Via an Executive Order titled, “Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation,” Mr. Trump has instructed relevant Federal agencies lead by the Department of Homeland Security that they,
(a) … , shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.
(b) The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child’s alien parent would pose a risk to the child’s welfare.
What does this mean for Family Separation Week?
Ignore the Press and read the Order.
U.S.C. 1101 et seq., it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Under our laws, the only legal way for an alien to enter this country is at a designated port of entry at an appropriate time. When an alien enters or attempts to enter the country anywhere else, that alien has committed at least the crime of improper entry and is subject to a fine or imprisonment under section 1325(a) of title 8, United States Code. This Administration will initiate proceedings to enforce this and other criminal provisions of the INA until and unless Congress directs otherwise. It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.
The volley that has, all week, been tossed in Mr. Trump’s direction, has been returned.
Mr. Trump has openly stated that he believes he is following the law as written. That it is the job of Congress to craft laws, including to address any public interest in the situation at hand. That we have been separating families at the border for many years and doing so under terms set by judges, not legislators. That his office has been forced to respond as much as possible as allowed by law to address the recent concerns.
All of these things are true. We’ve outlined or linked to sources that confirm each of these statements throughout the past week. So, what’s the play?
Mr. Trump is a deal maker at his core who doesn’t give something up without getting something in return. He doesn’t do much, if anything, without a plan. So, what’s the plan?
I can only guess, but if I’ve not said it previously I’m reasonably sure that the far-left timed this expression of outrage to bump the IG report on Hillary’s email investigation into limbo.
And while the use of executive orders has a history of coming under fire from both sides, Mr. Trump has a habit of using them in the context of “to the extent permitted by law.”
He uses the phrase often. It may appear in every EO, though I can’t say for sure because I’ve only read or skimmed a few dozen. But the context is important.
Regardless of what the EO suggests by anchoring its effect to the law as written, The Chief Executive is not just honoring the limits of his office; he is placing the burden of its effectiveness entirely on Congress, activist courts, and the Swamp.
Everything is to be done based on what the law permits which means he is not making law or massaging the law. He is asking the bureaucrats to do what they can within the law.
On the ground, the agencies and their agents (whom reporters are already claiming have to scramble to respond) have to look at the law to see what it allows. They are required to determine if the money appropriated to them by Congress permits the response requested – or what they can do to accommodate the request. They must identify appropriate cases among detainees, locate facilities, and examine their ability to secure these locations and reimburse the costs for their use. All within existing law.
Mr. Trump is telling a Swamp that wanted all this discretionary authority to get off their asses and use it if it exists under existing law to address a public outcry (real or imagined) if they are able.
That’s it.
So, what’s next?
Mr. Schumer, as noted yesterday, refused to support bipartisan reform and went “all in” on insisting Mr. Trump had the power to do something. This, despite every Democrat in the US Senate signing onto a “solution” that was so badly written “that it does not distinguish between foreign children at the border and U.S. citizen children,” likely allowing a significant number of parents with children to go unpunished for crimes were it to become law.
Mr. Trump has called his bluff. He has issued a public relations proclamation to the nation stating that he inherited this problem. That no previous president had the courage to address it. That Congress failed to fix it. And he has asked the agencies he oversees to look for ways with the law as written to address the concerns as best they can.
Congress response? The House is back to square one.
Does that mean the law already affords a solution? If so, why did those that came before never use that law to address the problem?
Because until the IG report on how the FBI and DoJ handled the investigation into Hillary’s illegal use of private email it wasn’t a problem or none of them actually cared.
We could go back to the IG report and we will, but I have another idea. New Hampshire has four Democrats in Congress.
Where was their “outrage” over this “injustice” while Mr. Obama was President (whether they were in Congress or not)? If they did where’s the proof?
If they didn’ know about it, why not and why not until now?
Why should voters believe them or trust their answers to these questions?
