By Glenn C. Smith
It was bad enough (click here) when candidate Donald Trump questioned the impartiality of the federal judge hearing the Trump University lawsuit. (Trump said that the judge’s ethnic heritage would make him biased.)
It was even worse when President Trump accused the federal judges temporarily halting his travel bans of purely political motivations and limited intelligence.
But it was especially disheartening last week to hear disrespect for a federal judge from the mouth of Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions — who is, after all, the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement officer. After Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order against the administration’s second travel ban, Sessions complained that “a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific” could issue a nationwide decree. The remark was eerily reminiscent of Trump’s earlier dismissive tweet that the U.S. district judge who stopped his first travel ban was a “so-called judge.”
Not that federal judges should be above legitimate criticism. These jurists deal with vital, and at times life-threatening, issues; federal judges need to hear well-informed and zealously advocated contrary views both inside the courtroom and out....
I suppose I could make excuses for bad manners in saying Hawaii is the fiftieth state of the country and it hasn't gotten the swing of things yet, but, that would be nothing short of an insult to Hawaiians.
Hawaii is every bit a state of the country as Alaska or Delaware, the first state of the the fifty. When a judge makes serious decisions in Hawaii he or she knows full well they are impacting the entire country.
What Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions do is use the so called "Bully Pulpit" to invoke fear that something worse is coming because the judge(s) didn't perform well enough and to their standard. Too bad. The Bullies of the White House have to get used to playing fair and working well with others. This is a democracy that has grown over 240 years into an incredible economic engine, expanded it's size seven times it's original inception and has grown in population by 132 times from 2.5 million in 1776 to over 330 million today.
As a matter of fact the USA would have a population about the size of Japan without immigration from it's earliest times.
...But the available data (click here) on crime, immigration, and safety in cities does not support the premise for the president's actions. News outlets and researchers pointed out during the presidential campaign that immigrants who are in the country illegally are less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than the general population. The American Immigration Council noted in a 2015 study that the recent period of rising immigration to the United States from 1990 to 2013 also corresponded with plummeting crime rates across the country.
This past Thursday, a new study conducted Tom K. Wong, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego, found that there are broad benefits for local jurisdictions that resist cooperating with federal immigration enforcement — they are safer in the aggregate and enjoy stronger economies. "For the first time we're kind of seeing that crime rates are lower when localities stay out of the business of federal immigration enforcement," Wong said....
Is available data the best data? For years there have been complains from those that work with crime in America that the statistics aren't as good as they should be. If that is the case, then are we seeing our cities for what they actually are? The police are probably the best litmus test of the statistics, in that they work those statistics and can tell if they seem accurate or not.
But the data available, is the data available and the information garnered from it is accurate enough for courts throughout the country. Reputable organizations work with these statistics and helps direct policy and money. There is no criticizing the statements of any legal action if the government purposely prevents accuracy.