President Donald Trump recently issued a revised travel ban temporarily preventing people from six countries and all refugees from entering the United States. The original ban was immediately met with condemnation, protest, and legal action, leading the administration to change course. The revised version amounts to a significant scaling back relative to the original, but many of the longer term consequences remain the same. While this is the most recent and perhaps one of the most chaotic efforts to control who comes into the United States, it is far from the first. The history of U.S. immigration policy is littered with restrictions, quotas, and preferences for certain groups. Read on further to find out how President Trump’s executive action fits in the long lexicon of American immigration policy.

History of Immigration

The United States is and has been a land of immigrants long before it was even a country. European migration began in the 16th century, first with the French and Spanish then later with the English, who founded their first permanent colony in Jamestown in 1607. Many of the earliest European settlers traveled either to avoid religious persecution in their native land or to seek better opportunities. There was also a dark side to this original mass migration. Many white Europeans arrived as indentured servants and even more black slaves were forcibly removed from Africa and brought to the new world.

The second batch of migrants, which came to the United States in the 19th century, was also predominantly from Western Europe. Along with English settlers, came large numbers of Irish and German migrants. Approximately 4.5 million Irish made their way to the United States between 1820 and 1930, settling mostly along the coast. Meanwhile, roughly five million Germans arrived during the 19th century and often moved into the interior of the country. These groups were also joined by a large number of Chinese workers who came to the United States in search of gold. The Chinese immigrants tended to settle in the western portions of the United States.

At the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the demographics of immigration shifted again. During this period there was a large rise in immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. This was most clearly characterized by the nearly four million Italians who entered the United States. Following this wave, however, immigration slowed dramatically due to international events such as World War I and II, as well as the Great Depression. After World War II, refugees from Europe and the Soviet Union flocked to the U.S., along with those from Cuba following Castro’s rise. The video below from Business Insider provides a good illustration of where immigrants came from and when they arrived in the United States:

According to numbers from Pew Research Center, the highest percentage of foreign-born people living in the United States occurred back in 1890 when nearly 15 percent of the population was foreign-born. The lowest point occurred back in 1970 when just 5 percent of the population was born outside the United States. Recent data suggests we will likely reach a new high very soon. In 2015, about 14 percent of the population was foreign-born, a percentage that is projected to increase to nearly 18 percent by 2065.

The History of Immigration Restrictions

For almost as long as people have been migrating to the United States, policymakers have enacted a variety of different pieces of legislation to restrict immigration in general and for specific groups of people. First was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which made only free white people of good moral character who have lived in the U.S. for at least two years eligible for naturalization. This requirement was later changed to 14 years of residency and eventually back down to five years, due to political reasons. Another restriction was put in place in 1819 when Congress started requiring ship captains to provide a list of any foreign-born people onboard intending to immigrate.

Immigration restrictions did not really intensify until after 1850, which was the first time the U.S. Census asked what country people came from. This was followed by a dramatic increase in migration restrictions, particularly those targeting people from Asia. In 1862 the “Anti-Coolie” Act was passed with the aim of preventing Chinese immigration to California and forced California businesses that hired Chinese workers to pay an additional tax. There was also the Naturalization Act of 1870, which made free white people and “persons of African descent” and “nativity” eligible for naturalization but excluded Asians. Perhaps the most infamous example was the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, which barred all Chinese immigration for 10 years. This act was extended in 1892 by the Geary Act for 10 more years and then again indefinitely in 1902.

These restrictive measures extended into the 20th century as well, starting with the 1907 gentlemen’s agreement with Japan, where Japan agreed to discourage Japanese migration to the U.S. in exchange for more protections for Japanese people already in the U.S. There were additional restrictions at the state level as well, including in 1913 when California passed the Alien Land Law preventing Chinese and Japanese nationals from owning land. In 1917 Congress went a step further, banning immigration from many Asian countries with notable exceptions being Japan and the Philippines.

Another major immigration policy shift occurred in 1921 when the first of the Quota Acts was enacted. The law placed immigration quotas on countries to restrict the number of people from a certain country to three percent of the number that lived in the United States after the 1910 census. A similar act was passed in 1924 limiting the number of migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe to two percent of the 1890 levels. The adoption of the National Origins Formula delivered the final blow, completely banning immigration from Asia, while still allowing immigration from the Western Hemisphere.

