the military. Having looked at the documents being filed by the government, their reasoning is crafty and cunning. Essentially they seem to be arguing that there isn’t a controversy here because Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is in the process of being repealed as Congress had intended. They argue that interference by the courts in a process that’s already underway would undermine the whole repeal process as envisioned and articulated by congress.
I believe that since there are already efforts by certain members of Congress to either rescind the DADT repeal or render it toothless, the Congressional repeal alone is not enough. A ruling on its constitutionality by the court would add a very important weapon into the arsenal against any attempts to reverse course. And given that Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum have all publicly stated that as President they would support reinstatement of DADT – unlikely as some of them are as contenders – the prospect of a different Administration or congress reinstating DADT is very real. We seem to be going backwards as a country in every other sphere.
The days of just accepting anything Obama does as strategy, and warnings against any attempts to call him on his bullshit are indefensible. I know there will be those who argue that we are politically naïve by refusing to so simply give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But if there’s a legitimate strategy behind requesting a stay on this demand to cease implementing DADT, the President, or his minions need to come forward and explain it. And what the pros and cons are before unilaterally making these decisions that don’t, on their face, make any sense at all.
TANYA:  When I spoke to Wilson yesterday as the news broke that the Pentagon would certify today, she added: “…this will be used to bolster the government’s claim that the case is moot. It is my sense that this is what is motivating itâ€. She also made a point of asserting that the Administration has needlessly advanced the “Rehnquist Doctrineâ€, considered an overly broad legal approach taken by federal judges on due deference to the military that has effectively capitulated federal court review of military policies(a subject of a future blog). A sobering notion asserted by Wilson is that it is clear that the longest legal rollouts with respect to implementation in our country’s history is in the arena of civil rights.  In other words, this process will take many, many years to come.
Affirming Wilson, many gay activists are convinced that the Obama government does not want the Courts to establish sexual orientation as a protected class because it would open the door in the military to future law suits by those seeking redress for damages.
I already feel the pain of our gay soldiers—despite the repeal, they remain second-class and must be prepared to render service absent medical benefits for their families, on-base housing and the minimal perks that go along with these small, but important measures that provide support to all other military families.
Add in the complicity of gay politicos like David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign and Winnie Stachelberg, formerly with HRC, now with the Center for American Progress, who both eagerly carried the White House’s political “water†to the detriment of gay service members. Strachelberg personally negotiated away the non-discrimination clause from the House version of the bill and proudly took credit for it, when the White House yielded to the Pentagon’s demand for no protections.
Neither of these political insiders has a realistic clue about the life of a soldier, nor about the sacrifices military families must endure. Smith and Stachelberg’s unprincipled leadership and complicity should be noted for posterity sake.
CLINTON: That’s unfortunate. Once again these morons having the audacity to make deals on behalf of communities that don’t respect them nor want them doing anything in their name. If I remember correctly, Stachelberg was one of those “saviors†who signed onto the original DADT policy as a reasonable compromise.
The notion that allowing this decision to stand would open the door to restitution and other punitive actions is legitimate, but I think that if a lawsuit was filed on that basis, the government could argue that it was implementing a policy that had been ordered by congress and signed into law by President Clinton. A court could side with the administration and say that in view of the fact the military was adhering to the policy, it cannot be held retroactively responsible for damages that occurred or actions that were taken prior to the repeal.
When President Truman signed his Executive Order in 1948, he too could have refrained, claiming the only reason he wanted to defend segregation in the armed forces was to avoid responsibility for damages or actions taken prior. In my mind it’s worth the risk. Even if, in the end, a court rules that gays and lesbians are indeed entitled to full compensation and repayment of their tuition costs, then so be it.
We don’t deny people civil rights on the basis that providing them is too expensive. Imagine if that was used as a justification for the continuation of Apartheid.
