The View from Right Field

Dreamers – Again

The legal status of “Dreamers,” i.e., children who illegally entered the United States with their parent(s), generally before June, 2007 (though maybe that date would be pushed back by some), is in the news again.  A federal district court in Texas has held that Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, i.e., Dreamers, program is unlawful and has barred the Biden administration from adding new people to the program.  A good explanation of the decision, by Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, can be found here. 

Several comments¹:

1. Former President Obama tweeted on Saturday that “[i]t’s long past time for Congress to act and give them the protection and certainty they deserve”, which is true.  It is too bad that former President Obama didn’t propose a Dreamers-only law when he was president.  He only wanted to do a comprehensive immigration bill.  After the 2010 election, that was a non-starter, whether for good or ill.  It is possible, however, that a Dreamers-only bill might have gotten enough Republican support to pass.  I don’t know.  But former President Obama didn’t try.  It may have been that there were not enough Democrats willing to pass a Dreamers-only bill.  Maybe there were so many Democrats who wanted a comprehensive immigration bill and were unwilling to break it into parts and vote on the parts individually, that a Dreamers-only wouldn’t have gotten enough Democratic votes to pass, even if some Republicans would have voted for it.  We’ll never know because former President Obama didn’t try.²

2. Also, the Obama administration merely issued an executive order on Dreamers.  It did not pursue t he formal rule-making processes for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.  I don’t know if that would have made a difference, but they didn’t try, which is unfortunate.  Following the proper procedures and process is always better.

3. If a Dreamers bill passes, it’s got to be the last one.  Ronald Reagan did immigration reform back in the 1980s, which included an amnesty on the basis that we would step up efforts on controlling illegal immigration and that it was a one-time only thing.  If we are going to do it again, and I would happily support a Dreamers-only bill, this has to be the last time – and we have to mean it.

4. Plus, we have to get our immigration system, both legal and illegal, under control.  Things are a disaster now.  I would like to think there are enough people of reasonably good will in Washington to try to do it, but I’m not sure.  It may be that the bases on both sides are so strong, or at least loud, that it is more important to beat the other side than to do something good for the country that might look like a bit of a victory for the other side.
--------
¹ Prior comments on this subject can be found here and here.
² Donald Trump was pretty much incompetent at governing, there is not much to say about his efforts.

“Root Causes” Are Easy. Solutions for Today Are Hard,

When Vice President Kamala Harris went to El Paso last week, she talked a lot about the need to address the “root causes” of illegal immigration

“My trip to Guatemala and Mexico was about addressing the root causes.  The stories that I heard and the interactions that we had today reinforce the nature of those root causes: a lack of economic opportunity; very often violence, corruption, and food insecurity; and basic needs not being met, including a fear of cartels and gang violence.”

Which sounds a lot like how Democrats talk about the increase in crime: We have to deal with the “root causes” of the problem.  And it may be that dealing with these root causes, whether of illegal immigration or crime, will address the problem – ten years from now.  But talking about root causes doesn’t tell you what we need to do to address the problem now.  

When Your Party Leaves You and You Have No Place to Go

Ronald Reagan famously said that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left him.  With what is happening in the Republican Party these days, I think I am beginning to know how he felt.  The only difference is that, when the Democratic Party left President Reagan, he had some place else to go.  I don’t.  

During the GOP’s virtual convention, The Wall Street Journal¹ wrote about Donald Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party:

“President Trump is accepting the nomination for a second term before a party that has largely united behind him, embracing his America-first foreign and economic policies and unorthodox, sometimes chaotic style.

What's Better? Something or Nothing? Police Reform In an Age of Polarization.

I’ve been writing a lot about baseball lately, mostly because baseball, even with people like Rob Manfred and Tony Clark unable to negotiate anything, is better than politics today, which says something.  But it’s back to the real world.

A big issue in Washington is police reform.  Your first thought about Washington and police reform might be like mine: Huh?  Police, like schools, seems like the epitome of a state and local issue.   We need police reforms (for one of my ideas, see here), but what’s the federal government got to do with it?  State governments, local governments.  Police reform is their issue.  Congress can’t pass laws telling state and local governments how to run their police forces.  About all the federal government can do (with one exception I will get to below) is cut back on the money it gives to state and local police departments if they do things the federal government doesn’t like.  It’s not much, but it’s something.  So the people in Washington are talking about a police reform bill which would increase or decrease the amount of money Washington gives to state and local police departments.