It did not end with Asian immigrants either, as the Oriental Exclusion Act prohibited most immigration from Asia but also included foreign-born wives and the children of American citizens of Chinese ancestry. The Expatriation Act went even further, stating that an American woman who marries a foreign national loses her citizenship; this was partially repealed in 1922 but still held for women marrying Asian citizens. Even the Supreme Court entered the debate over race and citizenship in the case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. The court ruled that a caucasian man from India did not meet the definition of white person used in established immigration law, and therefore could not become a citizen.

In addition to people from Asia, other groups were also barred over the years for reasons that were not explicitly related to race or ethnicity. The Immigration Act of 1882, for example, put a $0.50 charge on people immigrating and forbid lunatics and those likely to become dependent on the state. The Alien Contract Labor Law was passed in 1885 to prohibit bringing foreign contract laborers to the country, except for certain industries. In 1891 Congress made polygamists, people with diseases, and those convicted of specific misdemeanors also ineligible for immigration. Political groups were also targeted–following the assassination of President William McKinley, Congress passed the Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1901 barring anarchists and political extremists.

Along with all these outright restrictions were a host of other measures to simply make the immigration process harder–like literacy tests on citizenship applications and additional agencies set up to oversee immigration–that, while not explicitly forbidding it, significantly hindered immigration for many groups. It was not until 1965 when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act that many of the quotas and restrictions were finally eliminated.

The video below gives an overview of the immigration practices of the United States:

Immigrants in the U.S. Today

Despite the complicated history of immigration policy, the number of foreign-born people in the United States has increased dramatically since 1965. As of 2015, there were about 43.3 million foreign-born people living in the United States, which is approximately 13.5 percent of the total population. Of that amount, about 20 million are naturalized citizens, with the rest being permanent residents, people with temporary status, and people who entered the country illegally. The Pew Research Center estimates that in 2014 there was a total of 11.1 million foreign-born people in the United States who entered the country illegally.

The immigrant population rose from 9.6 million in 1970 to the 43.3 million here today. Over that time, the primary source of immigrants has shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia. Specifically, in 2015 the top five countries of origin for new immigrants were: India, China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Canada. The 2015 numbers generally reflect the leading countries of origin for the total foreign-born population as well, which are led by Mexico, India, China, and the Philippines.

The immigrant population in the United States skews slightly female, at a little more than 50 percent. It is also older than the general U.S. population with a median age of 43.5 years. Demographically, nearly half of immigrants identify themselves as white, a little more than a quarter identify as Asian, and about 9 percent identify themselves as black. Ethnically, Hispanics and latinos are the largest group of immigrants, representing about 45 percent. In terms of education, the percentage of immigrants with at least a bachelor’s degree is almost the same as the national average, at about 30 percent. And geographically, states that border Mexico or have large population centers tend to have the most immigrants, with California leading the way followed by New York, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey.

Immigration and the Economy

From 2009 to 2011, the amount of money earned by immigrants was nearly 15 percent percent of all U.S. wages, although immigrants make up 13 percent of the overall population. Immigrants are more likely to be prime working age and work in higher proportions relative to their share of the population. Immigrants also own nearly one-fifth of all small businesses. Finally, nearly half of all immigrants work in white collar jobs and are often overrepresented in some middle-class occupations such as nursing.

While immigrants are working in disproportionately high numbers, they also generally do not harm the work opportunities for most native-born Americans either. While immigration’s effects on domestic workers is a hotly debated subject, many economists agree that it provides an overall economic benefit, although it could also have significant economic consequences for certain groups. In the long-run, immigrants can actually be beneficial to the American job market overall. Moreover, when immigrants drive wages down, it is often because they lack the protections that American citizens have and thus are susceptible to exploitation.

Immigrants, particularly undocumented workers, often pay into programs such as Social Security, which they cannot draw from, and are actually a net positive for the national budget. A review from the Social Security Administration found that undocumented workers paid as much as $13 billion into Social Security in 2010–which came in the form of payroll taxes from immigrants using fraudulent identification–but only received about $1 billion in benefits.

