I am putting out this extra post and making it free because the news is breaking too fast for me to wait until Monday. - Please feel free to share this article far and wide as you see fit.
As I write this, I know I am preaching to the choir as it were, but as things become more dire for our Democracy, I feel that putting out facts that you, the reader, can share is vital. These issues are more important than they may appear on the surface, and I hope that by bringing you the minutia, you can have cogent conversations with those who either choose to ignore the news completely or get it from questionable sources.
America’s Southern Border
The failure of the MAGA contingency to come to the table regarding this budget issue has far-ranging consequences. With the death of a Border Deal, there is no way to provide the allotted $60 billion in assistance to Ukraine, $14 billion to Israel, and nearly $5 billion for partners in the Indo-Pacific to counter China.
A letter signed by nine diplomats and sent to Capitol Hill laid out why this funding is so important: “Governments are watching what we do at this pivotal moment in history — a time when decisions that we take now will have lasting impacts for years to come. They want to see that when the chips are down, the United States will be there for our allies and partners.”
“Not only will our allies and partners take stock of this moment, so will our adversaries. The credibility of our commitment to collective security and deterrence hangs in the balance.”
The ambassadors who signed the letter are Philip Goldberg of South Korea, Rahm Emanuel of Japan, Caroline Kennedy of Australia, MaryKay Carlson of the Philippines, Eric Garcetti of India, Nicholas Burns of China, Tom Udall of New Zealand, Edgard Kagan of Malaysia and Marc Knapper of Vietnam.
I have many MAGA friends and family, and I am aware that they would never read this article, but what I am able to do is present facts about their fallacies when the time arrives.
This is a rundown of the facts that I urge you to share with those in your sphere that are so ill-informed.
Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, declared the Border Security bill dead on arrival before it was ever completed and before anyone had the opportunity to read it.
It died in the Senate on Tuesday.
These actions were in direct response to Trump's desire to kill the effort so he could use it against Biden in the election. An act not only hypocritical but unethical and cruel to boot. Although, that is the stock in trade of today’s Republican party.
Let’s lay this out point by point.
Biden has said for weeks that he would shut down the border if given the ability to do so. The MAGA faction says he already has the power to do this.
The Republicans often cite Section 212(f) and claim presidents can suspend immigration for anyone “detrimental to the interests” of the U.S.
The thing is, Trump actually tried that back in 2018, and a federal court struck him down. A federal appeals court ruled that the authority conflicts with asylum law, and the 212(f) authority doesn’t override it.
The Republicans are also saying Biden has the authority to do a lot of things via executive order.
Trump tried this, too, when he was in office. He declared a Muslim ban.
Four federal courts ruled against this power grab, and a court of appeal upheld them. Trump diluted his demands and called it a “U.S. enemies” ban, which then included North Koreans and certain Venezuelan officials. That went to the Supreme Court and barely squeaked by with a 5-4 decision.
“The idea that the president could accomplish most or all of this through executive authority is just flatly wrong. By every measure, constructive solutions using executive authority alone just don’t exist in this particular moment.” - Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Next, we hear all about Title 42. Title 42 was a pandemic-era rule that Trump used during Covid-19 to declare a public health emergency. As required by a court order, Biden lifted Title 42. There are presently no health crises that would justify reinstating it.
Here are a few other false statements coming out of the MAGA lawmakers.
The bill “gives taxpayer-funded lawyers to illegal immigrants.” This is true, but only for unaccompanied minors.
Co-author of the bill, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), had this to say, “You know, 8-year-old kids fleeing violence or certain death, who arrive at our border alone, shivering and frightened, traumatized from the journey, not able to speak the language. We aren't monsters. We should help them.”
“The bill will allow 5000 immigrants to come into our country every day.”
The bill does not allow 5,000 immigrants a day. In actuality, it would force the Department of Homeland Security to shutter the border if daily illegal crossings top 5,000 migrants on average or 8,500 in a single day. Unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada wouldn’t count toward that total. The administration could only reopen the border if encounters of illegal crossings drop to 75 percent of the number that initially triggered the closure.
So, what else is in the bill that President Biden called the “toughest and fairest” in decades — and progressives describe as the most severe set of changes to border policy in decades and far too restrictive?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose annual budget is $ 9 billion, would get almost $8 billion in emergency funding.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement emergency funding would include more than $3 billion for increased detention capacity.
