As defined by the first Special Rapporteur, “the human right to adequate housing is the right of every woman, man, youth and child to gain and sustain a safe and secure home and community in which to live in peace and dignity”.

This definition is in line with the core elements of the right to adequate housing as defined by General Comment No. 4 of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the body in charge of monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the States which are party to it). According to the Committee, while adequacy is determined in part by social, economic, cultural, climatic, ecological and other factors, it is nevertheless possible to identify certain aspects of the right that must be taken into account for this purpose in any particular context. They include the following: a) Legal security of tenure; b) Availability of services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure; c) Affordability; d) Habitability; e) Accessibility; f) Location; and g) Cultural adequacy. For the definition of these elements, please refer to General Comment No. 4.

For more on the human right to adequate housing, please refer to International Standards.

The obligations of States

The legal obligations of Governments concerning the right to housing consist of (i) the duties found in article 2.1 of the Covenant; and (ii) the more specific obligations to recognize, respect, protect and fulfill this and other rights.

Three phrases in article 2.1 are particularly important for understanding the obligations of Governments to realize fully the rights recognized in the Covenant, including the right to adequate housing:

(a) “undertakes to take steps . . . by all appropriate means”

In addition to legislative measures, administrative, judicial, economic, social and educational steps must also be taken. States parties are also obliged to develop policies and set priorities consistent with the Covenant. They are also required to evaluate the progress of such measures and to provide effective legal or other remedies for violations. With specific reference to the right to adequate housing, States parties are required to adopt a national housing strategy.

(b) “to the maximum of its available resources

The obligation of States is to demonstrate that, in aggregate, the measures being taken are sufficient to realize the right to adequate housing for every individual in the shortest possible time using the maximum available resources.

(c) “to achieve progressively”

This obligation “to achieve progressively” must be read in the light of article 11.1 of the Covenant, in particular, the reference to the right to the “continuous improvement of living conditions”. The obligation of progressive realization, moreover, exists independently of any increase in resources. Above all, it requires effective use of resources available.

The four additional obligations that Governments have to fulfill in order to implement the right to adequate housing are:

The obligation to recognize the human right dimensions of housing and to ensure that no measures are taken with the intention of eroding the legal status of this right. The adoption of measures and appropriate policies geared towards progressive realization of housing rights form part of this obligation.

The obligation to respect the right to adequate housing means that Governments must abstain from carrying out or otherwise advocating the forced or arbitrary eviction of persons and groups. States must respect people’s rights to build their own dwellings and order their environments in a manner which most effectively suits their culture, skills, needs, and wishes.

The obligation to protect effectively the housing rights of a population means that Governments must ensure that any possible violations of these rights by “third parties” such as landlords or property developers are prevented. Where such infringements do occur, the relevant public authorities should act to prevent any further deprivations and guarantee to affected person access to legal remedies of redress for any infringement caused.

The obligation to fulfill the right to adequate housing is both positive and interventional. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has asserted that identifiable governmental strategies aimed at securing the right of all persons to live in peace and dignity should be developed.

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

Sooner or Later, your company will probably need to transform itself in response to market shifts, groundbreaking technologies, or disruptive start-ups. Some strategists suggest doing this quickly and aggressively, by making a clean break from the past and turning your firm into something entirely new. In my experience, though, organizations built for legacy markets rarely pull this off. It can take years for an innovative initiative to become large enough to replace the revenue an incumbent has lost to disruption. And if your company completely abandons its old model, it throws away any advantage it still has. I propose an approach that’s both more practical to implement and more sustainable. It rests on two insights: First, major transformations need to be two different efforts happening in parallel.

“Transformation A” should reposition the core business, adapting its current business model to the altered marketplace. “Transformation B” should create a separate, disruptive business to develop the innovations that will become the source of future growth. Second, the key to making both transformations work is to establish a new organizational process we call a “capabilities exchange,” through which the parallel efforts can share select resources without changing the mission or operations of either. Dividing the effort in two allows leaders to develop a new strategy for the core that doesn’t need to make up for all the business lost to disruption. It also gives the innovative new operation the time it needs to grow. What one transformation effort could rarely accomplish alone, two together have a better chance of achieving. IBM and Apple both took this dual-transformation approach. In the mid-1990s, IBM reconceived its mainframe business, shifting from proprietary systems to servers running software based on open standards. At the same time, it built a separate Global Services organization that became the source of its future growth. In the late 1990s, Apple repositioned its struggling PC business, trimming offerings and focusing on design. Shortly afterward, it launched the iPod and opened the iTunes store, which led to phenomenal growth. More recently, we’ve seen the dual-track process unfolding at Barnes & Noble as the retailer reacted to the severe disruption of e-books, and at Xerox in response to the slow erosion of its core copier business.

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

Equality can be understood as parity in the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms, and equality of opportunities with regards to education and work and the fulfillment of one’s potential. Equity relates to a degree of equality in the living conditions of people, especially in terms of income and wealth, that society considers desirable. Reduction of inequalities is then justified by equity considerations.

