SPECIAL: POTUS Trump’s Executive Orders 3 & 4

San Francisco, California [proud sanctuary city with a future in lost Federal funds{?)]
From 25 January, 2017 is the third Executive Order of President Trump which is largely aimed at State and local (i.e., “Sanctuary Cities”) governments by directing them to, like it or not, enforce existing immigration law. Titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” it very quickly delves into these matters, asserting that “Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities across the country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept their repatriation.  Many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails. The presence of such individuals in the United States, and the practices of foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest.”

Therefore, the Executive Office issues this statement along with direction to use all legal means to assist the renewed Federal effort(s) on illegal immigration, stating that items cited comprise the official position of the President, with several key matters provided here by selection due to their critical position in the national interest “[To]: Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code; Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States…”

I’d like to pause prior to finishing the other key points of the Order to translate what’s been stated in the text provided already. Long story short, the President is not urging the passage of new legislation nor is he commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) in the status quo. Simply put, he is stating that the permissive era of the past (to include President Bush; this is not me singling out President Obama) is over and that whether or not we like law is irrelevant. By citing the exact passage(s) of existing Federal law the President is stating that the law, as it stands, is to be enforced.

Sanctuary Cities of America

The following statement further verifies my translation in that the Executive Order continues by stating the policy is, additionally, “[To]: Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law”…here the President presents the teeth behind this Order and applicable (previously cited) Federal law: the purse. Just as the perennial game of yesteryear between New Orleans, the State of Louisiana and the Federal Government (where New Orleans continually defied Federal law by maintaining its drinking age at 18) was finally resolved by the Feds stating the entire State of Louisiana would suffer the loss of any and all Federal highway money, so the same measure will be applied to cities like San Francisco and, yes, again, the City-proper of New Orleans (which also is to be numbered amongst “Sanctuary Cities”). Granted, the City of New Orleans has been made a sanctuary to less than 10% of the amount of illegal immigrants granted asylum by the municipality of San Francisco, but here the song remains the same. Clearly this Order is stating the intent of the President to take all who rebel against existing Federal law to the proverbial woodshed. Whether or not I or anyone (including the President) agrees with the law is irrelevant in that it is the law.

The Order’s most relevant remaining passage to the ends of it being appropriate law enforcement within the confines of Federal law is “[To]… The terms of this order, where applicable, shall have the meaning provided by section 1101 of title 8, United States Code.”

The remaining sections of this Executive Order contain instructions to the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security (among others) to file quarterly reports (in the interest of transparency with the general public) pursuant to FOIA (the Freedom of Information Act) and that fines will be levied against municipalities and other local agencies that “willfully refuse to comply” with existing Federal law and that the countries to whom the illegal immigrants subject to removal belong will be diplomatically required to accept repatriation.

In short, regardless of whether the previous POTUS issued Executive Action(s) dictating that certain portions of laws deemed unfavorable not be enforced (which occurred), the current President is stating his role as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States (which is indeed the role of the POTUS). He does not offer comment on whether the law(s) is/are likeable. He merely states that they will be enforced subject to severe financial penalty (up to and including loss of Federal funds) those who, again, “willfully refuse” to enforce the law. In the end, the House of Representatives and the Senate, which comprise Congress, create legislation for drafting and consideration and when passed and signed by the POTUS, makes law. It is the according duty of the court system (up to and including the Supreme Court) to measure and weigh the Constitutionality of the law (which the SCOTUS has decline to say otherwise about existing Federal immigration statute(s)). Regardless of the implications of prior Presidents’ and their refusal to enforce the law, the POTUS is the senior-most law enforcement official and, again, whether the status quo (current system) is favorable in the court of public opinion or not, this POTUS has decided he is going to be quite rigid and unmerciful in his enforcement of these laws. That is his purview.

Also issued on 25 January, 2017, is the “Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.”

The primary passage of interest requiring exact quotation is the policy statement by the POTUS to “secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

This Order is very straightforward: fulfilling a promise made the very day Donald J. Trump announced his campaign seeking to become POTUS, while there’s a lot of legal jargon and various assertions following the previously-cited passage, it’s all basically elaboration on the general concept (that the long-promised wall on the America/Mexico border is to be built).

As promised when I began this multi-part series of citing the critical passages from each of POTUS Trump’s Executive Orders with minimal commentary (where necessary) to get across the real meat of intent (and to eliminate your need to sift through grossly-exaggerated heresay further damaging the wounded credibility of the media), I don’t want to color anyone’s perception of events based on my own opinion. That’s something I’d like to reserve for the coming few weeks when I do a “Thus Far” editorial serving as a report card (if you will) on the administration’s progress (or lack thereof, if it be the case) at that point. Again, however, please do bear in mind that for each of the first four Executive Orders issued by President Trump I provided the critical passages of the actual text of said Orders and minimal commentary strictly to provide any clarity where necessary. The aim here is to provide the truth and allow you to decide for yourselves whether or not it’s agreeable to your person(s). To date there has been far to commentary and not enough non-partisan analysis of the Trump Administration and its deeds and this has served to cement and extend the bitter ideological divides in this nation. On the one hand, those who dislike Donald J. Trump have been fed further (often misconstrued, judging by the paranoia spread by Rachel Maddow & Co.) reason for both disbelief and horror at the allegedly awful things contained within his Executive Orders and, on the other hand, there is an embittered cadre of Trump supporters further entrenched in support of the President who are only emboldened by the often-hyperbolic fear-mongering by the Leftists in the media.

Therefore, I continue to occupy my position as a centrist not only because that’s what/who I am as an independent political thinker but also because I feel moderation in both consumption and portrayal of current events is precisely what is needed right now. Even the Executive Order on the much-ballyhooed wall, notwithstanding who pays for it, has been widely misconstrued. The worst example, conversely, of hyperbole by the Left-leaning media is the Executive Order on deportation(s) I covered previously in that it simply states the policy of the POTUS and his Administration in general is to enforce existing law. It does not cite the need for new laws or single out any ethnic or religious group for a punishment akin to being “stocked, drawn and quartered.” It simply addresses the lack of enforcement of existing law and what the remedy for that is: enforcement and penalty for those government agencies and municipalities that “willfully refuse” in the form of defunding by the Federal government.

Do with that what you will, but the Trump Administration can hardly be considered the only visible folks guilty of exaggeration with the likes of NBC and Salon running riot with their version of favorable (to their perception) fragments of what’s going on. I persist, however, by asking, “Is not liking the President worth such adulteration of the truth? At what cost? How far will the media go?” Pretty nervy coming from a mainstream media that cries about President Trump’s alleged1 distortion of facts.

 

 

1 =As mentioned toward the end of this second special feature on the Executive Orders issued by POTUS Trump, I full well intend to deliver with a sort of “report card” piece on the early days of his Presidency and will release my own assessment of the facts and his presentation of the same as well as any distortion that may have occurred. What I will not do, notwithstanding, is go on the word of the “Fact Checkers” from outlets like NBC that are all alight with discussion on possible collusion between POTUS Trump’s people and Russia but conveniently ignore/ignored former Secretary of State Clinton’s verifiable financial dividends from Uranium One via the Clinton Foundation’s own collusion with Russian oligarchs. That sort of hypocrisy stinks to high Heaven, and I’ll not be party to it. Good evening and goodnight.