TANYA: Defenders of the Administration are already engaged like Sue Fulton of Knights Out, who was recently named by Obama to West Point’s Board of Visitors. Last night she said that the certification was timely as planned by the White House. Let’s hope Fulton will be as quick to criticize Obama during post-repeal, especially in light of DoD’s overly reliant leadership driven, no anti-discrimination policy for gay soldiers. We will be watching too.
CLINTON: While I am pleased this process is moving forward, snail-paced as it may be, we can still expect the die-hard, pseudo-religious hater on the right, along with the self-loathing Auntie Toms at GOProud to be screeching like turkeys on Thanksgiving in their racist hatred of Obama, masked in “conservatismâ€. But that’s another conversation I look forward to having with you.
Â
Tanya L. Domi is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, who teaches about human rights in Eurasia and is a Harriman Institute affiliated faculty member. Prior to teaching at Columbia, Domi worked internationally for more than a decade on issues related to democratic transitional development, including political and media development, human rights, gender issues, sex trafficking, and media freedom.
Clinton Fein is an internationally acclaimed author, artist, and First Amendment activist, best-​known for his 1997 First Amendment Supreme Court victory against United States Attorney General Janet Reno. Fein has also gained international recognition for his Annoy​.com site, and for his work as a political artist. Fein is on the Board of Directors of the First Amendment Project, “a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom of information, expression, and petition.†Fein’s political and privacy activism have been widely covered around the world. His work also led him to be nominated for a 2001 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned—and won—this year on the promise he would lower prices for Americans angry after the COVID pandemic’s inflation brought steep price increases, but now he’s backtracking, saying he’s not sure he will actually be able to fulfill those vows. Outrage at Trump, and the people who voted for him based on that pledge, was palpable on Thursday.
As recently as Sunday, MSNBC reports, Trump insisted, “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”
On Monday, Fox News reported: “Pointing to high grocery prices, Trump says, ‘I won an election based on that'”
But in his TIME magazine “Person of the Year” interview, Trump suggested he might not be able to lower prices as he promised to do. Appearing to remove himself from the equation, he declared: “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”
Sam Stein of The Bulwark and MSNBC noted via social media, “’Prices will come down,’ Trump told voters during a speech last week laying out his vision for a return to the White House. ‘You just watch: They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.'”
READ MORE: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push
The President-elect told TIME he would “like to bring them down” when asked, “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?” but insisted if prices do not drop he doesn’t think that will make his second term a failure.
On the campaign trail Trump repeatedly promised he would lower prices and inflation, as HuffPost reported Thursday:
“’We will end inflation and make America affordable again, and we’re going to get the prices down, we have to get them down,’ Trump said at a rally in September. ‘It’s too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We’re going to get the prices down.'”
“’We will cut your taxes and inflation, slash your prices, raise your wages and bring thousands of factories back to America,’ Trump said at a Georgia rally in October, reciting a line he used in speeches at several other events.”
“Trump also specifically promised to get gas prices down: ‘I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months.'”
Stein’s post earlier Thursday morning quoting Trump saying “You know, it’s very hard” to bring prices down set of an explosion of anger at the incoming occupant of the White House.
READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New
“Trump has already folded on prices. He has no plans to make life more affordable for the majority of Americans,” declared Lindsay Owens, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Groundwork Collaborative.
Donald Trump, Nov. 4, 2024: “A vote for Trump means your groceries will be cheaper.” https://t.co/ZKnbJkVT17 pic.twitter.com/wmHn2f84J8
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) December 12, 2024
“All of you idiots who voted for Trump over food prices should feel pretty stupid,” journalist Roland Martin remarked in response.
Politico White House reporter Adam Cancryn responded to Stein: “Trump in Asheville in August: ‘From the day I take the oath of office, we will rapidly drive prices down, and make America affordable again’ ‘Prices will come down. You just watch. They’ll come down and they’ll come down fast. Not only with insurance, with everything.'”
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake added: “Trump on Sept. 23: ‘Vote Trump, and your incomes will soar. Your net worth will skyrocket. Your energy costs and grocery prices will come tumbling down.'”
