There is, therefore, nothing
untoward about an E.O. that directs the President's subordinates to
take enforcement action within the confines of congressional statutes. In fact, it is welcome.
``It is the President's burden to set Federal law enforcement
priorities. After years of Obama's lax enforcement of immigration law
and apathy regarding sanctuary jurisdictions, an E.O. openly
manifesting an intent to execute the laws vigorously can have a
salutary effect. And indeed, indications are that the cumulative effect
of Trump's more zealous approach to enforcement, of which the
sanctuary-city E.O. is just one component, has been a significant
reduction in the number of aliens seeking to enter the U.S.
illegally.''
``In any event, 8 years of Obama's phone and pen have made it easy to
forget that the President is not supposed to make the law, and thus
that we should celebrate, not condemn, an E.O. that does not break new
legal ground. Orrick, by contrast, proceeds from the flawed premise
that if a President is issuing an E.O., it simply must be his purpose
to usurp congressional authority. Then he censures Trump for a
purported usurpation that is nothing more than a figment of his own
very active imagination.''
He is talking about the judge here. What an imagination.
``Orrick's second reason for issuing his Ruling About Nothing is to
rationalize what is essentially an advisory opinion. It holds--I know
you'll be shocked to hear this--that if Trump ever did try to cut off
funds from sanctuary cities, it would be an epic violation of the
Constitution. Given that courts are supposed to refrain from issuing
advisory opinions, the Constitution is actually more aggrieved by
Orrick than by Trump.
``In a nutshell, the court claims that the E.O. is Presidential
legislation, an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Orrick insists that the E.O. directs the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Homeland Security to cut off any Federal funds that would
otherwise go to States and municipalities if they `willfully refuse to
comply' with Federal law that calls for State and local cooperation in
enforcing immigration law.
``According to Judge Orrick, Trump's E.O. is heedless of whether
Congress has approved any terminations of State funding from Federal
programs it has enacted. In one of the opinion's most disingenuous
passages, Orrick asserts that the E.O. `directs the Attorney General
and the Homeland Security Secretary to ensure that ``sanctuary
jurisdictions'' are ``not eligible to receive'' Federal grants.'
``But this is just not true.''
In other words, Judge Orrick lied in his opinion.
``Orrick has omitted key context from the relevant passage, which
actually states that `the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their
discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that
jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 are
not eligible to receive Federal grants.'
``In plain English, the President has expressly restricted his
subordinates to the limits that Congress has enacted. Under Trump's
order, there can be no suspension or denial of funding from a Federal
program unless congressional statutes authorize it.
Keywords matched
immigration sanctuary cities