Ah, I see the Department of Justice has released the Epstein files to distract us from the outrages in Minneapolis.

A Response to Conservatives Who Say the Law Must Be Upheld

 

Following Twitter posts and responses, I have seen a certain viewpoint coalesce among the non-crazy right that nonetheless ultimately supports the Minneapolis crackdown.  That viewpoint basically acknowledges that yes, La Migra is engaging in excessive force and yes, this is bad, but it is a side issue.  The real issue is Minneapolis' defiance of the law and Trump cannot relent or he will be creating a de facto mob veto on the laws.  Matthew Yglesias quotes Rich Lowery on the issue and I have seen similar comments by Erick Erickson and Dan McLaughlin.  

So, what do they mean by defiance?  Several answers are possible, but they fit in two main categories -- resistance by government and resistance by private individuals.

Sanctuary policies by state and local government

The usual answer we get is that the feds have to crack down because of blue state and city sanctuary policies.  Invariably, such statements are rather vague about what "sanctuary policies" mean.  Sanctuary policies can mean many different things:

• policies restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal civil immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrants;
• policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law;
• policies that prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention;
• policies preventing immigration detention centers;
• policies restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status;
• policies restricting the sharing of certain information on immigrants with the federal government;
• policies restricting local police responses to federal immigration detainers; and
• policies refusing to allow ICE into local jails without a judicial warrant.

Hence someone denouncing "sanctuary policies" can be making very different demands on state and local governments.  Do they mean that state and local governments should hold any inmate ICE asks to have held for deportation?  That state and local governments should automatically turn over the names of everyone who is arrested so ICE can check their immigration status?  That police and other state and local officials should ask people's immigration status and provide ICE with the information if asked?  That local police should actively take part in immigration enforcement?  Most people denouncing "sanctuary policies" are rather vague on that point.

But in any event, the law is clear.  State and local governments may not actively obstruct or seek to exclude federal officials enforcing federal laws and, in fact, "sanctuary jurisdictions" are well aware of this restriction and are not actively obstructing federal officials.  But the anti-commandeering doctrine says that state and local jurisdictions may not be compelled to enforce federal law.  Any city or state that wishes to passively step aside and leave immigration entirely up to the feds is within its rights to do so.

There have been accusations (can't find link) that government officials may be actively participating in warning immigrants of the presence of immigration officials.  That is more of a legal gray area.

Individual Resistance and the "Mob Veto"

The other, related argument, is that government should not back down and allow laws to go unenforced because of resistance by private citizens.  There can be no doubt, wherever La Migra goes it runs into resistance by private citizens.  The resistance in Minneapolis is particularly intense because the surge there is particularly intense, but the difference is one of degree, not of kind.  Individual resistance can also take legal, semi-legal, and illegal forms.

It is legal to teach immigrants their rights and tell them that they do not have to admit enforcement agents without a judicial warrant.  It is legal to deliver groceries to immigrant homes or hold school online or take other action so that immigrants can avoid going out in public where not warrant is needed.  It is legal to film law enforcement in action.  It is legal to protest outside ICE facilities.  These things make enforcement harder to do, but they are not, in and of themselves, criminal obstruction.

Assaulting federal officials and damaging federal property are crimes, of course, and should be treated as such.  Creating loud disturbances at night in hotels where federal agents are staying may violate some sort of noise ordinance or misdemeanor offense of disturbing the peace.  Seeking to block La Migra from leaving their facility or interfering with an arrest really is criminal obstruction, though some might defend it as civil disobedience.

And then there are people who scan Migra signals, trace Migra vehicles, text out warnings among networks, and follow La Migra honking horns and blowing whistles to warn people away.  There are people who chase La Migra away, yelling and cursing and shouting "Shame!"  I will admit to not knowing enough about obstruction law to know whether or at what point these might be considered criminal obstruction.

So, is it essential for the feds not to back down, even from legal opposition of this type so as not to allow a mob veto?  One obvious response is that it is not unheard-of for government to back off enforcing laws or to change them in the face of overwhelming public opposition.  That is what the Civil Rights Movement was all about, after all.  Or, to take a more recent and less emotionally charged example, the federal government has tacitly allowed is anti-marijuana laws to go unenforced, while many states authorize the most flagrant violations of federal marijuana law.  If the federal government suddenly changed its mind and decided that marijuana laws must be enforced with all rigor, it seems safe to assume that there would be strong resistance at many levels.  Would this resistance be reason to decide that marijuana laws are outdated and should be left alone, or grounds for an all-out crackdown to show that federal authority could not be defied?  Reasonable minds might differ.