“Oh, Trump doesn’t have a plan to bring down costs for Americans? I’m shocked,” snarked Democratic U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Tom Bonier, a veteran Democratic political strategist noted, “He’s likely right, which is why the Biden record of increasing wages while slowing inflation has put our country on the right track, but of course no one could admit that until Trump won by running against inflation.”
Ron Fournier, a business executive and former journalist asked, “Wait. He promised to bring them down. Did he …
… lie?”
READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents
Image via Reuters
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial pick to oversee the Department of Defense and its 3.4 million military and civilian personnel, has a long history of anti-LGBTQ statements. According to multiple reports, Hegseth has opposed gay service members, labeling them a threat to military standards and a part of a “Marxist” agenda promoting “social engineering.”
“At least when it was an ‘Army of One,’ they were, you know, tough looking, go get ‘em army – but you’re right, that was the subtle shifting toward an individual ad campaign,” Hegseth told far-right podcaster Ben Shapiro, CNN reports. “Now you just have the absurdity of ‘I have two mommies and I’m so proud to show them that I can wear the uniform too.’ So they, it’s just like everything else the Marxists and the leftists have done. At first it was camouflaged nicely and now they’re just, they’re just open about it.”
Hegseth, now a former Fox News weekend co-host under fire for alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, an affinity for Christian nationalism, and mismanagement of two veterans’ charities, has repeatedly denigrated gays and lesbians, and expressed opposition to LGBTQ Americans serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and women serving in the military — especially in combat roles.
RELATED: House Republican Says They Were Told ‘In Conference’ Hegseth Accusations ‘Were Anonymous’
“In his 2024 book ‘The War on Warriors’ and in subsequent media promotions this year. Hegseth described both the original ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a ‘gateway’ and a ‘camouflage’ for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness,” CNN reports.
Studies before and after the repeal of DADT have proven LGBTQ service members serving openly do not diminish unit cohesion or impair military readiness. “The repeal of DADT has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale,” a Palm Center report found one year after DADT repeal.
As MeidasTouch News reported Wednesday, Hegseth has “argued that allowing women and openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve undermines the readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces. He dismissed these inclusivity efforts as ‘social engineering’ aimed at satisfying political agendas rather than improving national security. In his words, the changes were about achieving symbolic milestones, such as having a female Navy SEAL, rather than maintaining operational excellence.”
Hegseth lamented on Fox News’ “Red Eye” in 2015 that America has a “military right now that is more interested in social engineering led by this president than they are in war fighting, So, as a result, through Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and women in the military and these standards, they’re going to inevitably start to erode standards because they want that one female special operator, that one female Green Beret, that one female Army Ranger, that one female Navy Seal, so they can put them on a recruiting poster and feel good about themselves and has nothing to do with national security.”
READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New
“So it started, you know, we saw it under Clinton with the tinkering of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the reasons for those changes,” Hegseth said in November on a podcast promoting his book, also according to CNN. “And I talked to some of the people involved in when that was changed, but it really happened, started to accelerate under Obama.”
And yet, when asked on Wednesday by CNN if he still holds that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a mistake, Hegseth grew silent and did not answer, ignoring the reporter (video below).
Hegseth has a long, documented history of anti-LGBTQ and anti-women statements and positions.
“The dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is our diversity is our strength,” Hegseth said on a podcast this year, ABC News reported last month.
“There aren’t enough lesbians in San Francisco to staff the 82nd Airborne like you need, you need the boys in Kentucky and Texas and North Carolina and Wisconsin,” Hegseth also said earlier this year, ABC noted. On a separate podcast, he “said that transgender soldiers are ‘not deployable’ because they are ‘reliant on chemicals’ and suggested that women should not serve in certain combat roles.”
“Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties are worse,” Hegseth also said, ABC added. He also argued “that men are ‘more capable’ in combat roles because of biological factors.”