Aside from economic impacts, immigrants also affect American society in other positive ways. These include introducing new or different foods and cooking styles, presenting alternative forms of spirituality, and even incorporating non-traditional medical treatments.

Conclusion

The words inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York read, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” These inspiring words, originally written by the poet Emma Lazarus, perfectly encapsulate the ideals that many speak of when they refer to the United States as a nation of immigrants. However, for much of the nation’s history, the people and practices of this country have failed to live up to that ideal.

Donald Trump’s ban, while definitely not the first, is the latest in a long line of efforts to restrict immigration from certain areas and for certain groups of people. Although these restrictions are often passed under the guise of being in the best interest of America or its citizens, they can have the opposite effect. This is because immigrants are often willing to do many of the jobs native born citizens will not, at lower wages. Despite the United States’ complicated history, immigrants have continuously added to and enriched American culture.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Before the Ban: The History of U.S. Immigration Policy appeared first on Law Street.

The White House is pushing back against claims that President Trump is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants.

According to an 11-page draft memo obtained by The Associated Press, governors in 11 states, including some that are not along the U.S.-Mexico border, would have the choice to have their guards participate in the roundup. The deportation measure would act in conjunction with Trump’s executive order on immigration and border security signed on January 25.

The AP originally reported that the memo from U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, was addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vice published a copy of the memo obtained by the AP.

Trump weighs mobilizing National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants in 11 states. https://t.co/0lLvP59GZU pic.twitter.com/UJXfJslnqy

— AP Interactive (@AP_Interactive) February 17, 2017

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer categorically denied the AP report, calling it “100 percent not true” and “irresponsible.” He said, ”There is no effort at all to utilize the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants.”

However, conflicting reports are coming out of the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS spokesperson contends that the pre-decisional draft never made it to Secretary Kelly’s desk and was never seriously considered by the agency. But staffers from the department told the AP that they discussed the proposal as recently as last Friday.

As the document’s validity continues to be investigated, it’s important to consider the substantial impact it would have if implemented. Nearly one-half of the 11.1 million people residing in the U.S. illegally live in the 11 states–California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana–according to Pew Research Center estimates using 2014 Census data.

The leaked proposal comes as the Trump administration hurriedly attempts to save face after the swift demise of its unconstitutional and discriminatory immigration ban. Last week, ICE agents arrested 680 people in raids across the country, which Secretary Kelly later called “routine.” While National Guard personnel have helped with immigration enforcement on the border before, this action would increase their involvement significantly.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White House Denies Plans to Deploy National Guard for Immigration Roundups appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to reinstate President Donald Trump’s seven-country travel/immigration/Muslim/DEFINITELY-NOT-A-BAN ban.

The decision was an unmitigated loss for Trump. And what does President Trump usually do when things don’t go his way?

He has his communications team release a measured and coherent statement reiterating the White House’s position on the issue.

Just kidding.

He tweets about it.

So, after the decision was announced, Trump vented his frustrations on the beautifully insufferable and addictive cesspool that we call Twitter.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

And then….well…see for yourself:

“oh no, not court” —judges

— both are equally bad (@caseyjohnston) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT WHERE WE ALREADY ARE BUT A DIFFERENT COURT SHUT UP NO YOU’RE STUPID!

— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) February 10, 2017

Saying “SEE YOU IN COURT” after losing a court case is like yelling “LET’S TAKE THIS OUTSIDE” after you just lost a fight outside.

— Adam Conover (@adamconover) February 10, 2017

“I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT!” is really the worst thing to yell after you just lost in court

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) February 9, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT! I HOPE THAT BALIFF WITH THE PUPPET OF HIMSELF IS THERE. I LOVE THAT PUPPET! CRACKS ME UP! pic.twitter.com/SdVJBwJAkG

— Jake Fogelnest (@jakefogelnest) February 10, 2017

And then he tweeted…..
“SEE YOU IN COURT”
After just LOSING IN COURT‼️ pic.twitter.com/RZrku9Pp1C

— Dory (@Dory) February 10, 2017

Nap, then therapy, where I will very likely be told to stay off twitter. SEE YOU IN COURT

— Dan Harmon (@danharmon) February 10, 2017

An all caps “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT” is the whitest thing to ever happen in black history month.

— Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) February 10, 2017

{loses in checkers} SEE YOU IN CHECKERS

— Charles Finch (@CharlesFinch) February 9, 2017

trump: “SEE YOU IN COURT!”
court: pic.twitter.com/tNNKsLqq9S

— Giuliana (@Princessofwifi) February 10, 2017

My teacher: F
Me: SEE YOU IN COURT!

— Lexi (@lexi4prez) February 10, 2017

“See you in court” sounds like dialogue from a bad tennis movie. “See you in court. There’ll be no love. Except for your score. Loser!”

— Michelle Wolf (@michelleisawolf) February 10, 2017

me if Beyoncé doesn’t sweep the grammys https://t.co/5JiXwFeIys

— Matt Bellassai (@MattBellassai) February 10, 2017

TRUMP: SEE YOU IN COURT

JUSTICE: pic.twitter.com/85mQSKUK5Z

— jake (@jakebeckman) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT, DONALD. pic.twitter.com/yqIhRjDClC

— Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) February 9, 2017

“SEE YOU IN COURT” is what the rich white villain in a dance crew movie yells after he loses a rec room turf battle to a bunch of teens.

— Miles Kahn (@mileskahn) February 9, 2017

And now

*sips martini*
*rolls up sleeves*
*removes earrings*
*takes another sip*

LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT COMMA pic.twitter.com/BRz3g44WJM

— Benjamin Dreyer (@BCDreyer) February 10, 2017

Twitter is so beautiful sometimes. Watching this entire mess reminded me of something. Last night, I just couldn’t put my finger on it, but I suddenly had a revelation this morning.

I want to remind you all of a true classic in American cinema: “Air Bud.”

If you will recall, “Air Bud” is the story about a golden retriever, who is later renamed “Buddy,” who runs away from his abusive owner, a professional clown who is also an alcoholic (this movie has many layers). He then forms a relationship with a teenaged boy who just lost his father in a plane crash. Basically, Bud and the teenage boy form a bond and it’s really beautiful. Oh, also, Bud can play basketball. And he becomes famous. Again, many layers to this film. Anyway, Buddy’s old owner tries to get him back and, in a very tense scene, confronts his dog’s new owners. Check it out starting at 19:49 below:

Welp. There it is. “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT.” Who knew “Air Bud” could be so relevant in 2017.

If you’re interested, you can watch the full movie on a random afternoon on the Freeform channel (formerly ABC Family), probably. Or in your old VHS collection. Either one is a sure fire bet.

There’s no telling what Trump means exactly by “SEE YOU IN COURT,” but today, during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump said “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country, you’ll be seeing that sometime next week. In addition, we will continue to go through the court process and ultimately I have no doubt that we’ll win that particular case.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Twitter Goes in on “See You In Court” appeared first on Law Street.

Starbucks announced Tuesday that it would offer free legal advice to employees regarding President Trump’s immigration executive order.

In a letter to employees, the company announced that the legal support for employees and family members would be provided via a new Immigration Advisory Program, set up in partnership with Ernst & Young. The letter stated that the company would be “leading with humanity” through the action.

Since its signing, the executive order has created massive confusion throughout the country after its hasty implementation and vague language left it unclear who exactly would be affected. As a result, many major U.S. corporations have pushed back against the order, as it would likely impact many of their employees.

Starbucks is proving to be one of the companies at the front and center of this corporate resistance. Last month, CEO Howard Schultz announced a plan to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years. In the letter to employees, Schultz additionally affirmed his support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, affordable healthcare for all employees, and the continuation of company business partnerships in Mexico. The letter demonstrated the company’s forceful opposition to many of the new administration’s main policies.

The company’s recent actions have not sat well with some Trump supporters–protestors made plans to boycott the brand as a result of its refugee hiring initiative. However, the #BoycottStarbucks trend also had the opposite effect, drumming up more support for the company.

Conservatives: #BoycottStarbucks

Me: pic.twitter.com/vTGvaWKkaf

— (@goIdenflower) January 31, 2017

Uber, Microsoft, Amazon, and many other big names in the tech industry have also vowed to provide immigration-related legal advice in the wake of the order. However, as BuzzFeed News notes, Starbucks stands out among the rest as an employer of predominantly low-wage workers.

