Search Results: violation of trust

Trump's immigration plans are to:

1) “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history”.

2) Withdraw birthright citizenship, bar undocumented children from schools & forcibly separating children from their parents at the border.

3) To dismantle the asylum protection system

However, any attempt to use active-duty troops to do so would be subject to legal challenges, as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limits the federal government’s use of the military to enforce domestic policy. Just the same, he need only to declare a "national emergency" to REQUEST states' National Guardsmen to use in ANY capacity.

Former acting ICE Director Ron Vitiello stated that the (DHS) has successfully called upon the Pentagon “many times” in the past to provide “transportation or construction as they have done before.” The military could also help ICE by conducting drone surveillance of removal targets and providing security & logistical support at migrant detention centers.

Local police are ADAMANTLY against being deputized or having to enforce federal immigration laws. They say that it will:

1. It undermines the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities. They will turn to gangs for protection exponentially making local policing more difficult.

2. Local agencies do not possess the adequate resources to enforce these laws

3. Immigration laws are very complex and the training required to understand them significantly detracts from the core mission of local police

4. Local police do not possess clear authority to enforce these laws. Even if given the authority, the federal government does not have the capacity to handle the volume of immigration violations that will occur.

5) The lack of clear authority increases the risk of civil liability for local police and government (qualified immunity).

6) Highly increases likelihood of violence against officers.

In business we write a MOU to communicate expectations clearly. So much of the problems in these often perplexing and confoudning times of relationships evolves around expectations, trust, and breaking assumed contract. If there is a stated position and even better... consequences, it would seem to resolve a lot of matters. Here's an example for which you can improve I'm sure. It doesn't have to be legal.

There are so many flavors of relationship now, it's baffling.

Intention of Relationship: Committed 2 people __ swingers __ Open MFM ___, FMF ___ Poly ___
Hookup only _____ friends with benefits _______ # of parties intended 1, 2, 3, X
[im sure there are more options here]

Termination of relationship: Provided in writing may be accompanied by phone call.

Ghosting Permitted: Y / N
Blocking Permitted: Y / N for periods of time

Therapy: Therapy has been discussed as a potential method of resolving conflicts: Y / N

Bond: Each will float a $100 bond to be held in escrow. Violation of contract prior to disbanding relationship results in forfeiture of bond. In event one party has mis represented their position, they forfeit their bond.

Signed: Him: ____________ Date: _________ Her: _______________ Date: _______

I am not saying have a lawyer draw this up, that it can't be changed or someone change their mind, nor is it legally binding. I'm saying... communicate and be honest. Other topics like... sex before marriage, living together and such seem appropriate.