The 1995 World Social Summit stressed that a people-centered approach to development must be based on the principles of equity and equality so that all individuals have access to resources and opportunities. In the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action social justice, equity and equality reflect the concept of a just society ensuring the equitable distribution of income and greater access to resources through equity and equality of opportunity for all. Public policies have to correct market failures and promote equity and social justice. World Social Summit identified several ways Governments can promote equality and social justice:

◾Ensuring people are equal before the law
◾Carrying out policies with a view to equalization of opportunities
◾Expanding and improving access to basic services
◾Providing equal opportunities in public-sector employment
◾Encouraging formation of cooperatives and community-based institutions
◾Minimize negative effects of structural adjustment programmes
◾Promoting full access to preventive and curative health care
◾Expanding basic education, improving its quality, enhancing access to formal and non-formal learning, ensuring equal access to education of girls

The 24th Special session of the General Assembly reiterated that social development requires reduction in inequality of wealth and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of economic growth within and among nations.

Over the past decades, inequalities in income distribution and access to productive resources, basic social services, opportunities, markets, and information have been on the rise worldwide, often causing and exacerbating poverty. Globalization occurs in the absence of a social agenda, aimed at mitigating the negative impacts of globalization on vulnerable groups of society.

A social perspective on development emphasizes the view that inequality impairs growth and development, including poverty eradication efforts and that equity itself is instrumental for economic growth and development. It aims at providing a better understanding of the effects of economic and social policies on equity in societies and promotes ways of advancing policies contributing to the reduction of inequalities. Policies for both inequality and poverty reduction are mutually reinforcing.

The linkages between poverty and inequality are highlighted in the 2005 Report on the World Social Situation: The Inequality Predicament. The report states that the goal of sustained poverty reduction cannot be achieved unless equality of opportunity and access to basic services is ensured and stresses that the goal of reducing inequality must be explicitly incorporated in policies and programmes aimed at poverty reduction.

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

Unemployment and underemployment lie at the core of poverty. For the poor, labor is often the only asset they can use to improve their well-being. Hence the creation of productive employment opportunities is essential for achieving poverty reduction and sustainable economic and social development. It is crucial to provide decent jobs that both secure income and empowerment for the poor, especially women and younger people.

Rapid economic growth can potentially bring a high rate of expansion of productive and remunerative employment, which can lead to a reduction in poverty. Nevertheless, the contribution of the growth process to poverty reduction does not depend only on the rate of economic growth, but also on the ability of the poor to respond to the increasing demand for labor in the more productive categories of employment.

Given the importance of employment for poverty reduction, job-creation should occupy a central place in national poverty reduction strategies. Many employment strategies are often related to agricultural and rural development and include using labor-intensive agricultural technologies; developing small and medium-sized enterprises, and promoting micro projects in rural areas. Many strategies promote self-employment, non-farm employment in rural areas, targeted employment interventions, microfinance and credit as a means of employment generation, skill formation and training.

Such strategies, however, often address the quantity of employment while the qualitative dimensions, such as equity, security, dignity, and freedom are often absent or minimal. In general, national poverty reduction strategies including Poverty Reduction Strategies do not comment on employment programmes, social protection or rights at work. Neither do they offer an in-depth analysis of the effects of policies on poverty reduction.

A social perspective on development emphasizes the view that the best route to socio-economic development, poverty eradication and personal wellbeing is through decent work. Productive employment opportunities will contribute substantially to achieving the internationally agreed development goals, especially the Millennium Development Goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015.

There should be a focus on creating better and more productive jobs, particularly those that can absorb the high concentrations of working poor. Among the necessary elements for creating such jobs are investing in labor-intensive industries, especially agriculture, encouraging a shift in the structure of employment to higher productivity occupations and sectors, and upgrading job quality in the informal economy. In addition, there should also be a focus on providing poor people with the necessary skills and assets that will enable them to take full advantage of any expansion in employment potential.

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

I am excited to announce that I have joined the Mission Housing Development Corporation‘s team. Since 1971, Mission Housing has provided affordable housing options to residents of San Francisco. Now, Mission Housing is one of the largest nonprofit housing organizations in San Francisco, owning or managing 35 buildings. The organization currently serves some 3,000 residents in 1,600 units. 1,000 additional 100 percent affordable rental units are being developed.

Mission Housing is a community-based organization which creates and preserves high-quality affordable housing for residents of low and moderate incomes in the Mission District and San Francisco. Mission Housing Development Corporation provides housing for families, seniors, and special needs individuals. Mission Housing Development Corporation also provides technical assistance to help other organizations develop affordable housing that meets the needs of the physically or mentally challenged, and the critically ill.

I’d like to extend my special thanks to Sam Moss (Executive Director) and Marcia Contreras (Associate Executive Director) for giving me the opportunity together to have an impact in the lives of thousands of disadvantaged and disenfranchized San Franciscans and Californians. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to the rest of the Mission Housing team, particularly Martin, and Veronica.

Sharam Kohan

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

`We are only following the law’ doesn’t explain immigration policy during Nazi era or now

Holocaust historians’ first impulse is to reject comparisons between those dark decades and our present. We don’t want to be perceived as abusing history for political purposes, or engaging in overly emotional analyses.

