Is rigid partisanship the real reason for rejecting Trump’s border crisis claim?By Nolan Rappaport
© Getty
Gallup scientist, Frank Newport, says that President Donald Trump’s wall has become an “RPPI” — a Rigidly Partisan Policy Issue. Opinions “are highly entrenched and largely based on underlying partisan identity.”Pew Research Center’s recent poll found that 82 percent of Republicans favor expanding the border wall, compared to only 6 percent of Democrats. Pew analysts noted that “partisan differences [on the wall] are now wider than they have ever been.”And the RPPI is even stronger in congress.Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) introduced a joint resolution, which, with favorable action in the Senate would terminate the national emergency declaration that Trump is using to obtain funding for his wall. Castro refers to it as “Trump’s fake emergency declaration.”The resolution was cosponsored by 232 Democrats and one Republican. It passed on a roll call vote of 245 yeas and 182 nays. All of the nay votes were from Republicans.Situation is worse than Trump is indicatingThe failure to secure the border has resulted in a population of undocumented aliens so large that effective immigration enforcement in the interior of the country is no longer possible.According to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations Report for fiscal 2018, the number of aliens deported from the interior of the country rose from 65,332 in fiscal 2016, to 95,360 in fiscal 2018.A study by MIT and Yale professors, however, indicates that the number of undocumented aliens in the United States could actually be as high as 22.1 million. If interior removals continue at the fiscal 2018 rate, it would take more than 200 years to remove them all.
*****************************
Go on over to The Hill for Nolan’s complete article. I appreciate his “nifty summaries!”
No matter how one views the numbers, removal of everyone here in undocumented status is impossible, not to mention unnecessary. Serious immigration enforcement and control would start with a recognition of the fact that our system has been out of whack for decades and that removing folks who are overwhelmingly contributing members of our society is counterproductive and a waste of time and resources that could be directed elsewhere, at real law enforcement issues.
If anything, we should be asking why our system wasn’t designed to let these folks immigrate legally in the first place.
Additionally, treating asylum applicants who apply at the border or turn themselves in immediately after entering as a “law enforcement issue” is a misnomer. People who voluntarily submit themselves for screening and apply for legal status are not law enforcement issues.
Those individuals who, in fact, are coming solely for jobs can be “screened out” during the “credible fear” process, and summarily removed without placing them in the Immigration Courts for full “removal hearings.” The never get into the “interior.”
The idea that recent arrivals who are applying for asylum won’t show up for their hearings is clearly bogus — most hearings would be months, if not years in the future, so we don’t actually know at this point! If the Government ran a rational system working with NGOs and private bar groups to find placements and pro bono lawyers for asylum seekers, experience and past studies show that the vast majority would show up for hearings. A fairer, more generous, and more realistic interpretation of asylum law would also help.
Use of TPS to both register individuals and keep them out of Immigration Court for the time being would also be a good option for an Administration truly interested in addressing the humanitarian issues.
Rather than a “law enforcement emergency,” these folks present administrative processing, humanitarian relief, and foreign policy issues that this Administration has shown little or no interest in resolving in a constructive manner by using mechanisms available under current law and spending money prudently rather than wasting it on a wall that will take years, if not decades, to build and won’t address today’s concerns.
PWS
03-05-19
Related
Related posts:
- THE HILL: NOLAN SAYS TRUMP HAS BETTER OPTIONS ON THE BORDER
- THE GIBSON REPORT — 05-13-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group
- INCONVENIENT TRUTH: HALEY SWEETLAND EDWARDS @ TIME TELLS WHAT TRUMP, MILLER, COTTON, SESSIONS, & THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST GANG DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW: Human Migration Is A Powerful Force As Old As Human History; It’s A Plus For Receiving Nations; It Won’t Be Stopped By Walls, Jails, Racist Laws, Or Any Other Restrictionist Nonsense; But, It Can Be Intelligently Controlled, Channeled, Harnessed, & Used For The Benefit Of The U.S. & The Good Of The Migrants! — “But to maximize that future good, governments must act rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.”
- HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations!
I don’t favor using TPS to provide temporary lawful status for millions of people. It is a statutory form of relief that wasn’t intended to apply to that type of situation.
But 12 years ago, to the day actually, Greg Siskind and I proposed a way to provide temporary lawful status to millions of undocumented immigrants that would fit.