Hegseth, under fire, this week claimed he supports women in the military, but did not specifically state he supports women in combat roles.
“I strive to defend the pillars of Western civilization against the distractions of diversity,” Hegseth wrote in 2002 as publisher of The Princeton Tory, the university’s conservative student magazine, The New Yorker reported last month.
“In the same year that Hegseth was defending the West against diversity, he and the other editors of the Tory opined that the New York Times’ decision to publish announcements of same-sex marriages had opened the floodgates to incest and bestiality: ‘At what point does the paper deem a ‘relationship’ unfit for publication? What if we ‘loved’ our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog?’”
And in a 2002 publisher’s note at The Tory, Talking Points Memo reported, Hegseth “declared that he was ‘not encouraged’ by the ‘educational principles … guiding our generation.’ Among other things, he cited the ‘encouragement and support’ for ‘homosexuality.'”
“In pieces for the Tory,” TPM continued, “Hegseth and the team he oversaw railed against efforts to promote diversity on campus and what they described as the immoral ‘homosexual lifestyle.'”
The New Yorker also reports that during Hegseth’s tenure, The Tory wrote: “boys can wear bras and girls can wear ties until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral.”
“Hegseth and The Tory’s editor also wrote: “Overwhelming majorities of Americans agree with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
Trump’s Defense Secretary pick, Pete Hegseth, has called allowing openly gay troops a “Marxist” push for social justice and said it “erodes” military standards.
He declined to clarify his comments when asked Wednesday by CNN.
Watch: www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/p…
— Andrew Kaczynski (@kfile.bsky.social) December 12, 2024 at 9:48 AM
RELATED: ‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report
Image via Reuters
Despite public opinion polls that find the majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the incoming Trump administration is forging ahead with President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to begin his mass deportations of millions of people “on day one.” That will now include the green lighting of arrests of undocumented immigrants who happen to be sick in the hospital, worshipping or marrying in a church, synagogue, or mosque, or studying — or even teaching — in a school classroom, according to an NBC News exclusive report.
Since 2011, under the Obama administration, ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, has been banned from, as NBC reported, “arresting undocumented people at or near so-called sensitive locations, including houses of worship, schools and hospitals or events such as funerals, weddings and public demonstrations without approval from supervisors.”
That ban has been described as a “fundamental” principle by the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. “Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants,” he noted.
As Trump positions himself to achieve his promised goal of enacting the “largest deportation operation in American history,” that ban will be rescinded to remove as many barriers as possible that stand in his way.
READ MORE: House Republican Says They Were Told ‘In Conference’ Hegseth Accusations ‘Were Anonymous’
The Biden administration had expanded the ICE policy to include “colleges or mental health institutions, and even places where religious studies were happening,” according to NBC News’ Julia Ainsley in her on-air report Wednesday. She noted that the ban will also be lifted on arrests at events, including rallies.
“So that means if you have a protest against mass deportations where you would expect undocumented immigrants to show up, that could be a place that ICE could target for arrest,” Ainsley explained.
Immigration experts oppose allowing arrests at sensitive places, believing that access to them, including by undocumented immigrants, benefits society as a whole.
“Immigration enforcement has always required a balance. In the past, Presidents of both parties have recognized that merely because it may be lawful to make arrests at hospitals and schools doesn’t mean it’s humane or wise public policy,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told NBC News. “We don’t want people with contagious diseases too scared to go to the hospital or children going uneducated because of poorly considered deportation policies.”
“There are churches that have historically served as sanctuaries, knowing that ICE can’t come in and arrest them there, and they do that in communities to offer a safe space for migrants,” Ainsley reported, noting that now, faith leaders and others are “worried not only because of policies like these, but because what they see as a change, a shift to the right, in the American public where people are more in favor of deportations than they were previously, and they’re worried about threats to them or to backlash if they continue to give migrant sanctuary within their spaces.”
