Work with Congress on immigration
Donald Trump’s resounding victory in the 2016 presidential election came at least in part because the New York businessman grasped the disconnect between how millions of Americans and the political establishments of both parties felt about immigration. Instead of supporting comprehensive reform, these Americans want new restrictions and strict enforcement of existing laws. This seems like common sense to some, misguided nationalism to others and blatant racism to still others.
But whatever camp you’re in, there should be agreement on this: The Trump administration needs to get its act together on immigration. Three federal courts in California this week have shown that instead of the president playing to his base with showy gestures, his goal should be working with Congress to come up with coherent policies.
On Monday, Los Angelesbased U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee rejected virtually every argument put forward by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department that sought to modify a 1997 consent decree that requires children detained on immigration grounds to be transferred to licensed care programs within 20 days. Sessions argued that long-term confinement was essential to keeping families from being separated when parents are detained for alleged immigration violations.
The cynicism of this argument is hard to exaggerate. The Trump administration this spring changed its policies on border apprehension to require that children be separated from their parents when families are detained at the border. Now the president and the attorney general pretend they want to prevent these separations?
The falsity of this purported compassion was shown Tuesday in San Diego. U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw ordered the federal government to hurry up and meet deadlines he had previously set for reuniting detained children and their parents.
The scattershot nature of the administration’s immigration policies was also underlined Monday by Sacramento-based U.S. District Judge John Mendez, who upheld two state laws and part of a third. One allows California to inspect federal detention facilities; another limits how much local and state lawenforcement authorities can cooperate with federal immigration officials. Mendez found that refusing to help immigration officials is not the same as impeding them.
Sessions challenged the laws in March, declaring that California was interfering with the federal government’s constitutionally guaranteed authority over immigration. So much for the conservative talking point that states’ rights were routinely violated by the Obama administration’s edicts.
Judges Gee and Mendez both urged the federal government to step up and pass immigration legislation that would answer basic policy questions that have been addressed with executive orders and judicial rulings. Gee rapped “over 20 years of congressional inaction.” Mendez said the Constitution “demands” a legislative response.
Perhaps this is unrealistic. But even if Congress’ lethargy continues, Trump, Sessions and others in the administration should pursue a more sustainable course on immigration by recognizing the limits on what unilateral executive action can achieve. Adopting policies that violate established precedents and abandon due process may play well with Trump’s base. But if the policies don’t survive repeated legal scrutiny, it’s hard to see why they would be considered constructive — even by his admirers.