Hansen's article is extremely interesting; it discusses the Trump administration's recent attempts to achieve policy goals and change the American immigration system, as well as the reactions to them. Attorney General William Barr issued an order mid-April that would deny bond hearings for asylum seekers and keep many in dangerous detention centers for the entire process of their case, and further, allowed migrants that had made bail to be arrested and detained again by ICE agents, because that makes a whole lot of sense.
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington blocked Barr's order, citing "a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to assess the necessity of their detention." The full decision can be found here.
This event, in my opinion, showcases a few things. The executive branch trying to unilaterally change the country's immigration policy and system displays a dangerous lack of regard for political norms, like finding support in Congress or the courts, and for representative policymaking, as Barr and many more weren't elected by the people. Additionally, this case relates to this week's class focus; the checks and balances within the federal government still function and prevented what was to be a border policy disaster. While the executive branch can somewhat broadly enforce domestic and foreign policy and push political agenda forward, the power of the federal courts can regulate unconstitutional acts by the Congress and the executive branch.
At the same time, however, much of the government is controlled by one political party that has largely common interests, and, as discussed in class, this political control reinforces itself through preemptive policies, like gerrymandering and voter suppression. Because of this, Barr, and Trump, still control the Justice Department, which is set to appeal Judge Pechman's decision in order to push forward conservative immigration policy.
Prompts:
- Do the original checks and balances make a difference? Why or why not?
- The Republicans did win multiple state and federal elections through actual voters. Does this justify the government's actions and subsequent problems? Why or why not? If so, who, or what, is at fault?
- What can be done to remedy the current immigration, and, broader political problem?
Other sources:
1 comment:
As for your first question, I think this article pretty clearly illustrates exactly how they make a difference. Barr's order was barred by a federal court, and I think this is an important instance of how government powers can and should keep each other in check. On the flip side, these checks and balances can lead to things like political gridlock when separate parts of the government are controlled by different parties. And as for the immigration policy, while I do not agree with most of the actions that ICE have taken to seize illegal immigrants, I do believe that the US should begin to enact stricter immigration laws, and while a wall is not necessary there should also be more prevention of illegal immigrants.
Post a Comment