‘They’re Permanently Separated.’ President Trump Compares People Killed by Undocumented Immigrants to Border Separations

President Donald Trump explicitly compared the tragedy of families whose relatives have been killed by undocumented immigrants to the family separations at the border, saying that the “angel families” are “permanently separated” from their family members.

“These are the American citizens permanently separated from their loved ones, the word ‘permanently’ being the one you have to think about,” Trump said Friday afternoon at an event with the family members. “They’re not separated for a day or two days. They’re permanently separated.”

The event came at the end of a controversial week for Trump and his Administration’s immigration policies. Public backlash grew over a “zero-tolerance” policy that led to the separation of families at the southern border, and on Wednesday, Trump signed an Executive Order to end family separations by detaining children and parents together.

Read More: Trump Backed Down, But the Crisis at the Border Is Far From Over

But Trump and some of the grieving family members he appeared with on Friday attempted to cast perspective on the border separations by discussing their own tragedies. “We weren’t lucky enough to be separated for five days [or] ten days, we’re separated permanently,” said Laura Wilkerson, whose 18-year-old son was killed in 2010. “Any time we want to see or be close to our kids, we go to the cemetery, because that’s where they are.”

Trump often brought members of “angel families” to events with him during his presidential campaign, and he continued to showcase them at Friday’s event to spur action on his signature campaign promise to crack down on illegal immigration. “Your loss will not have been in vain,” he told the group. “We will secure our borders… We’re going to have a safe country and your loved ones are going to be playing— and will continue to play— a big part in it.” (Data disputes the notion that immigrants raise crime rates in the U.S.)

Trump also promoted the office his Administration created at the Department of Homeland Security dealing with immigrant crime called VOICE (Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement). He said VOICE, launched last year by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was set up to help victims receive information on their perpetrators.

As Congress struggles to bridge bitter divides on immigration policy, family members at the event also hoped their stories would encourage politicians to pass immigration reform. “Let’s work together and get this done, all politicians, I …read more

Source:: Time – Politics

      

Exclusive: Navy Document Shows Plan to Erect ‘Austere’ Detention Camps

Welcome to America Trump Immigration Time Magazine cover

The U.S. Navy is preparing plans to construct sprawling detention centers for tens of thousands of immigrants on remote bases in California, Alabama and Arizona, escalating the military’s task in implementing President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy for people caught crossing the Southern border, according to a copy of a draft memo obtained by TIME.

The internal document, drafted for the Navy Secretary’s approval, signals how the military is anticipating its role in Trump’s immigration crackdown. The planning document indicates a potential growing military responsibility in an administration caught flat-footed in having to house waves of migrants awaiting civilian criminal proceedings.

The Navy memo outlines plans to build “temporary and austere” tent cities to house 25,000 migrants at abandoned airfields just outside the Florida panhandle near Mobile, Alabama, at Navy Outlying Field Wolf in Orange Beach, Alabama, and nearby Navy Outlying Field Silverhill.

The memo also proposes a camp for as many as 47,000 people at former Naval Weapons Station Concord, near San Francisco; and another facility that could house as many as 47,000 people at Camp Pendleton, the Marines’ largest training facility located along the Southern California coast. The planning memo proposes further study of housing an undetermined number of migrants at the Marine Corps Air Station near Yuma, Arizona.

The planning document estimates that the Navy would spend about $233 million to construct and operate a facility for 25,000 people for a six-month time period. The proposal suggests these tent cities be built to last between six months and one year.

Capt. Greg Hicks, Navy’s chief spokesman, declined to provide details on the matter. “It would be inappropriate to discuss internal deliberative planning documents,” he told TIME.

Although the military has not yet been ordered to construct these new detention facilities, it is clear it bracing to join a policy challenge that is ricocheting throughout the whole of government. What began as a crackdown on immigrants crossing the border illegally has now spread to the departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Defense and Health and Human Services.

TIME Photo-Illustration. Photographs by Getty Images

In the Navy document, military officials propose a 60-day timeline to build the first temporary tent facility for 5,000 adults. After that, military officials suggest they could add room for 10,000 additional individuals each month.

The memo was written by Phyllis L. Bayer, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment, in anticipation for a request from the Department of Homeland …read more

Source:: Time – Politics

      

Police Need Search Warrant to Track Suspects’ Location via Cell Tower Records, Supreme Court Says

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says police generally need a search warrant if they want to track criminal suspects’ movements by collecting information about where they’ve used their cellphones.

The justices’ 5-4 decision Friday is a victory for privacy in the digital age. Police collection of cellphone tower information has become an important tool in criminal investigations.

The outcome marks a big change in how police can obtain phone records. Authorities can go to the phone company and obtain information about the numbers dialed from a home telephone without presenting a warrant.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court’s four liberals.

Roberts said the court’s decision is limited to cellphone tracking information and does not affect other business records, including those held by banks.

He also wrote that police still can respond to an emergency and obtain records without a warrant.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Kennedy wrote that the court’s “new and uncharted course will inhibit law enforcement” and “keep defendants and judges guessing for years to come.”

The court ruled in the case of Timothy Carpenter, who was sentenced to 116 years in prison for his role in a string of robberies of Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio. Cell tower records that investigators got without a warrant bolstered the case against Carpenter.

Investigators obtained the cell tower records with a court order that requires a lower standard than the “probable cause” needed to obtain a warrant. “Probable cause” requires strong evidence that a person has committed a crime.

The judge at Carpenter’s trial refused to suppress the records, finding no warrant was needed, and a federal appeals court agreed. The Trump administration said the lower court decisions should be upheld.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Carpenter, said a warrant would provide protection against unjustified government snooping.

The administration relied in part on a 1979 Supreme Court decision that treated phone records differently than the conversation in a phone call, for which a warrant generally is required.

In a case involving a single home telephone, the court said then that people had no expectation of privacy in the records of calls made and kept by the phone company.

That case came to the court before the digital age, and the law on which prosecutors relied to obtain an order for Carpenter’s records dates from 1986, when few people had cellphones.

The Supreme Court in recent years has …read more

Source:: Time – Politics