Skip to main content

Collins issues statement on Trump immigration order

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) released the following statement addressing President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration.

“Nothing is more important than the safety and security of our communities here in Western New York,” Congressman Collins said. “Temporarily suspending the admittance of refugees and individuals from high-risk countries until we can guarantee they are properly vetted is a common-sense measure focused on protecting Americans. President Trump promised to make America safe again and his executive order aims to ensure we know who is entering our country.”

david spaulding

when a politician tells the people that if they don't agree with his views, they are stupid, I have no use for them. telling me I have no common-sense if
I dis-agree is an insult....chris Collins you can kiss my backside ...... career politician j/o you are nobody...

Jan 30, 2017, 2:30pm Permalink
Ed Hartgrove

I can't speak for Collins, but, just heard about President Trump following in the footsteps of "entertainer" Trump.

It seems that acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates refused to follow the duly-elected President's directive (which she swore an oath to do) on the TEMPORARY ban on immigrants (from 7 countries), and he said, "You're Fired!".

WHAT!!? Don't tell me we've got to put up with Attorney Generals that have to do what they've legally sworn to do, now.

I ... I ... I've never heard of such a thing - well, not in the last 8 years, anyways.

Jan 31, 2017, 3:40am Permalink
Rich Richmond

Acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates was a ringer put in place by Obama to continue to his policies. Fact; the President may hire and fire at will. It's also called the politics.
Chucky Schumer crying on television about immigration was the best, though. The old saying in the Washington Beltway: "Never get between Chucky and a news camera unless you're prepared to get knocked down and trampled. Perhaps Madonna and Ashley Judd gave him acting lessons? On the other hand, he being older; perhaps he gave acting lessons to them. I'm going to check the Dow and see how much Kleenex stock rises over the next 4 years.

Jan 31, 2017, 7:54am Permalink
John Roach

Sally Yates over ruled her own Departments opinion on the ban. And if she objected to doing her job, she could have just quit. But, she was on her way out, and she decided to grandstand. She had to know she would be fired. So, she gets her name in the news. Watch, she'll be on all the weekend talk shows and her salary demands for a new job just went up.

Jan 31, 2017, 10:34am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

If she had made a legal argument along the lines of "we can't defend this in court because we'll lose and here's why," I would say she's doing her job and the president wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't take her advice. But she didn't. She objected on policy grounds and that's not her job.

Ultimately, this is a tempest in a teapot. She was appointed during the previous term (with strong GOP support in the Senate) and was a short-timer at this point anyway. The whole thing is just needless drama.

The bigger question going forward is whether Jeff Sessions will be the kind of principled AG to stand up to the president if the president wants to pursue policies that violate the law.

Transcript of Sessions questioning Yates during her confirmation hearing on this very topic:

Sessions: Well, you have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things, you just need to say no about. Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, ‘Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that?’ But if the views a President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?
Yates: Senator, I believe that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President.
Sessions: Does the Office of Legal Counsel — which makes many of these opinions that impact policy — does it report through the deputy's office or directly to the Attorney General?
Yates: Well, when you look at the org chart, the Office of Legal Counsel reports to the deputy's office, but it's important that the Office of Legal Counsel also be independent because federal agencies across our government regularly come to the Office of Legal Counsel seeking advice and guidance about what is permissible and what isn't. And it's critically important that the OLC advice — the Office of Legal Counsel advice — be just that, advice, and that it not be advocacy.
Sessions: Well, that’s true. That’s true. And like any CEO, where the law firm —sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, ‘Mr. CEO, you can’t do that, don’t do that. You’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law. You’ll regret it. Please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be, do you feel like that’s the duty of the Attorney General’s office?
Yates: I do believe that that’s the duty of the attorney general’s office — to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and to provide the president and the administration with impartial legal advice.

Jan 31, 2017, 11:49am Permalink
Brian Graz

To provide sound, fair, and impartial legal advice is one thing... to stand in defiance of your boss or client could very likely get one "fired". And rightly so.

Jan 31, 2017, 12:04pm Permalink

Authentically Local