Resistance to federal lawlessness

In any event, there is an obvious problem with all of these rather dry and abstract discussions.  They ignore what La Migra is actually doing on the ground.  Its actions go well beyond anything that could possibly be defended as necessary to enforce immigration law and stand up against "sanctuary policies" or a "mob veto."

La Migra is not enforcing the law.  It is being grossly lawless.  It is stopping and harassing anyone who looks too brown.  Meeting a wholly unrealistic arrest quota by random arrests of anyone who isn't white enough.  Entering houses without a judicial warrant.  Leaving abandoned cars across the road, windows broken, seatbelts cut, occupants arrested.  Harassing Somalis, 90% of whom are citizens.  Arresting people who have been granted asylum and shipping them from Minnesota to Texas for groundless "status review."  That is what the good people of Minneapolis, and the people of Los Angeles and Chicago before, have been resisting.  Even if you believe that the feds must continue enforcing immigration law just to show that they won't allow a "mob veto," it does not logically follow that the feds must continue to "enforce the law" in the blatantly lawless manner they have been using.  It is possible to step up immigration enforcement without behaving like complete thugs.

What other enforcement options are there?

I have made various suggestions about measures that might reign in La Migra.  Do I have any suggestions as to how deportations hawks might step up the pace without resorting to all-out lawlessness?  After all, Trump ran as a deportation hawk and won.  He can reasonably say that he has a mandate from the people to step up deportations.  

I can think of several such measures.

In terms of state and local sanctuary laws, the feds can sue the challenge them.  Trump can issue executive orders requiring cooperation from local jurisdictions, or seek anti-sanctuary legislation or withhold funds from sanctuary jurisdictions.  Just to be clear, these measures with all probably fail as unconstitutional "commandeering."  More likely to pass constitutional muster is some sort of measure for offering police assistance to local jurisdictions but making it contingent on cooperating in immigration.

Or, circumvent the refusal to report immigration status of arrestees or honor immigration detainers by trawling through arrest records for immigration status and getting a judicial warrant.  Or show up in courtrooms (public places) when someone with a deportation order is being arraigned.  Or keep a steady court presence just in case.

In terms of general enforcement, vastly expand the number of immigration judges and deportation lawyers to speed up asylum and deportation proceedings.  Remember, it is swiftness of consequences, not severity, that is the most effective deterrent.  Do more employer audits.  Go through outstanding deportation orders, find the individuals, and get a judicial warrant.  

No doubt at this point deportation hawks would ask, would these measures be acceptable to our side.  And the honest answer is probably no.  Then what is the point?  Simple.  All policies have opponents.  No matter what the policy, you will doubtless find many people who do not consider it acceptable.  Normal, healthy politics is all about policy disputes.  But it would reduce the issue of immigration enforcement to an ordinary, mundane policy dispute.  Right now, immigration enforcement is truly a secondary issue.  The primary issue is complete, all-out government lawlessness.

A Plea to Our Side to Watch the Optics

 

Today I went to an anti-ICE protest.  Attendance was remarkable good, given that it was just noticed yesterday.  Cars drove by, honking their horns in support.  I am not sure they would have been so supportive if they had heard what some of our speakers were saying.  Support for the Palestinian cause, which easily translates into support for Hamas.  Saying that our whole system is hopelessly corrupt and must be overturned.  Saying that no one is illegal on stolen land, implying -- and something saying directly -- that the United States is an illegitimate entity.  

Look, up till now we have been frustrated, seeing La Migra's tyrannical behavior as the most important issue, but having to focus on kitchen table issues because that was what the public cared about.  And now, finally, La Migra's full abusiveness has broken through to the general public and become THE issue.  Can we please not blow it?

