Border Wall Cartoons

Miffed over border wall talk, top Mexican official floats American entry fee

A top Mexican official on Tuesday said that Mexico may consider charging a fee for Americans entering the country in what could be seen as a retaliation to President Trump's call for a border wall.
Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray, in a meeting with Mexico's top legislators, called Trump's plan an "unfriendly, hostile" act, and called on his colleagues to consider the entry fee.
"We could explore — not necessarily a visa, that could impede a lot of people from coming to Mexico — but we could perhaps (have) a fee associated with entry,” Videgaray said. “This is something that I'm sure will be part of our discussion, and I believe we can find points of agreement."
Videgaray went on to say that Mexico would not pay a cent towards the wall. He said if talks between the U.S. and Mexico fail to satisfy both countries, the Mexican government would consider reducing security cooperation.
"If the negotiation on other themes — immigration, the border, trade — isn't satisfactory to Mexico's interests, we will have to review our existing cooperation," Videgaray said. "This would be especially in the security areas ... and that involves the national immigration agency, the federal police and of course, the armed forces."
Trump has asked congress to include a down payment on the wall in the spending bill but because of scrutiny from both sides, the President announced Monday that he’d be willing to wait until September to revisit the issue of funding; however, his stance on Mexico’s role in paying for the wall hasn’t changed.

Judge William Orrick III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

1
Judge William Orrick was appointed to his current position by President Barack Obama.
At the time of the appointment, Orrick was working at the law firm Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP. He has previously served as deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice.
Obama nominated Orrick in June 2012, but Orrick was not approved until February 2013. This was mainly a party line vote, though Republican Jeff Flake broke with his party to vote to confirm Orrick.

 2
When Barack Obama was running for president, Judge William Orrick reportedly helped raise money for him and donated some of his own money as well.
According to Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group, Orrick donated approximately $30,000 to committees supporting Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for president. In addition, he helped raise $200,000 in contributions to the Obama campaign.
This had not been Orrick’s first time raising money for a Democratic politician. During the 2004 election, he helped raise funds for John Kerry, according to Public Citizen.

3
In 2010, Arizona passed a controversial immigration law known as SB 1070.
This was a strict immigration bill which required that police officers attempt to determine a person’s immigration status when they are stopped for unrelated reasons if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person may be undocumented. It also barred state and local officials from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The Department of Justice ultimately filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona because of this bill. Orrick, who worked at the Justice Department at the time, was involved in coordinating the Obama administration’s argument against SB 1070, according to the Washington Examiner.
Orrick himself said during his Senate confirmation process, “Regarding Arizona, I attended meetings where the impact of SB 1070 on the operations of DHS and law enforcement was discussed [and] where the preemption analysis of the lawyers working on this issue was discussed.”

4
In 2015, Judge William Orrick issued a temporary restraining order against a pro-life group that had been releasing undercover videos about Planned Parenthood.
At the time, The Center for Medical Progress had been putting out highly-edited videos that they claimed showed Planned Parenthood had been illegally selling fetal tissue. Orrick issued a restraining order, saying that he reached this decision due to concerns over the safety of the leaders of the National Abortion Federation.
“NAF would be likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest,” Orrick said at the time, according to CNN.
The National Abortion Federation said in their restraining order request that the videos had been illegally recorded.
At the time that this decision was reached, conservative website The Federalist found that Orrick’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, is pro-choice.

 5
During his Senate confirmation process, Judge William Orrick promised to never let his political views influence the way he rules on cases.
“My varied legal background is evidence that I will treat all litigants fairly and with respect, and that I will not let my personal views interfere with the administration of justice,” he said. “… I have great respect for every type of client I have represented. I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”
Orrick went on to say that district judges must “bind themselves tightly” to precedent.
When asked what his policy on immigration-related cases would be, Orrick said he would recuse himself “from any case that was pending in OIL [Office of Immigration Litigation] while I was Deputy Assistant Attorney General and from any other case as required by the Code of Conduct for United States Judge as well as other relevant Canons and statutory provisions.”

Judge Who Blocked Trump Sanctuary City Order Bundled $200K for Obama

Federal Judge William Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump's order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama.
Orrick, of the Northern District of California, issued an injunction against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president's plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities that harbor illegal immigrants.
As FoxNews.com reported:

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.
The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.

---

The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.
At the time, The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

A California judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities.”
The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.
READ THE DECISION
The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.
San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that the administration warning threatened billions of dollars in funding for each of them, making it difficult to plan budgets.
"It's not like it's just some small amount of money," John Keker, an attorney for Santa Clara County, told Orrick at the April 14 hearing.
Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said the county and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people's immigration status, he said.
The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said.
Readler argued the Trump administration was using a “bully pulpit” to "encourage communities and states to comply with the law.”
In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order "by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing."
"The rest of the order is broader still, addressing all federal funding," Orrick said. "And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments."
He said: "Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves."
The judge clarified that the injunction “does not impact the Government’s ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants … nor does it restrict the Secretary from developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a 'sanctuary jurisdiction.'”
The Trump administration says sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes trust that's needed to get people to report crime.
The order also has led to lawsuits by Seattle; two Massachusetts cities, Lawrence and Chelsea; and a third San Francisco Bay Area government, the city of Richmond. The San Francisco and Santa Clara County suits were the first to get a hearing before a judge.
San Francisco and the county argued in court documents that the president did not have the authority to set conditions on the allocation of federal funds and could not force local officials to enforce federal immigration law.
They also said Trump's order applied to local governments that didn't detain immigrants for possible deportation in response to federal requests, not just those that refused to provide people's immigration status.
The Department of Justice responded that the city and county's lawsuits were premature because decisions about withholding funds and what local governments qualified as sanctuary cities had yet to be made.
The sanctuary city order was among a flurry of immigration measures Trump has signed since taking office in January, including a ban on travelers from several Muslim-majority countries.
A federal appeals court blocked the original travel ban. The administration then revised it, but the new version also is stalled in court.