Pre-Registration: A Proposal to Kick-Start Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Mar. 5, 2007), http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0314-rappaport.shtm
Thanks, Nolan! The “Rappaport-Siskind Proposal” is the type of thoughtful, innovative, and creative solution that could be a key part of a a practical, realistic, cost effective resolution. And, as you point out, it’s been out there for years. Thanks for “reinserting it in the discussion.” I hope the “right folks” in Congress will take notice!
P
Because Nolan’s Birthday is coming up (March 17), I have refrained from criticizing him lately because I do not want to continue to sound like a “One-note” singer. I’m not Bob Dylan. LOL! So I take the opportunity to thank Nolan for mentioning his now 12-year old proposal to kick start “comprehensive immigration reform”. That’s Note #1.
But now that sang that “sweet note”, let me pair it with Note #2, the fact that the “Rappaport-Siskind Proposal” was the old pre-Trump Nolan. The 2019 Nolan is represented by his comment in his latest article defending Trump’s “odious wall” that:
“the number of undocumented aliens in the United States could actually be as high as 22.1 million. If interior removals continue at the fiscal 2018 rate, it would take more than 200 years to remove them all.”
In short, Nolan wants a wall to prevent immigration because the goal is to remove as many as 22 million undocumented immigrants.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we build a country with the people we actually have. At a time when the median age of Americans is 56-years-old and rising, while American women are giving birth to only 1.6 babies per woman (way below (2.1) replacement level) we need as many young workers as we can get. ASAP.
And then there is Note #3. INS v. Chadha, 462 US 919 (1983). Now that it appears the Senate will follow suit and join the House in disapproving Trump’s “Emergency”, and that the stated purpose of many voting is preserving Congress’ Power of the Purse.
As well as the fact that Trump admitted he didn’t have to do an “Emergency”, Congress did approve some funds, and Trump submitted a request for another $8+ for the Wall in his new budget proposal. What’s the Emergency?
Doesn’t Trump’s “Emergency” also have an INS vs. Chadha 462 US 919 problem here: Chadha was a Legislative veto over actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. Trump vetoing the Congressional disapproval of his Vanity Wall “Emergency” would be an Executive Veto of a Congressional unwillingness to appropriate money for the Wall and affirmed by today’s Senate vote.
I realize that the “War Powers Act” enacted during the Nixon administration has a similar problem (How can Congress override by either disapproval or even inaction something the Executive does within its constitutional powers?), but the “War Powers Act” was never judicially litigated and in any event stands in more solid ground due to the urgency for an Executive military response by the Executive.
Conversely, the Power of the Purse” is an inherently Legislative function under our Constitution. The public overwhelmingly opposes the Trump “Emergency” ruse. Congress would have just voted against it. And J. Gorsuch and J. Roberts have recently shown an appreciation for the proper role of different branches of government. They may want to “show some leg” on this one.
I think the best winning argument on the “Emergency Wall” may be a Chadha argument. That to allow the President to veto a specific vote by Congress in order to spend more money than Congress authorized is a similar violation of Separation of Powers like Chadha.
Gus says there is a pre-Trump Nolan and a post-Trump Nolan. I have learned from experience that no purpose is served by challenging his opinions.
I will just say that I try to be objective. If you want to question that assertion, look at the 100 plus op-eds of mine that The Hill has published, and judge for yourself.
https://thehill.com/search/site/Nolan%20Rappaport
I think Gus is the one who has changed. He used to consider me to be one of his closest friends. Now he distorts what I say in my op-eds and uses his distortions as a basis for ad hominem attacks. That’s the new Gus.
And unfortunately, he isn’t alone. That is the way many Democrats handle opposition to their immigration views, i.e, with ad hominem attacks. That is a change too. I represented the immigration views of the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee for seven years. I never relied on ad hominem arguments and I don’t recall the members I represented doing it either.
There has been a new development with respect to whether there really is a crisis on the border. See the ICE Union’s letter to Trump’s about border crisis. https://twitter.com/NateOnTheHill/status/1105486735788642305
Nolan Rappaport
Happy Birthday Nolan!
And seriously, now that both the House and the Senate have voted overwhelmingly against the unfunded Vanity Wall, if Trump insists on spending for his emergency, I think the determinative precedent is the INS v. Chadha Presentment Clause Case. Trump’s veto is ultra-vires constitutionally.
For you young’uns (post-1983 EOIRs) Until 1983 Suspension of Deportation granted by an IJ and affirmed by BIA still had another step before it became final. Such grants were referred for Approval by Congress under Section 244(c)(2) of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Effectively, either Chamber of Congress could invalidate suspension of deportation grants by the DOJ by failing to approve, a process known as a legislative veto.