Anti-anti-Trump conservatives are largely coalescing around a particular view of the situation in Minneapolis, namely, that while La Migra may have used excessive force and they don't approve, the excessive force has to be seen in the context of all the hostility La Migra has been receiving lately, and that Team Trump has to hold firm and not back down or they will be giving a veto to the mob.  In other words, they are portraying La Migra as the forces of law and order and the protesters as the forces of lawlessness and disorder.  

Clearly one way to fight that is to show massive footage of Migra abuse that is neither lawful nor orderly.  Another is to convey to the extent possible just how lawless La Migra has been when the cameras are not watching.  Talk about their harassment of anyone who is not white and demands to see proof of citizenship.  Talk about all the people they have arrested who really were citizens or legal residents.  Try to convey the fear and persecution experienced by people minding their own business simply because they were not white.  And team up with cops here to talk about how much this violates the most basic standards of police professionalism.  Let us, by all means, seek alliance with police to dispel any notion that La Migra stands for law and order.

I would urge our side to keep in mind with every action that it will probably end up being filmed and shown on social media, so always act with that in mind.  I also bear in mind that not everyone sees things the same way we do.  We may see shrieking whistles, honking horns, shouting insults and general hostility as righteous resistance.  At lot of other people will see it as disorderly and abusive and sympathize with La Migra, especially if they stoically accept abuse.  And yes, I understand that the blowing whistles and honking horns are necessary to warn people.  They still aren't pleasant.  And I also understand that while we can control where protests take place, we can't control where La Migra will show up.  And I understand that expecting people to keep their cool in the face of ICE outrages, often against friends and neighbors is a very hard ask.  But this is still the battle for public opinion, so optics should never be far from our minds.

Good optics:

• Protesters dancing in cute inflatable costumes.
• Minneapolis sledding with cute, anti-ICE themes.
• Protesters singing "This Land is Your Land" or "Lean on Me."
• Protesters dressing as Lady Liberty or carrying the flag
• Footage of Migra violence, threats, or abusive behavior.

Bad optics:

• Mexican flags.
• People shouting, cursing, and yelling obscenities at La Migra.
• People obstructing immigration officers on their time off, minding their own business.
• Disrupting church services.
• Anything that looks like a "clash," as opposed to one-sided violence by La Migra.
• Anything that could be termed a mob or a riot.

Homeland Security Funding Battle

 

I am still struggling to understand the Congressional funding rules.  It appears that the House passed the final four bills, agreeing to vote on Homeland Security separately from the others, but then stitched all together and sent to the Senate to approve or reject.  In other words, they are not about to give up their hostages.  Since the Alex Pretti shooting, Democrats have vowed not to vote for the Homeland Security bill.  There has been talk of passing the other bills and allowing only Homeland Security to close, although I cannot see why Republicans would agree to that.

But even if they do agree, Democrats are in a difficult spot.  First of all, refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security would not just defund La Migra.  The Coast Guard and FEMA are also included.  Furthermore, the proposed ICE budget is $10 billion.  Funds given to ICE in the One Bad Bloated Boondoggle -- $75 billion.  In other words, even if Democrats were to cut off all funding for ICE, they would have a war chest large enough to last to the end of the Trump Administration and the first term of a hypothetical future Democratis Administration!  

All of which means that we have to face facts.  Sooner or later Democrats will climb down and agree to some sort of deal to fund DHS in order to restore funding to the Coast Guard, FEMA, etc.  Not funding ICE at all will not so much as crimp its operations.  At best, Democrats can seek to impose some restrictions on La Migra.  I have made some suggestions and can think of more.  Possibilities include:

• Outlaw arrest quotas and incentives.  This has the advantage that it would probably appeal even to ICE agents themselves and the disadvantage that it might be seen as unconstitutional micro-managing of the executive by the legislature.  But it is the wholly unrealistic arrest quotas that are driving everything else.
• Ban Border Patrol from internal enforcement.
• Strengthen Congress's authority to inspect immigration detention facilities.
• Mandate that La Migra follow the pattern of any other law enforcement agency -- any officer who discharges a firearm is to be suspended during (mandatory) investigation.
• Limit the President's power to fire immigration judges for making decisions he doesn't like.
• Require release on bond for anyone with a plausible claim to legal status who has strong ties to the community and is not a flight risk.
• Clearly define what is deemed to be proof of citizenship and require immigration agents to release anyone who can show it.
• Affirm the right of citizens to film and protest, perhaps setting more clearly defined limits of how close they can get and what constitutes "interference."
• Require a judicial warrant to enter a private space.
• Make clear that murder and mayhem on the job are prosecutable under state law.
• Create individual civil liability.
• And possibly, as a sop to Republicans, make it easier for La Migra to access arrest records and put a hold on people in custody.

