a lot of different problems this is one that has been gone on for many decades
so we're keeping families together and this will solve that problem at the same
time we are keeping a very powerful border and it continues to be a zero
tolerance we have zero tolerance for people that enter our country illegally
welcome to the journal editorial report I'm Paul's you go that was president
Trump Wednesday signing an executive order ending the separation of families
accused of crossing the border illegally in a retreat from a policy that had
generated opposition from both sides of the political spectrum the house left
town this weekend without moving on immigration legislation delaying a vote
on a compromise measure until next week after failing to pass a conservative
bill on Thursday President Trump tweeting Friday that the GOP should stop
wasting its time on immigration until after the November election saying quote
we can pass a great legislation after the red wave joining the panel this week
Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor Dan henagar columnist bill McGurn
and columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jason Riley so Jason I
guess with a policy retreat the administration's implicitly
acknowledging it was a mistake what they did at least a political mistake what
lesson do you take away from it well Paul the sort of reminded me of the
travel ban Fiasco early on in the administration regardless of the merits
it seems like they had no real plan for a rollout the execution was a mess they
looked like the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing and
similarly here they were they were not prepared for the blowback they were
gonna get on both the left and the right and they weren't prepared for those
images that people were gonna see also had a problem in that he misled people
he said he couldn't do anything about this he said Congress had act then he
didn't 180 on that and actually and turn around and did it so i incompetent on
some level i think is the message but let me let me give you an argument i
from the White House which is you know the argument is really from the
restriction is that if you catch and release parents who come here
with children but you don't parents who people who come here individually you're
gonna get more parents who bring their children here it's an incentive to come
here so how do you solve that problem that that is a legitimate problem and
that's gonna probably be solved by the reduction of violence in the countries
where these people are fleeing ultimately but the problem here is you
can't even get to that debate with these images of these children that that's
gonna suck up all the oxygen in this debate but the restrictions do have a
point here that the system is being gamed there are this is an orchestrated
event activists are rounding up these people
sending them North telling them what to say when they get to the border and
they're not all fleeing persecution so there is a point that people are gaming
the system so we have to figure out a way to do something about it but in a
humane way and but early people don't think this is the humane way to do it
right but Bill I guess the answer to that would be you detain them with
parents with their children and then you make a determination on whether to
debate that I I think we could find I don't think the solutions are that hard
to find the problem is we have two clumps of people some Republicans don't
would want to keep the status quo rather than have anything they regard as
amnesty and there's another group in the Democratic Party I think we've seen it
since 2008 they would rather have the issue have the status quo because they
get to charge Republicans with being racist I'd have to say if I were looking
at the politics of it I think it benefits more the Democrats because they
want to run on it and that's why I actually think at this point without the
president having gone on national TV to explain the problem lay out what he
wants and what a deal would be I think we're right I don't think I don't see
Charles Schumer getting him out of his jam yeah Dan I think that when you see
somebody like Ted Cruz was running for reelection in Texas the senator coming
out rushing out to try to say look here's my plan for doing something that
keep families together you really realize that this is a this is a big
potential vulnerability I know the Cruz people they're worried that this issue
could really maybe even cruise re-election unless it's unless
it's solved yeah Paul well I think we're now seeing
why both Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell in the Senate did not want to bring this
subject up in this term of Congress because it is intractable it is
impossible to make forward movement on it and it has just become a negative
event I mean what happened down there in Texas let's leave aside the substance
the solutions and all that as a political event it was entirely negative
and now it redounds backs to the White House and to the Congress to do
something the Republicans at this point own it because they're the ones attached
to it and the Congress is finding it impossible to move a piece of
legislation forward they've moved their vote into next week the president wants
them to move it until next January and you've got the the reality is you have
at risk Republican seats out there that are very close and the question is is
this gonna put negative pressure on those 20 vulnerable seats yeah Jason the
the architect of this I think politically in the White House Stephen
Miller ok he's an aide to President Trump and he also had a role in the
travel ban but I think he believes and a lot of people in the White House believe
that this is an advantage as an issue for Republicans and that's why he's
looking for these enforcement pressures the enforcement actions that can
galvanize the debate between now and the in November Dan suggests it's not a good
idea for Republicans what do you think well it plays well with the base to a
point I don't think even the base is comfortable with looking at kids and
cages but to some extent yes Trump continues to talk about this because it
works for him and it enables him to paint the Democrats as weak on border
security thinks this helps them get along doesn't work for Mike Kaufman in
Colorado in Denver who came out and said Trump should fire Stephen Miller what
but what to piggyback on what Dan said though the other reality is that Trump
needs to get behind this bill he needs to give these Republicans some cover and
there are elements in this bill that he likes it does something for the dreamers
it reduces legal immigration something I don't think we should be doing but
that's what it does and it some money for his border wall so he
needs to come out and say this is not amnesty and and before this and vote for
this bill bill but briefly I don't think that's gonna happen I don't think it's
gonna happen either I sort of agreed that would be ideal look I think the