The 9th Circuit held that the legislative veto provision was unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court agreed. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). The Supremes ruled the INA 244(c)(2) legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers. It violated the Presentment Clause, because after the Executive had acted under its core Executive power, consistent with law, Congress cannot override. Even if the post-Executive Legislative vetos by Congress were specified by statute.
Here, Congress first acted within its Core Legislative Power of the Purse, providing only $1.8 Billion for the Vanity Wall, and as of today, both Chambers of Congress have also expressly disapproved Trump’s “Emergency”. Trump vetoing that disapproval is Constitutionally ultra vires. In fact, the deciding GOP Senators in today’s vote explained that their vote against Trump’s “Emergency” was meant to protect the Congressional Core Power of the Purse in Article One of the Constitution. The reverse mirror image side of Chadha, where an Article Two, Core Executive action was ultra vires being reviewed by Legislation.
Like a basketball shot that has not left the shooter’s hand before the period ends. Too late, even if well aimed. Doesn’t Count! Trump’s Emergency declaration to fund his wall against the expressed will of Congress violates the Presentment Clause, (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) of the United States Constitution.
And requiring a 2/3 vote by both Chambers to override Trump’s veto is even more extreme than the old INA section 244(c)(2) legislative veto that the Courts found ultra vires of the Constitutional Presentment Clause and other Clauses. Cf. the Supremes rejected a similar Presidential Line Item Veto case, Clinton V. New York, 118 S.Ct. 2091 (1998).
The Executive cannot just unilaterally declare an “Emergency”, against the twice expressed specific intent of Congress, rejecting that particular expenditure. What’s the Emergency? Trump admitted when he declared it that “it wasn’t necessary, he just wanted to do it that way to do it faster”. The determinative constitutional question remains who should decide last, when Congress says No, before and after. Congress has specifically declined to appropriate. That’s Final under the US Constitution scheme.
Look beyond this situation. What happens in the future if there is a terrible crisis and a deadlocked congress refuses to fund necessary action to deal with it?
A “Terrible Crisis..Deadlocked Congress…” is a scare scenario inapplicable here. A wall is not built overnight. It is not an Emergency response. Trump has to convince Congress to fund his long term building project. We get the government we vote for. It’s a Democracy.
If there is a “terrible crisis” and there really is an emergency (no time to act) then the President exercises his or her core Executive function. i.e. a nuclear attack which requires a speedy response.
Congress also has a core function and when there is no real “Emergency”. Just Congress disagreeing with the President’s priority over a long term building project.
Most Americans don’t want Trump’s Wall. And Trump has no credibility left. Another President may have credibility and given the benefit of the doubt. That Trump will look like a “loser” before his most rabid fans if he can’t get his “Wall” is not an excuse for Trump to act like a tyrant.
The only “clear and present danger” we have now is Trump. An ignorant bigot lying crook who works for the Russians’ Putin. Whether Trump knows it or not. And keeps shouting “No Collusion”.
Maybe Trump is just a “Useful idiot” (term of art) and thinks getting elected President gave him the Divine Rights of Kings. And his hard core base wants it that way. The rest of us are not ready to discard our constitutional Democracy for Trump’s Kakistocracy.
And when Congress decides thousands of dark skinned applicants for asylum is not such a “terrible crisis”, that’s the end of it, even if you think Immigration Law is the most important law and Deportation its only truly essential feature.
The President has spent considerable political capital lying about everything, and specially performing his street art before mobs of red MAGA hatted bigots who alternate shouting “Build the Wall”, “Mexico will Pay for it”, with “Lock her Up”, “Fake News”, “No Collusion”, etc.
To give in to Trump and his Base now is immoral and undemocratic. It would be rewarding a Demagogue who can rile up a crowd, the opposite of the deliberation long term capital expenditures from the public purse requires.
The authority isn’t limited to emergencies that can be deal with immediately. And I doubt that you would want a Republican congress to block emergency action by a Democratic president by refusing to fund it. The republican controlled congress opposed Obama’s DACA program, didn’t they?
As for the public, they have a very low opinion of the congress you think should be able to stop a president’s emergency responses, substantially lower than their opinion of Trump.
Happy Birthday Nolan. There you go again.
DACA may have been called unconstitutional, but as you specifically explained in one of your pre-Trump articles, something similar was used by the Executive 19 times, starting with Eastern European post-WWII refugees pending expected Legislative Action including mine own as a Cuban Refugee. It took more than 5 years before the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act was enacted. Ditto for the Displaced Persons Act, Vietnamese G.I. babies left behind, etc. We are both generous and practical, at our best. We muddle through and eventually make the right choices after we try everything else.
My lack of an official immigrant visa was specifically waived February 1962 when my family sent me using the xeroxed Peter Pan visas a Miami Monseigneur had obtained from sympathetic CIA officials in Washington.
Those visas were initially authorized for families of Cuban CIA operatives in 1959. But supposedly Castro was going to send the children of Cuban professionals to Soviet Block schools for indoctrination. And Castro was about to shut off flights from Cuba which he did in September 1962. Communism is Totalitarian, it persecutes potential opponents as much as actual opponents per UN Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick’s memorable dichotomy. That was the Emergency.
Just like the INS in Milwaukee used “retroactive advanced parole” liberally, the El Paso TX INS handed out “green cards” to commuters at a time when there were no Western Hemisphere limits, Miami INS entered into “conditional termination” of deportation cases as a management tool for its massive adjustment of status caseload, etc. Good local administrators solve the immediate problem with available resources, and fix other problems later. That’s why we pay them the Big Bucks. LOL!
DACA is a reasonable and precedent-based solution pending the demographic extinction after the 2022 Reapportionment of the dominant intransigent minority which controlled the House since 2011 under the Hastert Rule. It refused to vote on Comprehensive Immigration Reform after 2013, failing to update INA’s humanitarian pressure valves in the 1996 IIRIRA. Since then substantial majorities have consistently wanted to protect the DACA recipients.
No court has ever held DACA unconstitutional. All we have is overbroad dictum by a US Dist Ct judge in the DAPA case, and a change in policy by Trump’s DOJ regarding defending DACA in court, imposed by Jeff Sessions. DACA is not a relevant comparison.
More relevant is a future President declaring Climate Change an “Emergency”, because he promised it to MAGA-like raging mobs, and ordering the dismantling of the US Industrial facilities that rely on fossil fuels. Trump looking bad to his most rabid supporters is the apt analogy.
Finally, Trump trumpets himself as the 21st Century Andrew Jackson thumbing his thumb at Congress on behalf of the “common man”. But Jackson’s “common man” was 100% early 19th Century White males of European ancestry. The 2019 “common man”, not so much. Literally.
Gotta go. Heading to Charlottesville to visit my family where it all first came to a head August 2017.
“The republican controlled congress opposed Obama’s DACA program, didn’t they?” It was actually a majority of the GOP majority under the Hastert rule. The majority of Congress favored DACA. Former GOP Majority leader Dennis Hastert is still serving time in Illinois for covering up his child molesting last I’ve heard.
I’m so lucky as an observant. My brother lives in Hastert’s old Illinois District and my in-laws live in Steve King’s Iowa District. Like Yogi Berra said: “You can observe a lot by watching”.
“As for the public, they have a very low opinion of the congress”. But they keep reelecting their own congressman to protect them from other American’s congressmen or congresswomen. We’ve really only had 2 eras of good feelings, Washington to Monroe post War of Independence and Truman to Kennedy, post WWII. Beats Kurdistan, Armenia, etc. Count our blessings and enjoy them when we get them. Certainly not Trump Time!
Gotta Go.
And BTW. If a GOP Congress disapproves of a Democrat President “Emergency”, I’d be the First in line cheering them. Specially if a Democratic president declared Climate Change an “Emergency” and tried to seize or even dismantle fossil fuel industries.
Here, after the President has held the country hostage for 35 days, then signed the bill with only $1.8 Billion and then immediately declared an “Emergency”to build a long term wall. What’s the Emergency?
That same long term building project Congress specifically refused to fund a few days ago because the American People don’t want it. See https://news.gallup.com/poll/246455/solid-majority-opposes-new-construction-border-wall.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=LEAD&g_campaign=item_&g_content=Solid%20Majority%20Still%20Opposes%20New%20Construction%20on%20Border%20Wall.
To uphold Trump’s unconstitutional actions would be a grave disaster for American Democracy. Congress refusing to build a Vanity Wall is not an “Emergency”. It is an unambiguous rejection of Trump’s Vanity Project. Like Lincoln explained, “if you call a dog’s tail: “leg”, how many legs does a dog have? Five? No Four, because a tail is not a leg.”
And building the Wall to please Trump’s most rabid followers, against most Americans wishes, is precisely what our founders, specially James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, tried to prevent: Tyrants like Trump who don’t care what other people think.
The People who live near the USA SW border like it the way it is. That’s Why They Live There!