DEMENTIA JOE CAN'T BE MORE LIKE TRUMP.

In a constitutional republic, when a politician changes policy course in response to popular opinion, is that being sensible, pandering to get re-elected, or flip-flopping?  (Summarize briefly why people don't like politics, please.)

So might it be with Our President issuing new ukases that will limit the admission of people to these United States to approximately the existing levels of immigration.

The change won't help. For the past century, the United States has imposed all manner of restrictions on who may enter the country and for how long.  It hasn't worked.

For the first century and a half of American history, "illegal immigration" was a nonexistent concept. Individual foreigners could be excluded by law for specific reasons — for example, being guilty of crimes of "moral turpitude," having a contagious disease, or being a known anarchist. Immigrants were not admitted if they were likely to become a "public charge," dependent on government assistance. Otherwise, almost anyone who could get to America was welcome to become a legal permanent resident.

In an attempt to secure the votes of undecided voters, the Jarrett regency's latest ukases have antagonized the people least likely to vote for Donald Trump.

The Democrat is expected to invoke Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was previously used by former President Donald Trump—the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in November—and sparked legal challenges.

"We will need to see the E.O. before making any litigation decisions," Lee Gelernt, an attorney who serves as deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, told Axios of Biden's expected move. "Any policy that effectively ends asylum protection for people fleeing danger would raise significant legal problems, as it did when Trump tried to end asylum."

In response to a social media account tracking "Biden's Wins," which welcomed the reported order, Gelernt's ACLU colleague Gillian Branstetter said: "This is not a 'win'—it's a monstrosity. Asylum is a human right."

Never mind that asylum seekers have the opportunity to make their request at the first available country.  Never mind that the American Criminal Liberties Union has turned itself into a political action committee for the communist wing of the Democrats.  Here's where the false binary really bites, doesn't it?  If you agree with the argument offered above, do you not vote to continue the Jarrett regency because it doesn't deliver everything you want, and risk getting more Trump.

Apparently the Weimar freak show and the gas stove bans and the persecution of the suburbs aren't sop enough to the moonbat left.

After one social media user sarcastically told Branstetter, "I'm sure you'll love Trump's border policies," she stressed, "This is Trump's border policy."

American Immigration Council policy director Aaron Reichlin-Melnick similarly said that "the politics may have changed by the law hasn't; Trump tried to invoke section 212(f) to block asylum at the border and was slapped down in court. Biden's effort to do the same will also face immediate legal challenges."

Reichlin-Melnick also highlighted a policy brief that the American Immigration Lawyers Association released in response to the reports, which takes aim at both the legality and effectiveness of the Biden administration's supposed plans.

"The decision by this administration to criminalize migrants—many of whom are fleeing harm—is deeply disturbing and misguided," said Sarah M. Rich, senior supervising attorney and interim senior policy counsel at the Southern Poverty Law Center, in a statement. "We have witnessed how such prosecutions can be weaponized to separate and traumatize immigrant families."

I don't recall any provision during the Trump presidency that would take effect after 2500 unauthorized border crossings took place.  Let's consider the sources, though: the American Immigration Lawyers Association (don't they also make a lot of money getting permanent residency through for degreed professionals, the canonical Bootleggers and Baptists outcome?) and the Southern Poverty Law Center, no longer about the south or about poverty, let alone attuned to the new dynamic in the cities.

"Prosecuting people seeking safety in the U.S. for these immigration violations will lead to more Black and Brown people being incarcerated at the expense of immigrant families and communities," Rich continued. "We call on the Biden administration to instead adopt a humane and welcoming immigration framework that centers our values as a nation that welcomes immigrants."

That plays well with Common Dreams readers in their salons and coffee houses. Woodlawn and Englewood are another matter.