Of course, I doubt that most of these would get past Republicans in Congress, let along Trump's signature.  But that it is where we, the people, come in.  Our job is to create political pressure.

What the Fresh Hell?!

 So let me get this right.  Donald Trump, after huffing and puffing and threatening war over Greenland has now backed off and agreed to basically indefinite negotiations that will probably end in expanded military bases that were his for the asking.  

I can see any number of possibilities of what happened.

• The bond market cracked its whip and Trump jumped into line.
• European leaders stood up firmly and he backed down.
• The European leaders flattered and cajoled him into a deal.
• Trump thinks that a deal gotten through threats and coercion is much better than the identical deal given voluntarily.
• Trump thinks that his base is more likely to applaud the deal if it seems to have been gotten by force.
• Trump likes stirring up crises so he can get credit for resolving them.
• It was an attempt to distract attention from his flagging approval at home.
• Trump was getting bored and wanted to stir up a little excitement.  After a while, he got bored with the crisis and decided to move on to something new.

I suspect there is some truth in many of these things.  But my guess is that the first explanation is primary.  The bond market cracked its whip and Trump jumped into line.  

I never thought I would say this, but let's all be grateful for the bond market.

Donald Trump at One Year

 

So, here we are at the one-year mark.  The good news is that civil society continues to flourish and democracy, though wounded, is far from dead.  The bad news is that we have three more years of this and whether democracy can take three more years is anybody's guess.

The obvious thing to do now is a retrospective, sort of like the 100 day retrospective.  How has Trump compared to my worst fears?  A lot has happened since May, but in terms of my fears, less than one might think.

Things that were not as bad as I feared:

Attempts to shut down the opposition:  That was what I feared most -- not so much that he would prosecute political opponents (the independent judiciary would thwart that), but that he would use federal money, tax exempt status, and other regulatory actions I did not know enough about to predict to cut off all funding for the opposition and establish a de facto one party state.  That hasn't happened.  It shows no signs of happening.  I got nervous again after the Charlie Kirk assassination, especially when Steve Miller pledged an "all of government" approach to shut down the opposition in all forms.  That hasn't happened, and so far as I can tell they really aren't planning to shut the entire opposition -- just anyone who opposes ICE.

Schedule F: Again, I considered this very dangerous because it could fly under people's radar screens.  The entire federal bureaucracy could become a patronage organization and an instrument for enforcing ideology and punishing enemies.  In this I underestimated just how much Republicans in general and Trump in particular hate the federal bureaucracy.  Instead, he sent Elon Musk in to wreck general havoc until the entire Cabinet revolted and demanded that he go.  This seriously undercut any plan to weaponize the federal bureaucracy by keeping it from functioning altogether.  Even Republicans are quietly trying to pick up the pieces.

Right wing militias: What was the biggest difference between Trump and Hitler when they both came into power?  Hitler had a large private army and Trump did not.  I feared that after Trump pardoned the Proud Boys for their attempt to overturn the election, they would become the new Storm Troopers and terrorize Trump's opponents into submission.  Yes, we do have a serious online Brown Shirt mob, menacing opponents with threats, SWATting, and unwanted pizza deliveries.  But online Brown Shirts are still not as bad a the real thing, which has not emerged.  And strong-willed opponents have defied them.  The real question is, have the Proud Boys just joined ICE?

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: No, seriously!  I'm not saying these guys are good, obviously.  Patel seems unduly fond of the privileges of the office and runs the FBI like an internet troll, tweeting out possible developments before they are confirmed.  But Kash Patel's FBI has not been fabricating evidence or infiltrating opposition groups (so far as we know). When an arrest turns out to be a mistake, they release the suspect.  Patel appears to have acknowledged that agents fired for being involved in the January 6 investigation were being treated unfairly, blamed his superiors for their being fired, and even encouraged them to sue.  And the FBI did genuinely good work in catching the Capitol Hill bomber and did not cut him a break for being a Trump supporter.  When confronted about this, Bongino answered, "I was paid in the past for my opinions. One day I will be back in that space but that's not what I'm paid for now. I’m paid to be your deputy director and we base investigations on facts."  And, no, it is not great that Bongino thinks podcasters have no reason to show fidelity to the facts.  But at least he thinks law enforcement does have that obligation.  Yes, I know it is a low bar to clear, but just watch what ICE is up to and recognize that the FBI is not that.