Two Bad Supreme Court Decisions – From a Process Point of View

It’s been a bad week for people who see the job of the Supreme Court as applying the law, as opposed to coming up with ways to do what Congress should do but hasn’t.

First, it was the LGBT workers decision on Monday in Bostock v. Clayton County.  I think that people shouldn’t be fired from jobs for being gay, lesbian, etc.¹  And I think Congress should pass a law to that effect (as should states).  But Congress hasn’t.  I do not believe that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, when it prohibits discrimination in employment because of an individual’s sex, covers discrimination because of sexual preference, gender identity, etc.  “Sex” did not include those things in 1964, and it shouldn’t be interpreted as including them today.  There is a proper way to do it: Pass a law.

Is “Tariff Man” Messing Up the Economy?

At one point in his dealings with China (which continue), President Trump called himself “Tariff Man” – apparently because he likes tariffs and thinks they are good things to impose and/or to threaten other countries with.  Which brings me to the tariffs that President Trump threatened to impose on Mexican imports into the United States if Mexico didn’t do more to stop people from entering the U. S. illegally. 

I have commented previously on President Trump’s arguably rogue or unilateralist approach to foreign policy.  I am not a fan of it.¹  I don’t think it’s good in the long run – or the short run – but I also don’t think it does any good for me to complain about it again and again.  And it gets tiring.  Therefore, this post.

But I think President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on imports from Mexico in this case causes a different kind of problem that I haven’t commented on before, at least with respect to President Trump, so I wanted to do so. 

Declaring a “National Emergency” to Build a Wall Is a Terrible Idea

President Trump has apparently decided to sign the budget bill and then declare a “national emergency” to build a wall on the border with Mexico.  I’ll be brief: This is an absolutely terrible idea.  Presidential power once stretched never returns to its prior limits.  A national emergency that lets President Trump build a wall, will let his successor do other things.  Even if you approve of the former, you may not approve of the latter.  And even if courts or Congress stop President Trump from doing this,¹ the mere fact that President Trump tried to use emergency powers in this way will be a precedent for future presidents to use their emergency powers in other ways.  This is a really bad idea.
--------
¹ It could be an interesting question as to who would have “standing” to challenge President Trump’s order in the courts.

A Few Thoughts on “Dreamers”

“Dreamers” is shorthand for people who were brought to the United States when their parents came here illegally.  In 2012, Barack Obama issued an executive order¹ establishing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program.  The program allowed people, who came to the U.S. before 2007 and before they turned 16 and who do not have a criminal record, to apply for two-year renewable permits to legally live and work here. 

President Obama initially called on Congress to pass a law to protect Dreamers (among other things), but when Congress failed to do so, he invoked his own special “Congress-won’t-do-what-I-want-so-I-can-do-it-anyway” principle of constitutional law² and issued an executive order establishing the DACA program.

How a Small Country Pays for Donald Trump’s Great Mexican Wall

During Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency, he promised he would build a “beautiful” wall on the border between the United States and Mexico and that Mexico would pay for it.  It was one of his guaranteed applause lines.  He never said how he was going to get Mexico to pay for it, or why they would agree to do so, but that didn’t seem to matter.  He was going to build it and they were going to pay for it.

Now that he is president, things are a little trickier, since now he has to build the wall – and he has to get Mexico to pay for it.  One of his first equivocations was that we would pay for it initially, but he would get Mexico to repay us later.  Once again, he didn’t say how he was going to get Mexico to repay us, but that was just details – or something.

Trump on Immigration; Progressives on Growth Where They Live.

In his big speech on immigration last week, Donald Trump said, inter alia, this:

“We take anybody.  Come on in, anybody.  Just come on in.  Not anymore.”

What Trump says sounds a lot like the policies they have in places such as San Francisco and Aspen – and other places where progressives live and want to keep more people from moving into.  Because they like those places the way they are.  And while progressives say they are merely trying to preserve the places, you have to wonder if they are really just trying to keep them for themselves.