Tag Archives: immigration

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

This episode is from Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D).  He claimed last Sunday, with a straight face that

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is “targeting” mayors like himself, and intimidating them into being “fugitive slave catchers that run around and do their bidding in our cities.”

Milwaukee County, WI, Sheriff David Clarke was more polite than I:

I’ve heard a lot of stupid things [but] comparing fugitive slaves to illegal immigrants is the gold standard of stupidity[.]

I say, rather, that Baraka’s TDS has turned him into an irrational election-denier.

A Test

Posted on by
Reply

In South Dakota v Dole, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government could not withhold already committed funds from States in amounts that could coerce the States into obeying Federal diktats, such withholdings were legal but only in amounts that would be persuasive rather than coercive (as an aside, the Court did not get around to identifying a threshold or a threshold region that would separate the coercive from the merely persuasive).

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday that he was reaffirming a[n]…Obama-era policy that threatened to pull grants from jurisdictions that bar officials from communicating with federal agencies about immigration, and implied that more sweeping rules were coming. He also said the Justice Department would try to take back previously granted funding from places that don’t comply with the communications law.

Sessions’ rationale seems entirely reasonable, on one plane.

When cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe.  I strongly urge our nation’s states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and to rethink these policies.

There are, though, a couple of problems with this, one legal and one political (and political philosophical).  The legal problem stems from that Supreme Court ruling.  While the inability to coerce was applied in a matter involving coercion of States, the extension of the principle to jurisdictions below States is straightforward.  If the Federal government cannot coerce States, it cannot bypass the State governments to coerce lesser jurisdictions within (and generally bound by) a State government.

The political problem is this—and it’s the larger problem in my view, since Court rulings can be overruled by later Courts.  Just how much do we want, in our federated form of governance—the 10th Amendment—and the sovereignty of We the People—our Constitution’s Preamble and the 9th Amendment—the Federal government to be able to coerce the States and lesser jurisdictions?

It seems entirely legitimate to prevent coercively a State or lower jurisdiction from flouting federal law, from disobeying it.  Forcing it to actively enforce federal law seems a different matter.  Where is the threshold?

If this level of coercion is appropriate or legitimate, how about that level of coercion?  If coercing States, et al., regarding immigration questions is OK, what about coercing States, et al., regarding gun (control) rights?  Speech?  Drinking ages (that South Dakota thing again)?  And on and on?

Where would it stop?  What is Sessions’ limiting principle?  What is the Federal government’s?

Partial Immigration Moratorium

Posted on by
Reply

The irrationality of some Federal District judges is being made palpable by their rulings against the latest Executive Order involving a temporary moratorium on folks from six terrorist- and terrorism-supporting countries.  Here’s one example, from US District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii:

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable.  The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.

Yet he chose not to explain his own logic, nor did he deign explain the limiting principle he holds underlying this claim.  Indeed, he explicitly refused to explain himself:

The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.

Thus: the illogic of the judge’s contention is palpable.  The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward entire groups of people by only targeting some of them is fundamentally flawed.

How small a minority of the group can be targeted without the judge deeming the entire group targeted?  Is targeting only terrorists in a group a necessary targeting of the entire group?  Is targeting a single individual—rightly or wrongly; that’s what trials are for, after all—necessarily a targeting of the entire group to which he belongs?

And which group in which he has membership—Islam?  Sunni Muslim?  His fellow citizens of a nation?  The group comprised of fellow members of his gender?  All groups?

Where is the limiting threshold?  Watson chose not to say.

And this:

[P]lainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose.

Here is the judge dragging into the case things that are not in the case at all.  The matters before the judge are the Executive Order and its constitutional legitimacy and nothing else.  Campaign rhetoric, marketing commentary, are not relevant.  What is relevant–all that is relevant–are the plain text of the EO, existing immigration law, and the Constitution.  Full stop.

This judge has ruled solely on personal ideological grounds and not at all on the legality of the matter.  Ideology, political matters–policy–are for the political branches of Government, not for the judicial–as Article III makes plain.

Sanctuary Cities and Federal Funding

Posted on by
1

San Francisco asked a federal judge Wednesday to block President Trump’s order threatening to strip federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities that bar police from enforcing immigration laws.

This suit has a good chance of succeeding.  In 1987’s South Dakota v Dole, the Supreme Court ruled (in a dispute over the State’s minimum drinking age and Federal highway funds transfers to the State) that the Federal government cannot withhold already agreed Federal funds from a State in order to coerce State acquiescence with Federal wishes.  Funds can be withheld to “persuade,” but the withheld funds must be related to the question at hand rather than a blanket withholding, and the amount withheld cannot be coercive in its size, but only persuasive.  Without naming a threshold for the amount, the Court held that the 5% withholding imposed by the Federal government was not coercive.

Right or wrong, that’s the law of the land as things stand.  Congress and the President will have to statutorily overrule the Supreme Court to enable such a broad withholding of Federal funds from San Francisco.

On the other hand, stopping sending all Federal funds to all cities altogether would bypass the Court’s ruling (although legislation still would be necessary to stop completely the funds transfers).  In the end, we have to ask why the citizens of Illinois, for instance, should have to pay any part of, let’s say, San Francisco’s expenses at all.

It’s true enough that we’re all in this republican democracy nation of ours together, and so we support each other.  But that mutual support includes cities like San Francisco not creating themselves as burdens on the rest of our nation with its irresponsible, profligate spending while demanding OPM to pay for that spending.

Disingenuous Targeting

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Donald Trump has signed a revised Executive Order that imposes a short moratorium on entry into the US from six (down from seven under his original EO) Middle Eastern countries.  Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin has filed suit in Hawaii’s Federal District Court to try to block this new EO.  The EO, Chin claims, will damage Hawaii’s

economy, educational institutions, and tourism industry; and it is subjecting a portion of the state’s citizens to second-class treatment and discrimination, while denying all Hawaii residents the benefits of an inclusive and pluralistic society.

This is disingenuous.  The folks whose entry is being temporarily blocked represent a vanishingly small per centage of Hawaii’s tourist population.  The foolishness of “damage” to educational institutions I’ve already addressed regarding a Washington Federal judge’s ruling on the earlier EO.  Chin’s beef about Hawaii citizens is nothing more than a cynically dragged red herring: the EO doesn’t even address American citizens, much less those who also are citizens of Hawaii.  This EO impacts only some refugees and potential immigrants.

About those refugees and potential immigrants: Chin made this charge in his filing, and he actually kept a straight face as he filed it:

This new executive order is nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0.  Under the pretense of national security, it still targets immigrants and refugees.

Of course, the EO cannot be a ban; it’s a temporary moratorium with an expiration deadline.  More than that, it cannot be a ban of Muslims; it impacts only about 10% of the world’s Muslims.

Of course, it does target potential immigrants and refugees—those are folks outside our nation, and they are not citizens of our nation.  As such, these people have no right to enter our nation without our prior permission, nor do we have an obligation to let them in.  That’s what nation means, that’s what borders are for.

Nor do we know who these folks are, really—which is why the EO imposes the moratorium: to give State and DHS time to improve our vetting procedures, another requirement of the EO, and a requirement carefully ignored by Chin.

Of course Chin knows all of this.  The utter disingenuousness of this Democrat’s charge ought to get his filing dismissed on its face.