Media control: My fears were somewhat outdated, focusing on attempts to control media by threatening advertisers. I did not understand the degree to which people get their news on social media and how much control of algorithms controls what people see.  I also feared attempts by Trump supporters to buy up media outlets, making mergers contingent on coverage, and perhaps censorship by the FCC.  The buying of out of outlets and politicization of mergers has certainly happened.  Bari Weiss is attempting to subvert CBS.  Many of us feared that big money owners of media like Jeff Bezos of the Washington Post and Patrick Soon Shiong of the LA Times would fall into line.  Well, the LA Times has been absolutely unsparing in reporting ICE outrages.  The Washington Post continues to say "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and to do fearless exposes.  (See below).  And the Administration continues to leak like a sieve.

The federal district and appellate level judiciary:  I think most of us feared what sort of judges Trump would appoint.  "Most of us" appears to include Federal judges, who have fearlessly and consistently ruled against Trump regardless of which President appointed them.  Very few have retired, presumably fearing just that, and most have apparently vowed to leave the bench only under a different Administration or in a coffin.  Of course, sooner or later one of those has to happen. . . 

Foreign policy:  Democratic backsliding is taking place the world over.  If democracy fell in the US, what chance did it have anywhere?  Instead, we are seeing some degree of a thermostatic reaction across Europe -- far right political parties losing popularity because of their association with Trump.  I feared Trump would withdraw from NATO and halt all aid to Ukraine.  That may yet happen, but it is happening in slow motion, which allows other countries to adapt.  I do think he did the right thing in recognizing the new government in Syria and seems to work better with Arab governments than any other President.

Things that are about what I feared:

Pardons:  Trump pardoned the January 6 defendants.  He said he would.  He is prepared to pardon anyone who supports him, bribes him, or claims to be persecuted by the Deep State.  Is anyone surprised?

Immigration:

I said at the 100 day mark:

I was afraid of ICE teaming up with local law enforcement and possibly informal militias, of Trump calling up the National Guard where the local authorities would not cooperate, of large-scale workplace raids, of makeshift outdoor facilities, of house-to-house searches. . . 

Most of this had not happened at the time, but there had been a group of men deported without trial to a torture prison in El Salvador, with the threat of many, many more to come.  That was thwarted, but, well, the rest of it is very much with us.  What we are seeing now is very much what I most feared.

Prosecution of political opponents:  I believed this would be constrained by an independent judiciary and trial by jury.  There have been a few attempts to prosecute high level political opponents, and more numerous (but still not very numerous) attempts to prosecute First Amendment protected activity surrounding La Migara.  So far the independent judiciary has shot down all attempt to prosecute high-level opponents and most attempt to prosecute First Amendment protected activity.

Abortion;  I did not expect much action on this.  Trump does not care much about it and learned from the 2022 midterms that it was toxic.  So he has wisely stayed away from it.

Things that are worse than I feared:

Tariffs:  I was not afraid of tariffs.  I thought of them as something that could hurt the economy, but not a threat to democracy or the rule of law.  I was wrong.  First of all, thus far tariffs have not hurt the economy and especially have not increased prices as much as I expected.  But more importantly, wildly arbitrary tariffs have been a mechanism for bullying and coercing other countries.  They have also been a source of unaccountable money that can evade Congress's power of the purse strings.  Tariffs are much more dangerous than I realized and must be stopped.

DOGE:  Words fail me.  It certainly never occurred to me that Elon Musk would make a serious attempt to seize control of the government and institute a dictatorship of money and tech.  Nor did I anticipate how much completely random damage he would cause before moving on, or the extent to which he would truly stage a tech coup by shutting federal employees out of their computers and even out of their offices.  The attempt failed.  There may very well come a time when computer programs are good enough to let 89 tech bros take over the entire federal government.  But we are not there.  We are not anywhere close.  I think the government shutdown was one last attempt to create a dictatorship of money and tech, this time by Russ Vought.  It failed.  But the danger was very real, and so is the damage.  The damage is still very much with us.