But as Vox reported in October, Americans are more supportive of deportations only when there are no other legal avenues open to the undocumented, like a path to citizenship.
READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New
A Pew Research poll in August, Vox reported, found “that about 6 in 10 registered voters say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to ‘stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met.’ And a similar share, 58 percent, favored ‘allowing undocumented immigrants to legally work and stay in the country if they are married to a US citizen.'”
Trump, in an NBC News “Meet the Press” interview on Sunday said he supports deporting legal U.S. citizens who are children of undocumented immigrants, in what he called an effort to not break families apart.
In September of 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo explaining the ban on arrests in sensitive areas.
“In our pursuit of justice, including in the execution of our enforcement responsibilities, we impact people’s lives and advance our country’s well-being in the most fundamental ways. It is because of the profound impact of our work that we must consider so many different factors before we decide to act. This can make our work very difficult. It is also one of the reasons why our work is noble,” Secretary Mayorkas wrote. “When we conduct an enforcement action – whether it is an arrest, search, service of a subpoena, or other action – we need to consider many factors, including the location in which we are conducting the action and its impact on other people and broader societal interests. For example, if we take an action at an emergency shelter, it is possible that noncitizens, including children, will be hesitant to visit the shelter and receive needed food and water, urgent medical attention, or other humanitarian care.”
“To the fullest extent possible, we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities. Such a location is referred to as a ‘protected area.’ This principle is fundamental. We can accomplish our enforcement mission without denying or limiting individuals’ access to needed medical care, children access to their schools, the displaced access to food and shelter, people of faith access to their places of worship, and more. Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants.”
Mayorkas offered some examples of sensitive areas where arrests should not be made. Presumably, under the Trump administration, arrests will be allowed in some or all of these locations.
They include:
“A school, such as a pre-school, primary or secondary school, vocational or trade school, or college or university.”
“A medical or mental healthcare facility, such as a hospital, doctor’s office, health clinic, vaccination or testing site, urgent care center, site that serves pregnant individuals, or community health center.”
“A place of worship or religious study, whether in a structure dedicated to activities of faith (such as a church or religious school) or a temporary facility or location where such activities are taking place.”
“A place where children gather, such as a playground, recreation center, childcare center, before- or after-school care center, foster care facility, group home for children, or school bus stop.”
“A social services establishment, such as a crisis center, domestic violence shelter, victims services center, child advocacy center, supervised visitation center, family justice center, community-based organization, facility that serves disabled persons, homeless shelter, drug or alcohol counseling and treatment facility, or food bank or pantry or other establishment distributing food or other essentials of life to people in need.”
“A place where disaster or emergency response and relief is being provided, such as along evacuation routes, where shelter or emergency supplies, food, or water are being distributed, or registration for disaster-related assistance or family reunification is underway.”
“A place where a funeral, graveside ceremony, rosary, wedding, or other religious or civil ceremonies or observances occur.”
Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, says: “Not even most ICE agents want to barge into churches or schools and carry out arrests. But the Trump admin wants people to be afraid; so they want nowhere to seem safe, no matter how draconian and brutal the operation may seem and how much backlash it may generate.”
READ MORE: ‘Pay-to-Play’: Trump Offers ‘Fully Expedited’ Approvals for $1 Billion Investments
Image via Reuters
‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents
‘I Love His Charisma’: Republican Lauds ‘Man of Integrity’ Hegseth Who Will ‘Get Rid of DEI’
‘USA Is a Threat’: Canadians Slam ‘Bully’ Trump’s ‘Arrogant’ Mockery of ‘Governor Trudeau’
‘When She Is Already Governor and Senator?’: Kari Lake Mocked Over Possible Ambassador Nom
Hegseth Successfully Gaslights on Women in ‘Combat’
Jason Miller Tries to Spin Trump
‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report
‘Pay-to-Play’: Trump Offers ‘Fully Expedited’ Approvals for $1 Billion Investments
