Immigration: Trump has made immigration his signature issue, so naturally the interview starts with it. He is particularly delusional on this subject, believing (or at least claiming to believe) that we are experiencing a huge crime wave, driven by illegal immigrants, many of them sent from jails and mental hospitals. (The point of his recent bizarre ramblings about Hannibal Lector was to compare immigrants to an insane serial killer). Thus he believes crime will massively fall if he engages in mass deportations. His proposal remains, in effect, to build the wall, which he claims he almost completed until Biden undid it, halt all illegal immigration and all asylum claims from the Global South, and deport all 11 million or so people in the country illegally. He says he sees no need for widespread detention, as Stephen Miller has proposed, since he will deport everyone so quickly there will be no need. He will engage local law enforcement and call up the National Guard when local law enforcement does not cooperate.
Fact: Crime really did spike following the pandemic, lockdowns, and riots. It took a few years to fall, but is now mostly back to the pre-pandemic baseline (except for car jacking and crime in Washington, DC, which remain elevated). There is no spike in immigrant crime. Immigrants actually have lower crime rates than the general public. But that rate is not zero, and in a country as large as the US, there are bound to be at least a few serious crimes committed by illegal aliens for Fox News to sensationalize. Diverting law enforcement resources to immigration could cause crime to increase, depending on how much diversion there is. (I doubt that federal diversion would make much difference, but if Trump diverts local law enforcement as well, it could make a difference). About 450 miles of wall was built along a 2000 mile border.
But I don't expect these facts will make much difference. Crime may not fall at all, but if Fox stops sensationalizing it, crime will seem to fall. Few people will actually traverse all 2000 miles of the border to see just how much of the wall has actually been built. Much of Trump's secret to success has been to recognize that facts are largely irrelevant, except in extreme cases. If he seriously attempts to deport so many people, this may turn out to be a case where facts are actually too overwhelming to ignore. The logistics of deporting 11 million people will not be something that can be easily brushed aside. And it can cause serious labor shortages. Undocumented immigrants have been estimated to make a third of the work force in construction and over 40% of the workforce in agriculture. Anything even approaching the sort of crackdown Trump and Miller are proposing will quickly drive home the point just how much we depend on immigrant labor.
Generally looking at Trump's plans, the President's unilateral powers on immigration are vast, but not unlimited. Trump can:
- Cut the number of refugees admitted to zero
- Revive his Remain in Mexico plan for asylum seekers
- Revoke all humanitarian parole and Dreamer status
- Proceed with deportations while his actions are under review with the courts
- Federalize the National Guard for enforcement
- Invite local law enforcement to join
- Threaten to withhold federal funds from ones who do not
But there are limits. He cannot:
- Detain so many people unless Congress pays for detention facilities
- Compel local law enforcement to cooperate
- Use the Alien Enemies Act (1798!) to deport without due process
- Be everywhere at all times and know everything
Police Immunity from Prosecution: This is a bizarre one, but Trump has been calling for police to have immunity from prosecution, even if they commit crimes, and defending this as necessary for them to do their jobs. When pressed, he had no idea how to actually do that.
Theoretically, he can:
- Direct the DOJ not to undertake any criminal or civil action against police for civil rights violation
- Pardon any police currently convicted of federal civil rights violation.
- Ask Congress for legislation exempting the police from the Civil Rights Act.
He cannot:
- Stop any state action, criminal or civil, for police abuses
- Pardon police convicted of state crimes
- Stop or pardon any private civil action against police for civil rights violation
- Pass a federal law that would exempt police from state laws
This is best dismissed as meaningless blather.
Abortion: This is one subject Trump desperately wants to run away from. His usual answer to Time was to say it is a state matter and the federal government has nothing to do with it. When pressed about federal restrictions on abortion medications, he managed to be completely incoherent.
Imports taxes: Trump proposes to place a 10% tax on all imports and a higher tax on some. He refused to be pinned down as to exactly what he was proposing. He does not consider such taxes to raise consumer prices. And it is true that during his first term, Trump imposed significant protective tariffs without damaging the larger economy. (There was some damage to specific areas, but the economy was strong enough to absorb the damage without overall impact).