Attacks on universities and law firms:  On the one hand, yes, I fully expected Trump to attack the independence of universities.  It was what Orban did, after all.  It would be harder than in Hungary, obviously, because we have so many more universities, but I did expect it.  I think I expected the attack to take the form of attacks on college endowments and threats to their tax-exempt status.  It did not occur to me how much universities depend on federal grants and I had no idea how much the depend on foreign students.  And attacks on law firms never even occurred to me.

The Supreme Court:  I did not have much confidence in the Supreme Court ever since they ruled that Republican Presidents have an unrestricted license to crime but left a little wiggle room just in case a Democrat is ever able to be President again.  But I at least expected them to set forth their reasoning when upholding blatantly illegal actions instead of issuing emergency rulings that would allow the illegal acts to continue until full briefing and argument.

Health and science: Insane.  I honestly did not expect much movement on this.  RFK, Jr. is hard at work seeking to ruin our healthcare system and undermine science.

The budget;  I did not expect any serious cuts.  I expected the Republicans to follow their usual playbook of making a huge fuss about deficits so long as Democrats were in power and losing all interests as soon as they took power.  I did not take impoundment too seriously because it would be obviously unpopular.  I was wrong.  Republicans have not gone as far as they would like, but they have gone a lot farther than I expected.

Was Ice Barbie a grownup in the room?

The grownups in the room:  Like many people, I was much relieved when Trump named Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Scott Bessent as Secretary of the Treasury, Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior, Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, and Suzie Wiles as White House Chief of Staff.  A President Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or even Chris Christie might have made the same appointments.  Pam Bondi as Attorney General?  Not great, but preferable to either Matt Gaetz or, say, Ken Paxton.  As Attorney General of Florida, she was presumably reasonably qualified and, though somewhat corrupt, did not seem insane.  As for Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, she met my two most important criteria for the job -- she was not Steve Bannon or Steve Miller.  Well, if Kash Patel was not as bad as I feared, the grownups in the room have proven completely useless.*  

Violence against protesters:  I was actually not too worried about this.  Apparently Project 2025 mentions use of the National Guard, which many have taken to mean shooting peaceful protesters.  I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this referred to actual violent riots.  And I was reasonably confident that the 2020 riots were an aberration, born of frustration with COVID lockdowns and would not recur.  And, indeed, there have been many large-scale protests in the first year of Trump with (almost) no riots.**  And the protests have not been met with violence except where La Migra is involved.  Here the violence has been serious -- teargas, pepper spray, flash bangs, rubber bullets, and even live ammunition.  It seems to be the firm and settled position of the Administration that where La Migra goes, the First and Fourth Amendments are suspended. And, indeed, while there does not appear to be a systematic attempt to shut down the opposition in general, there does appear to by a systematic and violent attempt to outlaw any championship of immigrants.

Corruption:  Honestly, I didn't give this subject much thought, assuming we would have other things to think about.  And in one sense, at least, corruption to enrich one man is less dangerous than a systematic attempt to turn the federal government into a patronage instrument for one party.  Parties are a lot more enduring than individuals, after all.  But the extent to which Trump is basing pardons and policy on bribes is truly alarming.  I think I need to back and read articles about systematic corruption to see if we are there yet.

Foreign policy: Seriously, this has gotten alarming lately.  Trump appears to be hijacking Venezuela's oil to create is own private slush fund, and now a "Board of Peace," which appears to be a multi-billion dollar private slush fund to do who knows what.  And threats to start a war with NATO over Greenland?!?!?!  The man appears to be losing his mind!  This is one area that is both not as bad and worse than my fears.  And the worst part -- the not as bad part seems to have passed.  The worse part has just begun.

_______________________________________________
*Actually, I suspect that some day we will learn that some of them have actually been reigning him in, just not as well as the grownups from Trump 1.0.
**There were some significant riots in Los Angeles in June with cars burning and people waving the Mexican flag, but only within about two blocks of the federal building.  Bad, but not on a 2020 scale.

