Can you imagine that Senate Democrats would ever support a bill that would give President Donald Trump the power to temporarily override provisions that he believed were not in the “national interest”? of course not. Still, one of the most noticeable parts is; new A bipartisan border bill allows Joe Biden to do just that.

If border encounters reach 5,000 per day in a week, or 8,500 per day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be given “emergency powers” to turn away other border crossers. You won't get any. There are many exemptions). Most conservatives believe this threshold is already too high. Even if the number of entries per day is less than 5,000, that could equate to nearly 2 million entries per year. This is about twice as much as before. number The number of green cards we hand out each year.

But in addition, Biden has the power to unilaterally suspend shutdowns (for 45 days each year) if he deems it “in the national interest.”

The reason we have political discussions in the first place is to think about how we can protect our national interests. If we had a common understanding of this idea, we would become a one-party state. but,Other recent political phrases that come to mind include “common good” and “democracy,” but “national interest” is meaningless.. Democrats, for example, believe it is in the national interest to regulate gas stoves and “misinformation.” I believe that it is in the national interest for the executive branch to limit its powers to its constitutional role and focus on its own business.

In fact, the president can already declare a national emergency. Trump was called an authoritarian by Democrats in 2019 over border security. Congress could prevent this from happening again by repealing the National Emergencies Act, rather than by giving the executive branch more power to interpret the law as needed.

largely The bill's provisions are riddled with loopholes and are more egregious than irrelevant. One provision allows administrative officials to grant asylum without the oversight of judges, who (at least in theory) use a set of criteria to decide these cases. There is. “Exile” may also be stripped of its true meaning, but it is Why James Lankford would want to give Alejandro Mayorkas more autonomy in this aspect is a mystery. Or the front. (Again, could you imagine Democrats signing a bill giving Chad Wolf discretion over asylum cases?)

Again, if there is a legal dispute over the enforcement of the law; Democrats hand-picked the courts that would issue the ruling. No, the left-wing D.C. District Court, rather than the inconveniently bordered Fifth Circuit, will have exclusive authority over “written policy directives, written policy guidelines, and written procedures” and their implementation. Masu.

Meanwhile, Democrats are acting as if they've made huge, historic concessions to deal with this crisis.but Where is the compromise? They have rigged this bill, making it flexible so that Biden can basically interpret and do whatever he wants with its provisions. (Only the enforcement side, of course. You can't opt ​​out of Ukrainian aid or more taxpayer-funded asylum lawyers.) And Democrats are almost certain that the courts hearing any disputes over its enforcement will be theirs. I assured him that I would stand by his side.

And lest anyone think I'm some kind of heavy-handed border closure type, I'm fine with more asylum seekers, more immigrants, more work visas. such as high walls and wide gates. But like many Americans, I'm not a fan of policies that perpetuate anarchy.

*****

This article Published by federalist Reprinted with permission.