What Trump can and cannot do here is a bit unclear. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the sole authority to raise taxes. However, Congress has passed laws giving the President unilateral authority to charge imports taxes for reasons of national security, or against countries that discriminate against US products, or in retaliation. Just how far the courts would uphold such actions is anybody's guess. My own guess -- courts will bend with the political winds and allow Trump to impose whatever imports tax he wants -- unless it gets really unpopular.
Foreign policy: There is very little anyone can do to constrain the President in foreign policy. It Trump wants to abrogate treaty obligations and refuse to defend allies, very little can be done to stop him. As for what he actually plans to do, he served an undigestible word salad.
Prosecuting political opponents: What the President can and can't do in this regard is a major theme of my last post. Trump's interview was deliberately vague on the subject except to say that (1) he considered all the cases against him as political persecution, and (2) if the Supreme Court did not declare Presidential immunity, he would prosecute Biden, largely over policy differences and mistakes. I am inclined to think the Supreme Court should set some parameters to presidential immunity to reign in Trump.
Ending civil service protections: I am not going to go into the weeds with all the details of Project 2025, the plan cooked up by the Heritage Foundation. Suffice it to say that much of it is a sufficiently radical overhaul of government and law that would have to pass Congress. Congress has not impressed me of late with its penchant for radical reforms. Moreover, much of what is being proposed would be wildly unpopular and almost certainly fail. What has received most attention, and what might be doable without legislation, is to withdraw civil service protections for much of the federal middle management and replace them with ideological allies. The most common number I have heard being replaced is 15,000, although some estimates put it higher, in the "tens of thousands." Needless to say, the prospects of Donald Trump finding 15,000 people to fill the federal middle management are approximately zero. So the Heritage Foundation (and other right wing groups) are doing the recruiting for him.
The obvious question is -- is this feasible. Currently there about 4,000 at-will employees in the federal government, and that alone is slow and difficult to fill. The process may speed up with 15,000 (or more) Heritage Foundation recruits waiting in the wings. Some have argued that there is a sufficient wonk gap in favor of liberals that Heritage is unlikely to find enough qualified applicants. Others believe that Heritage has lined up a highly qualified team.
I must admit to not knowing enough to weigh in, but I will venture an opinion nonetheless. I don't see any way to fire all of middle management and replace them, even with highly qualified candidates, without seriously disrupting the organization. Even the most qualified candidate, if new to the job, has some learning to do. Recall when the entire management at the Department of Justice threatened to quit if Jeffrey Clark were allowed to pursue his claims of election fraud. The threat was effective, not just because mass resignations on such a scale would attract attention and make a strong statement, but because it would make the Justice Department essentially unmanageable. No doubt things would go more smoothly if there were replacements ready to take over. But it surpasses belief that there would not be at least short-term disruption.
Of course, I am not clear how much that sort of disruption would be noticed by ordinary citizens who do not normally follow the news. Nor do I know how long it would take for the confusion to work its way out and an ideologically committed civil service to start effectively imposing their agenda.
Trading policy favors for campaign contributions: This is Trump's latest outrage. I have little doubt that, if elected, he will, indeed, exchange policy favors for campaign contributions. Of course, this had been going on for a long time, just not quite as blatantly. I do believe that if anyone else offered policy concessions to oil executives in exchange for campaign contributions, public opinion would be outraged. For Trump, the public will probably applaud in the belief that it will lower gas prices.
Ending Obamacare, cutting Social Security or Medicare: This would take an act of Congress. I do not expect it to pass because Congress is not suicidal. Trump will not ask to cut Social Security because he isn't suicidal either. He might seek to repeal Obamacare despite not being suicidal, because he is to dumb to realize he would be committing suicide.
Or, in the alternative, he might do nothing at all and say he did. Trump's plan for solving our economic problems is to assume that his name will carry enough power to make them all go away. Why not do the same thing for, say, all those illegal immigrants from prisons and mental hospitals supposedly sacking and pillaging our cities? Prosecute a few high profile cases and then announce that all the others were so intimidated that the fled the country. Or just have Fox stop talking about the subject, and soon everyone will forget. I have little doubt that if Trump comes to power and does as little as possible, it will actually work quite well, because our country is in reasonably good condition.
It is exactly what he did last time.
No comments:
Post a Comment