You can read the proclamation here.
Unless I’m missing something, all it says is “The United States will enforce the law.” This, for some reason, is regarded with alarm by the New York Times, which writes,
“The Trump administration, invoking national security powers meant to protect the United States against threats from abroad, announced new rules on Thursday that give President Trump vast authority to deny asylum to virtually any migrant who crosses the border illegally.”
The President always had authority to enforce the law. In fact, his oath of office requires him to do so.
The literally insane idea that the United States should not enforce its borders that somehow has burrowed itself into the Left’s hive-mind will not prevail, and because it involves our survival as a nation, no matter what other misadventures President Trump blunders himself into, opposing this deadly virus of a concept will ensure his support from a broad coalition of the American public. Democrats and the news media could instantly reverse much of the polarization poisoning our democracy if they would only abandon their indefensible defense of illegal immigration, but they just can’t bring themselves to do it, presumably because they regard unfettered immigration as a path to total power.
We can expect more disingenuous screams of horror from progressives and Democrats, with Trump proving, in their deliberately distorted world view, that he and his supporters on this issue are racist and xenophobic because he will enforce the law. After all, they favor “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is and has always been a market-tested deceptive euphemism for “don’t enforce immigration laws.”
There are some amusing comments on the proclamation on Althouse, where I got the link. My favorites:
“They are already shopping for a federal judge in Hawaii.”
“Gee, I wonder if the usual pattern will occur. District Judge orders an illegal national injunction, 9th refuses to stay, SCOTUS stays, it drags through the courts for years, SCOTUS affirms the President’s actions, riots.”
“‘Seems like if you’re an asylum seeker you have to use a legal point of entry. Could someone explain to me how that is unreasonable?”‘I know. “Asking someone to ring the doorbell, and we will come and open it” vs Allowing people to go through the cellar door without wiping their feet”
“I see the NYT has its Trump template out today. It’s angry liberals using MadLibs to ensure their articles contain all the required elements to fire up the base:
The Trump administration, invoking XXXXX, announced new rules YYYYY that give President Trump vast authority to ZZZZ. Administration officials declined to say AAAA, but it is widely expected inside the government and by advocate groups that Mr. Trump intends to BBBB, some of whom are CCCC….”
Some are wondering if the President issued a proclamation stating what shouldn’t have to be stated so the Trump Deranged and the open border wackos would have the predictable Pavlovian response for all to see. It’s possible. I regard this issue as I have since the Reagan years, for nothing has changed: it is one of those ideologically-driven dangerous ideas that only has any traction because a particular group has decided to willfully ignore reality for their own benefit. I have been searching, begging for a valid justification for open borders advocacy all these years, and no one can offer any, just sentiment, emotion, and dishonesty….because that’s all there is. I also resent the situation, not restricted to this area, where taking the only logical and defensible position on an issue is used to mark you…as in me…as a partisan. Opposing open borders isn’t a conservative or Republican position just because the Left has jumped the rails of reality.