Immigration—Whose Rights?

Here’s Mexican Secretary of Economy, Ildefonso Guajardo, on the question of whether NAFTA should be renegotiated:

Logically, there wouldn’t be incentives to continue collaborating on the issues most important to national security in North America, such as the issue of migration[.]

And this:

[T]he Trump administration’s effort to step up deportations have already prompted an aggressive campaign by some Mexican officials, governors and public figures to fight the policy by jamming up US immigration courts.

That particular bit of business has been noted earlier.

Because foreign individuals or those who are part of a flow of migrants have their own right to enter another country, or to be in another country, just because they want to or are on the move?

This is, in many respects, the obverse of my piece yesterday: does a foreign national retain his home country’s rights when he’s inside the US (for instance, Mexico has made it illegal to prevent a Mexican citizen from leaving Mexico)?  Does a foreign national have an intrinsic right to be in our country, independently of our wishes, even our law?

Note to Self: Delete notes to self before publishing a piece.

The Left Gives the Game Away

Again.  Buried at the bottom of a Wall Street Journal piece on the auto industry’s effort to get the Obama administration’s last-minute (almost literally) attempt to make permanent fuel standards (also last minute because the underlying research wasn’t even going to be complete until 2018) is this rationale from Roland Hwang, at the National Resources Defense Council’s Director, Energy & Transportation Program, as paraphrased by the WSJ.

relaxing standards could hurt Americans depending on clean-car technology jobs.

Because EPA regulations are all about creating jobs and not about mitigating pollution.

Does a foreigner on foreign soil have Fourth Amendment rights?

That’s the subtitle of a Wall Street Journal op-ed.  The answer should be obvious, too: it would be the height of jingo-ism to assert US government jurisdiction over non-citizens outside our borders—outside, for instance, the 14th Amendment’s subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Firing into another country at a foreign national, especially one that’s a citizen of the country being fired into, could well be a violation, but that potential would be a violation of a different set of circumstances than the question before the Supremes in the present case, Hernandez v Mesa.  That other set of circumstance has to do with international relations, foreign policy, the nature of casus belli, and on and on—and all purely political matters, not legal ones, and so not only a different set of circumstances, but a matter that’s outside the reach of court jurisdiction.

A Good Move

There’s a new sheriff in Phoenix, the one replacing Sheriff Arpaio, who was defeated in the election last fall.  The new cop has withdrawn Arpaio’s policy of holding prisoners for as long as “necessary” for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to come get those flagged for deportation.

I agree.  Cooperation with the Feds is a two-way street; the Feds have to work with the locals, too.

[New Sheriff Paul Penzone] won’t hold immigrants flagged for deportation by federal authorities past their release date in a major policy change.

He can’t, with any legitimacy.  ICE will need to do their part and move faster even as Penzone continues to cooperate fully with them.

Penzone said ICE officers will remain in his jail to screen everyone who is booked, but he will no longer detain inmates past their release dates to accommodate the agency.

Media Bias

Here’re another couple of examples, this time by (not reported by, but by) media “critic” Howard Kurtz, writing for Fox News.

What President Donald Trump tweeted:

What Kurtz said—right after he presented the above tweet:

The media are not the enemy.

Notice that cynical strawman: carefully censored from the tweet by Kurtz was the modifier—there in all caps—FAKE NEWS.  Just to drive the point home so that maybe even Kurtz will recognize it, what Trump said was the enemy was fake news media, not media generally.

Here’s Kurtz again:

Trump was able to change the subject from the firing of Michael Flynn, the withdrawal of his Labor nominee and the fact that he still hasn’t appealed the travel ban ruling to, well, himself.

Here’s Kurtz attempting to change the subject away from illegal, potentially criminal, intelligence leaks; SecDef’s trip to Iraq as the Mosul campaign picks up; and tax reform and Obamacare repeal and replace to, well, his media.

How biased is that, if not outright dishonest?