Meanwhile, after a fairly political Super Bowl this past weekend and wave of anti-Trump retail boycotts, it’s clear that corporate America will continue to be pressured to take a stance on the current administration and its policies.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Starbucks is Offering Immigration-Related Legal Advice to its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

With tensions rising in America, shade levels have been rising in direct proportion. A tiny bit of this shade and subtly savagery is coming from former official Obama White House photographer Pete Souza’s Instagram account.

Souza, who was also the official White House photographer for the Reagan White House, has been taking to his new Instagram account (the account he used during the Obama administration is now archived) to post photos from his time with the Obama White House, while also throwing some shade at President Donald Trump.

Many people and outlets have pointed out Souza’s shade, from people on Twitter to CNN and Teen Vogue.

Omg you need to follow @PeteSouza on Instagram. The subtle trump shade…these captions are SAVAGE. #ObamaLegacy #whitehouse44 pic.twitter.com/xxLOEQv8qH

— Vallari Ajgaonkar (@VallAjgaonkar) February 2, 2017

Ain’t no shade like Pete Souza shade cus Pete Souza shade has amazing composition and lighting. https://t.co/QuBl7er9AT

— The Happy Feminist (@HappyFeminist) February 2, 2017

I am living for @PeteSouza‘s instagram trolling

— Megan Hess (@mhess4) February 3, 2017

Let’s take a little dive into this man’s glorious new Instagram feed, and rank his pointed posts by shade and savagery.

#5: Immigration Ban Posts

Many people criticized President Trump’s immigration ban last weekend that incited protests in different airports across the country. This criticism has been direct and heated. But Souza is far too shady to directly address the situation. Instead, Souza just posted two pictures relating to the refugee situation to respond. The first: a picture of Obama with a young refugee. The second: a picture of a six-year-old boy, Alex, who was so concerned about the well-being of a Syrian refugee that he wanted him to be his brother.

Why do these posts take last place on the list? Well, that’s because, while they’re perfectly shady, they’re a little too heart-tugging and emotional to be petty enough to be characterized as “savage.” Hundreds of stories have been written about the immigration ban and its effects on not only refugees but on American citizens, and these posts from Souza point to the perceived human costs associated with Trump’s executive order. These posts are a perfect introduction to the shade that Souza is throwing on Instagram, but they aren’t totally indicative of how subtly biting Souza’s posts can get.

Talking with a young refugee at a Dignity for Children Foundation classroom in 2015.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 29, 2017 at 5:16am PST

Remember Alex, the six-year-old boy who wrote President Obama a letter about the Syrian boy photographed in the ambulance. Alex visited the Oval Office with his family the day after the election. "Dear President Obama, Remember the boy who was picked up by the ambulance in Syria? Can you please go get him and bring him to [my home]? Park in the driveway or on the street and we will be waiting for you guys with flags, flowers, and balloons. We will give him a family and he will be our brother. Catherine, my little sister, will be collecting butterflies and fireflies for him. In my school, I have a friend from Syria, Omar, and I will introduce him to Omar. We can all play together. We can invite him to birthday parties and he will teach us another language. We can teach him English too, just like my friend Aoto from Japan. Please tell him that his brother will be Alex who is a very kind boy, just like him. Since he won't bring toys and doesn't have toys Catherine will share her big blue stripy white bunny. And I will share my bike and I will teach him how to ride it. I will teach him additions and subtractions in math. And he [can] smell Catherine's lip gloss penguin which is green. She doesn't let anyone touch it. Thank you very much! I can't wait for you to come! Alex 6 years old "

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 30, 2017 at 2:37pm PST

#4: Australia 

Now we’re getting into slightly more savage territory.

This Souza post shows Obama sharing a hearty and chummy laugh with the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia at the ASEAN gala dinner last September.

Talking with then Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand, left, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia last September at the ASEAN gala dinner.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Feb 2, 2017 at 2:21pm PST

Did Souza post this just because he thought the lighting was particularly good in this shot? Absolutely not. This was posted in the midst of the new Trump-Australia feud and after The Washington Post reported that the phone call between Trump and Turnbull was somewhat contentious.

Per The Washington Post:

. . . President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.

At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”

The beauty of this post lies in how subliminal it is. This is a technique that we will see Souza employ for numbers 3 and 2 of our ranking.