Shutdown Over ICE: The Policy

 

With that being said, here is the problem.  I am all for a government shutdown of Homeland Security.  Less clear -- the ask.  Is there anything at all Democrats in Congress can do that will make a difference?  

I have heard a wide range of proposals offered for how to reign in La Migra.  But that is not the problem.  There are already all sort of laws on the books constraining La Migra.  La Migra is simply ignoring the laws, confident that there will be no consequences. So sure, there is no harm in passing more laws to reign La Migra in, but I don't see what good can come of it.  There have to be some sort of consequences.

The usual form of consequences is to use to power of the purse strings -- threaten their budget.  But that won't work in this case.  The One Bloated Barbaric Bonanza gave $170 billion for border enforcement, including $75 billion to ICE to be spent over the next four years.  By contrast, proposed budget for the entire Department of Homeland Security $65 billion.  Indeed, one article I saw (can no longer find) suggested that Republicans gave such an excessive amount precisely because they expected Democrats to cut off funding and wanted to prevent such an outcome.

Kristi "ICE Barbie" Noem

Others have proposed to impeach Kristi Noem.  Again, I see no particular harm in impeaching Ice Barbie, but no benefit to it, either.  ICE Barbie is nothing but a (purportedly) pretty face on an ugly reality.  The real power behind the throne is Stephen Miller and is wholly unrealistic quota of 3,000 arrests a day, which cannot be met without blatant illegality.  And Miller is not going anywhere.  He is the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, a position not requiring Senate confirmation. (Possibly Trump feared that even this Senate might not confirm him).  Presumably White House personnel who serve at the complete discretion of the President without the need for Senate confirmation are not subject to impeachment.  And the Atlantic ran an article pouring cold water on any hopes that Miller might be fired. Not only is he a supremely competent manager (a rare thing for this team and therefore important to keep), but his colleagues generally like him and find him easy to work with.  Miller will not be facing the sort of revolt that ousted Elon Musk.

The only other way I can think of imposing consequences is to create individual civil liability for any agent violating people's rights, or, if the agent cannot be identified, the commanding officer in the field.

PS: Actually, I can think of one thing that could possibly make a difference, although I don't know if we can ever get Republicans to agree to it.  And that is to attack La Migra from the other end -- the court and prison end.  Make it much harder for the President to replace immigration judges for not following his wishes, a blatant violation of separation of powers anyhow.  And require bond so long as the detainee does not have a criminal record, has significant ties to the community, and has any plausible claim to be allowed to stay.  It won't stop ICE outrages.  But it will soften the damage they cause, if most of the people arrested can be released relatively soon.  And it will mean more witnesses running around with a story to tell. And that will create at least some degree.

PPS:  At least one of the things that is driving this is Steve Miller's quota of 3000 arrests a day, which cannot be done without complete thuggery.  Even worse, ICE agents are rewarded for their number of arrests, even if the arrestee is later cleared and released.  Maybe find some way to disallow this.  I had some thought of introducing some sort of disincentive for wrongful arrests, but that would probably just lead to more cover ups.  But at least find a way to disallow rewarding number of arrests regardless.

PPPS:  Other suggestions:  An express statement that Migra officers are subject to prosecution under state law for murder, mayhem, and perhaps a few other very serious offenses.  A ban on the Border Patrol taking part in internal enforcement.  An express statement that La Migra may not enter private areas without a judicial warrant and that an administrative warrant is not sufficient.  Hard guidelines on the use of force.  An affirmation that the public has the right to file Migra actions and protests outside of Migra facilities, perhaps with sone sort of rule about the distance they must keep and an acknowledgement that getting too close can be obstruction.

Of course, good luck getting this past the Republicans.

PPPPS: Maybe a requirement that a "Kavanaugh stop" actually follow the rules the Justice Kavanaugh suggested.  In the absence of even an administrative warrant, if a Migra officer makes a stop based solely on "reasonable suspicion," the officer must give the person being stopped a reasonable opportunity to present proof of citizenship or legal residence, and allow anyone producing such proof to leave.  Then give a list of what must be deemed proof of citizenship or legal residence.  It won't stop "papers, please," but at least it can limit that to an annoyance for actual citizens or legal residents.