president eventually will have to go to the nation explain his plan and explain
what he's willing to trade off it in a way he's Nixon to China he's in a
position to do it but he's not going to do it this term I mean what they're
hoping now is it goes away in a month all right well it's not going to I'll
tell you that when we come back a big decision from the Supreme Court as the
justices get set to wrap up a blockbuster turn why Thursday's ruling
could change the way you shop
in one of the most closely watched cases of the term the Supreme Court ruled
Thursday that states can charge out-of-state retailers sales tax even if
they do not have a physical store or warehouse in the state overturning
decades of legal precedent and clearing the way for more of your internet
purchases to be taxed we're back with Dan Henninger Jason Riley and Wall
Street Journal editorial board member Alicia
Finley so Alicia what did the Supreme Court do in this wave fare case well it
overturned two precedents its 1967 Bella has in 1992 quill precedent that limited
states from collecting sales tax from remote retailers or those outside of
their borders okay so why did they feel the need to do this I mean because look
amazon has already been collecting tax most retailers already very 19 out of
the 20 biggest read online retailers collect tax so what's the problem they
were exactly I think they're gonna create more problems than solving them
but why was what's the reasoning for them to the policy were the policy or
the supposed justification I think Anthony Kennedy was arguably trying to
clean up after his Commerce Clause jurisprudence from the quill decision
but the argument he made mistake he claimed so and then so did Clarence
Thomas okay who also joined the 1992 quill and he basically says that those
decisions were an RN isms and in the Internet age and now it's completely
arbitrary this physical present standard is completely arbitrary and it was a 5-4
ruling so Justice Roberts wrote a dissent saying yes I agree we made a
mistake back then but this was Congress can fix this animals a longtime
precedent why should we disrupt this exact Congress fix it but that was his
logic yes okay so what are the consequences Jason well states one new
taxing powers that's what the court has given them and that should worry all of
us considering how irresponsible states are with the current taxing powers of a
New Jersey Jersey you name it but the court said that the states can create a
new revenue stream and that's going to come at the expense primarily of
on time online retailers Paul you know the Walmarts and the Amazons they they
they these compliance costs aren't going to hurt them that much but the
mom-and-pop shops that's who's gonna feel the burden of this and ultimately
of course consumers is there any recourse here at all
Alicia at all any recourse for for a small business say suddenly gets hit
with a barrage there 10,000 taxing jurisdictions that did just that do
sales taxes is that gonna hit a lot of small small mom-and-pop shops well of
course and so their only hope is they're gonna have to sue the states and their
own local courts and the judges some case-by-case basis will have to look and
say well consider the wayfarer decision and see if this is an undue burden on
Interstate Commerce or if the company doesn't have the substantial Nexus this
is gonna be really difficult for companies or businesses to prove though
the other thing that the court did is it sort of let Congress off the hook here
and Congress had avoided fixing this problem so to speak because they knew it
was gonna result in higher prices for consumers and they didn't want to have
to eat that or go back and explain that to voters so Congress sort of left
Congress off the hook now I think it's Congress's job to make sure the states
don't abuse this and put some parameters in place and dan good luck with that I
mean I see a lot of states that a lot of members of Congress and Senators
Congressmen who represent high taxing States as saying oh well sorry I don't
have as much enthusiasm to solve this problem now that the Supreme Court has
made it open season attacks yeah and the best thing about it is you're taxing
people customers who don't live in your state or your jurisdiction and your
taxing companies who don't have any representation inside of your state I
mean what could be better than the tax people who can't politically complain
and and the question is where does it stop I mean now that you're going to be
able to tax internet transactions there are politicians out there looking at
such ideas as taxing your email transmissions taxing financial
transactions the sky's the limit the Internet age just wait til people try to
tax their Netflix the Millennials that might get the Millennials upset there
was another case Stan just mentioned briefly Lucia versus the Securities and
Exchange Commission which was from at least from my point of view a better
decision and that they they declared that administrative law judges who are
appointed judges not article 3 judge judges confirmed by the Senate but hired
by the executive branch have to be appointed by the President or one of his
senior deputy department heads yeah exactly I mean this was the this was a
victory against the administrative state the judges are often appointed by
managers inside agencies like the SEC but those judges have a huge financial
authority over private citizens who come before them in cases brought by agencies
like the SEC there was no real political accountability there and if you're gonna
be brought before a judge that judge ought to be accountable politically to
someone and this this judgment will help a lot with that and Jason the last case
carpenter cellphone wiretap now I mean cell phone are even extreme court said
5-4 that law enforcement people are going to have to get a warrant to be
able to to get certain cell phone records yes and it's going to tie the
hands a little bit of law enforcement here in Kennedy in his dissent said as
much and and said you know we're in a digital age here and the bad guys are
gonna be able to use that to their advantage and we shouldn't be tying the
hands of police when it comes to trying to in trying to capture I think it would
be all kinds of litigation on this we're coming out of this and it's going to be
a real big mess when we come back the Trump administration further stoking
trade tensions with China this weekend spooking the stock market along the way
what the escalating trade war could mean for American workers and consumers next
For more infomation >> FLASHPOINT: State Reps Stone and Jackson give updates from Raleigh - Duration: 12:19. 
For more infomation >> North Korea readies return of U.S. soldiers' remains as summit pledges begin to be carried out - Duration: 13:11. 
For more infomation >> Invasive Plant That Causes Burns Spreads Across US - Duration: 0:58. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét