President Trump has signed an executive order ending the separation of migrant parents and children at the U. S. border. The alternative President Trump has chosen, maintaining his “zero tolerance” policy at the border but keeping families together, is not a legal one.
Based on present law as interpreted by the courts, there were three legal alternatives. He could release the families on their own recognizance pending their deportation or asylum hearings, essentially a continuation of the policy of the Obama Administration, a political non-starter for Trump and his supporters. He could maintain present policy and separate families and children, a cruel, inhumane policy, opposition to which appears to be rising. Or Congress could act to allow families and their children to be detained together.
I am not as comfortable with presidents who follow their consciences or move the way in which the political winds are blowing without regard for the law as many people seem to be. I also doubt that this reversal will mollify the president’s political opponents.
And the policy of “zero tolerance” at the border will produce cruelty and chaos for years to come.
Of the three options, catch and release was being abused, and while Trump was trying to get Congress to do its job, his political opponents seized upon the opportunity because of the distastefulness of #2, as I’ve been pointing out.
As for morals, as you predict, the Kamala Harris’s, Chuck Schumers, Jeff Flakes, and Nancy Pelosis of the world have immediately moved the goalposts, illustrating, as anyone should know, they don’t give a damn about the kids, just the issue.
I think its a shame more hasn’t been written about the cynical exploitation by immigrant adults of the children, which just shows media complicity.
A bit off topic; but how much of this is being driven by the consent decree in Flores?
Can the government pull out of consent decree if it deems the consent decree is not serving the public interest? Otherwise it seems a rather big loophole in the idea that one administration may not restrict the actions of a future administration (only Congress can do that by law and treaty or Courts by definitive judgements that an action is against the law).
@Curious,
Yes, the consent decree figures into this, but not in the way most people think. In order to fight the EO the opponents are going to have to involve the Judiciary, which they are not going to appreciate.
@Dave, I think executive orders as an interim measure are fine. This one is characterized as temporary, but without any expiration date that I can see, might better be described as indefinite.
@CuriousOnlooker: I find the notion that a consent decree in some federal district court somewhere establishes “nationwide policy” to be quite weird. But the executive order directs the A.G. to modify the consent decree to authorize the policy.
More precisely, the A.G. is directed to seek the judge’s approval for the modification of the consent decree.
So do I (as I suggested yesterday). However there’s an old wisecrack: there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary structure. What mechanism prevents an interim measure from becoming permanent? If there is none, the likelihood is that it’s permanent.
“catch and release was being abused”
For illegals in general, not asylum seekers.
Steve
@Dave, just want to maintain the Lincoln defense of the suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus. I’ve been in the low country on vacation the last couple of weeks and am just catching up with this week’s drama. I still want to read the Comey report sometime as well.
“Did you remember to bring the watch? I specifically told you to not forget the watch.â€
“Then yes I did.â€
These faux outrage episodes are always so easy to debunk or illustrate the greater complexity of the issue. If you are trying….
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/21/cnn-dem-senator-object-obama-kept-unaccompanied-illegal-kids-cages/
If you are trying……
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/21/nancy-pelosi-2014-lets-not-politicize-children-detention-facilities/
I think the Florida weather is rotting your brain. In the past and in the future we will have children held in detention. Some of them come alone and we will need to keep them somewhere until permanent placement can be found. What we were talking about this time was that Trump changed policy so that they were deliberately separating children from family. For the first 400 days of his presidency that was not done. Then they changed policy and started separating. That is the issue.
In a way I guess I can’t blame you for such weak attempts to try to justify an awful policy. You have to support Trump no matter what he does now that you are firmly in the cult, so you are willing to trot out any half baked argument.
Steve