#3/#2 (Tie): Mexico and Merrick Garland

We have a tie. We have this tie because these two posts are uniquely shady in their own ways, thus making it impossible to choose which one is superior to the other.

Let’s begin with the Merrick Garland post.

Merrick Garland. Just saying.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 31, 2017 at 5:28pm PST

For context, Merrick Garland is, of course, the Obama Supreme Court nominee who never received a Senate confirmation hearing. Many people have cried foul over this because Garland was respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And last week Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

What makes this post so great is the fact that Souza posted this picture of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden with Garland a couple of hours before Trump announced his pick for SCOTUS nominee. The other thing that makes this post great is the simplicity of the caption, especially the second part. “Just saying.”

Just saying. 

This caption is also 100 times better if you read Just saying the same way André 3000 says “Just playin'” after he describes his very specific (read: petty) hope that a pretty but stuck up young woman (Caroline) will speed in her car on the way to the club trying to hurry up to “get some” baller or singer (or somebody like that) and while driving try to put on her makeup in the mirror but because of her inability to multitask she will crash, crash, crash into a ditch.

We then move on to the picture that Souza posted of Obama drinking tequila with Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto.

This one is for Grover. President Obama sampling some tequila with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico in 2013. @heygrover

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 31, 2017 at 6:18pm PST

This one is pretty self-explanatory. It’s no secret that Trump has a dicey relationship with Nieto (see: border wall). Things seemed to have reached a kind of boiling point the other day when The Washington Post reported that Trump had a heated phone call with Nieto, who canceled a planned meeting with Trump. Then, The Associated Press reported that Trump told Nieto that “he was ready to send U.S. troops to stop “bad hombres down there” unless the Mexican military does more to control them.”

The whole situation with the relationship between Trump and Nieto would make this post go pretty high on the list, but what truly makes it so perfectly shady is what is maybe an unintended feature of the picture. If you will notice, Obama bears a striking resemblance to an insanely popular meme/gif. Click this link to see if you can make the rainbow connection.

#1: Then It Was on Day One…

Congratulations, you’ve made it to the end.

The absolute shadiest/pettiest/subtly savage post Souza has made came on the very first day of Trump’s presidency when Souza took a moment to comment on some of the aesthetic changes to the Oval Office.

I like these drapes better than the new ones. Don't you think?

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 21, 2017 at 7:36pm PST

The drapes that hang behind the Resolute desk are now gold, which isn’t much of a surprise because, if you didn’t know, our president is Donald Trump.

Captured this last night as @POTUS @realDonaldTrump sits at his desk in the Oval Office for the first time in the @WhiteHouse. #POTUS45 pic.twitter.com/BObUKXwIir

— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) January 21, 2017

Why does this post take the number one spot? Because the whole thing is about drapes. That’s it–drapes. How petty do you have to be to go after a man’s choice of drapes? And imagine how shady you have to be to go after the drapes of the man who replaced your former boss.

Also, this was posted on Day 1 of Trump’s presidency. Day. 1.  This is a day after anarchists took to the streets to set a limo ablaze and bust the window of a Starbucks and the same day millions of women around the globe marched in protest of the new president and his problematic views and behavior, and this man was ruthless enough to take to his Instagram account to go in on the new president’s new drapes. Souza is audacious. This is like if “I don’t know her” were an Instagram post. This is why this post is and will always be the most petty/shady/savage post Souza will ever make on Instagram.

There are no signs that Souza will stop posting his shadiness on Instagram any time soon. Not only does he post pictures with captions that comment on our current political situation, but he also posts a ton of pictures that are objectively beautiful that were taken throughout his career as a photographer.

It’s just too bad that Souza is no longer around the Obamas to take a better-framed and less-grainy photo of this iconic moment in the life of the former president of these United States:

Obama’s on vacation with the hat backwards. He’s never coming back. pic.twitter.com/RUakcwwgtT

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) February 1, 2017

You can follow Pete Souza on Instagram @petesouza.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Profile in Shade: A Ranking of Pete Souza’s Instagram Posts appeared first on Law Street.