Customs and Border Protection, whose current budget is $21 billion, would get nearly $7 billion in emergency funding. This would include $723 million to cover the hiring of new Border Patrol agents and overtime pay.
$1.4 billion would go to help states and local governments handle the influx of immigrants.
In the bill is legislation called the Fend Off Fentanyl Act that aims to beef up anti-money laundering policies and sanctions. In this, the Drug Enforcement Administration would receive more than $23 million to work to disband Mexican cartels trafficking fentanyl across the southern border. The State Department and USAID would receive about $25 million for programs to help curb the flow of drugs into the U.S.
Regarding the wall, the bill would force the Biden administration to use money already laid out for finishing the steel fencing that Trump endorsed while in office.
Up to 250,000 new visas over five years would be made available for people seeking to work in the U.S. or to join family members. It would offer work authorization to the children and spouses of people who have H-1B visas for specialized fields, such as tech and engineering, that require a bachelor’s degree.
What it doesn’t include is help for immigrants who came to this country as children, farm workers, or long-term “essential jobs” residents seeing citizenship—something most Americans support.
The legislation does, however, put down a plan to provide a pathway to citizenship for “Documented Dreamers,” or children who accompanied their parents on a work visa and who could potentially lose their place in line for a green card at age 21.
It is also important to point out that the lead drafter of the bill was a Republican -Senator James Lankford.
“The key aspect of this, again, is, are we as Republicans going to have press conferences and complain the border is bad and then intentionally leave it open?”
“Are we going to just complain about things, or are we actually going to address and change as many things as we can?”
“Now, it’s interesting, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year.” - Senator Lankford on Fox News
Another important fact, as reported by the Cato Institute: “The Biden Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under President Biden. In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many people per month as the Trump DHS did.”
Facts Matter!
As I was putting this to bed Tuesday afternoon, four Republican members of Congress showed some sense on another immigration concern.
After a months-long investigation into Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to bring impeachment charges, the attempt failed. The entire thing was a sham from the very beginning. Legal experts have argued while there is a policy dispute between Republicans and the White House regarding immigration policies, there is no evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
However, it is possible that the House will bring this up again for a second vote when the one Republican, Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise, who is out for cancer treatment, is back in Washington DC.
The President is Not Immune
Yesterday morning, February 6th, as I finished the above post, the three-member panel of the Federal Appeals Court regarding Trump’s case for immunity handed down a 57-page ruling.
Some highlights:
A point appreciated by those who have watched the clip of Mitch McConnel in the impeachment hearings, repeating over and over that the court of law is where this should be decided.
The court said: [During] President Trump’s 2021 impeachment proceedings for incitement of insurrection, his counsel argued that instead of post-Presidency impeachment, the appropriate vehicle for “investigation, prosecution, and punishment” is “the article III courts,” as “[w]e have a judicial process” and “an investigative process . . . to which no former officeholder is immune.”
It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.
We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.
The quadrennial Presidential election is a crucial check on executive power because a President who adopts unpopular policies or violates the law can be voted out of office.
Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role—the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes—thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress …
We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.
At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”
I do not believe that this ruling should come as a surprise to anyone. Every Constitutional Scholar has pointed out that he did not have a leg to stand on.
While many have written about the length of time this decision took to come down and the potential delays that Trump can institute, the court took care of that.
The court basically set a deadline of next Monday for Trump to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The court of appeals directed that, by February 12, if Trump does not ask the Supreme Court to halt proceedings in the district court, it goes back to Judge Chutkan’s court for trial.
Trump’s council has to file “an application for a stay” with the Supreme Court by Monday, February 12th. However, should the Supreme Court agree to hear this, it may not be until June before we have an answer. Then, we will be in the heart of the campaign season.
Insurrection
Tomorrow, February 8th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. The plaintiffs are a group of Colorado voters who claim that under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Trump is not constitutionally qualified to run for president because he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court has stated that it will decide on a fast-track basis. What exactly that means is yet to be seen.
As all of Trump’s legal cases wind their way painfully slowly through the courts, our Democracy sits on a precipice. Much of it teetering on lies and obfuscation by the MAGA contingency in and out of government.
We will never change the minds of those deeply devoted to Trump, but facts can persuade those sitting on the fence to put this country back on track.
I am here to arm you with the facts.
On the whole, the nation/Constitution/rule of law had one loss and two wins. Not bad, considering the times.