Leaders of tech giants are finding ways to oppose President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, which could hurt their employees and potential new hires.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he would consider taking legal action against the order, while the heads of other companies have pledged millions of dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

According to the Wall Street Journal, the ban affects hundreds of Apple employees. Cook told the Journal:

More than any country in the world, this country is strong because of our immigrant background and our capacity and ability as people to welcome people from all kinds of  backgrounds. That’s what makes us special. We ought to pause and really think deeply through that.

On January 27, Trump signed the executive order blocking citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria from entering the United States for at least 90 days (though the ban could be expanded), citing concerns over foreign terrorism. The measure also prevents refugees from being admitted into the country for four months.

While Cook has not specified exactly what type of action Apple would take, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos has already taken to court to condemn the ban. The company submitted a sworn statement supporting the Washington state attorney general, who filed a lawsuit against Trump’s order. Amazon employs nearly 50 people born in one of the seven countries, and is currently offering jobs to non-U.S. citizens, some of whom were born in Iran.

Meanwhile, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and Chairman Omid Kordestani plan to donate $1.59 million to the ACLU, respectively matching $530,000 that Twitter employees raised for the organization.

The Executive Order's humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt

— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017

The ACLU sued Trump on January 28 on behalf of two men from Iraq – one of whom is a former engineer and interpreter for the U.S. government – who were detained at JFK International Airport in New York.

The taxi service app Lyft announced support for the ACLU as well, promising to donate $1 million over the next four years. Lyft’s primary competitor, Uber, faced backlash when it continued to pick up passengers from JFK during protests – which some saw as a move to profit from the situation. Uber responded to the complaints by calling the ban “unjust” and setting up a $3 million legal defense fund for its drivers impacted by the ban.

3/ We are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. https://t.co/0umGOlkhSx

— logangreen (@logangreen) January 29, 2017

Google cofounder Sergey Brin at SFO protest: "I'm here because I'm a refugee." (Photo from Matt Kang/Forbes) pic.twitter.com/GwhsSwDPLT

— Ryan Mac (@RMac18) January 29, 2017

The blanket entry ban on citizens from certain primarily Muslim countries is not the best way to address the country’s challenges

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017

Executives and founders of companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla have also released statements criticizing the order.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology Companies Rally Against Immigration Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that blocks people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. All refugees will be barred for 120 days, Syrian refugees are blocked indefinitely. Thousands of people have hit the nation’s airports and city centers to protest Trump’s order. Business and religious leaders have spoken out against the travel ban. Congressmen–Democrats and many Republicans–have decried the move. But still, there are many people in America who are frightened, and there are plenty who support the executive order.

According to a recent Reuters poll, nearly half (49 percent) of the country supports the order. It’s largely split by party lines. A majority of Republicans (over 75 percent) support the ban, while roughly 20 percent of Democrats do. The poll, which gathered responses from 453 Democrats and 478 Republicans, also found that 31 percent of respondents say the ban makes them feel “more safe.” About one quarter said it makes them feel “less safe.”

Cheryl Hoffman, a 46-year-old living in Sumerduck, Virginia, told Reuters that she understands America is a nation built on immigration. “But I’m worried that refugees are coming in and being supported by my tax dollars,” she said. For some, however, Trump’s order is more than a penny-saving decision. It’s about keeping Muslims out of the U.S.

“Every story about a Muslim immigrant is that they are as American as apple pie,” Sal Oliva, a hotel worker and Uber courier from Staten Island, New York told The New York Times. “But I’m sorry, Islam is no friend of L.G.B.T. people.” Oliva, who is gay, added: “When Islam meets gay people in Somalia or wherever, they get thrown off the roof. And you expect them to be different when they move here? You can’t expect people to absorb our values.”

The Reuters poll also found that most Americans (56 percent) do not support preferential treatment for persecuted Christian minorities who live in the seven countries affected by the order. Trump contends the order has nothing to do with religion, and is not a “Muslim ban,” as many critics have been calling it. “This is not about religion,” Trump said in a statement on Friday. “This is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Michael Bower, a 35 year-old who lives in Seattle, thinks the outrage over the order is a bit much. “Let’s just take a breather,” Bower told The New York Times. “Take a little time out. Let’s get the smart people in here and formulate a plan.” According to polling, nearly half of the country agrees.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Many Americans Support Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.