But then comes a moment when it’s not possible to avoid parallels.

For me, that moment came two weeks ago.

I study the American response to the Holocaust. I was researching the U.S. officials’ false claim that the nation’s inflexible immigration laws gave them no choice but to deny visas to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees in the 1930s and early 1940s – and historians’ repetition of this false claim. From every media outlet came Trump administration officials spewing similar hollow arguments.

The law made me do it

During the Nazi era, the claim was based on the 1924 immigration law that set annual worldwide quotas, as well as country-by-country limits, on the number of immigrants to be admitted to the United States.

The problem with the claim and the idea that U.S. officials had no choice but to follow the law and limit immigration is that the quotas were never even close to being filled from 1933 to 1945, the 12 years of the Nazi regime.

About 200,000 refugees from Nazi Europe were admitted during that period to the U.S., while at least another 200,000 could have been under existing quotas. The quota for Germans of about 26,000 was filled in just one year, in 1939. In every other year, the quota ranged from 7 percent to 70 percent filled.

The law didn’t prevent U.S. officials from admitting more refugees. Officials chose to interpret and implement the nation’s immigration laws so as to exclude as many refugees from Nazi Europe as possible.

Yet at the time, and in many historical accounts, officials consistently blamed the law. That includes Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, who explained why his administration could not help European Jews in 1943.

“American immigration policy was expressed [solely] in the laws enacted by Congress, which the executive branch had no power to alter,” said Long.

I intended at the conference to try to explain why so many historians cling to “the law-made-me-do-it” narrative, assuming that that narrative was all history.

It wasn’t.

History repeats

As criticism of the Trump administration’s policy of separating families at the border ramped up in mid-June, U.S. officials trotted out their version of Long’s argument – though in less elevated language.

Asked why the administration adopted the “zero tolerance” policy, which led to criminal prosecutions of all those crossing the border seemingly illegally, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said during a Thursday press conference, “because it’s the law, that’s what the law states.”

Front page of The New York Times, July 19, 1941. US Holocaust Memorial Museum

Pressed again, Sanders said, “Again, the laws are the one, the laws that have been on the books for over a decade and the president is enforcing them.”

Sanders wasn’t the first Trump administration official to blame “the law” for immigration policy.

“We don’t deport anyone,” John Kelly declared, when he was still Homeland Security secretary. “American law deports people.”

Nor has Sanders been the last.

Kelly’s successor, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the president have all said at various times – and then taken it back – that they had no choice.

Jobs and security

The Trump administration has justified its anti-immigrant policy as a way to help unemployed Americans. So did the Hoover administration and then the Roosevelt administration.

Faced with the Great Depression, Hoover decided in 1930 to limit the number of immigrants allowed into the country, because – supposedly – they would take Americans’ jobs.

Hoover did it by changing the interpretation of a decades-old provisionthat enabled officials to deny visas to those who were “likely to become a public charge.” Under the new interpretation, almost every applicant was found likely to become a public charge with no guidance or consistency in what that meant.

Immigration dropped 90 percent in the first five months.

From 1933 to 1945, the Roosevelt administration continued to use this interpretation of the likely-to-become-a-public-charge clause and other provisions to keep immigration under what the law allowed, even after the economy picked up.

The Trump administration has claimed immigrants are more likely to commit crimes and to be national security risks, using unrepresentative anecdotes and amorphous fears to justify its policy.

So did the Roosevelt administration. One State Department lawyer maintained that officials should deny visas to those who had criminal tendencies, even if they have no criminal record.

Government officials during the Roosevelt administration also assumed a large proportion of immigrants, particularly Jewish ones, were communists determined to subvert democracy. They denied visas on that basis.

Officials also assumed German Jewish refugees would be spies for the Third Reich. That was based upon the flimsiest of evidence: a Cuban ambassador’s claim some Jewish refugees celebrated the fall of Paris to the Nazis and a former U.S. ambassador to France’s allegation that German Jewish refugees made up half the 200 spies the French Army arrested.

“I believe you should instruct our counter-espionage services of all sorts to keep an especially vigilant eye on the Jewish refugees from Germany,” William Bullitt, the ex-ambassador, wrote Roosevelt. “Sad, isn’t it?’”

Breckenridge Long, who worked to stop refugees from the Nazis from coming to the U.S.National Archives

Jewish refugees didn’t turn out to be spies. Of the 23,000 “enemy aliens” who arrived in 1940, for example, fewer than one-half of 1 percent were taken into custody for questioning. Only a fraction of those were indicted – for violating immigration regulations, not for espionage.

Denials of visas based on national security concerns and other reasons, however, meant that just 21,000 refugees entered the United States between Pearl Harbor and the war’s end, with quotas from Axis-controlled countries only 10 percent filled. Historian David Wyman estimates that the U.S. could have saved nearly 200,000 victims of the Nazis by allowing them to enter the country.

Who gets to be American

Based on my research, I have concluded that U.S. government officials’ fears about refugees from Nazism being public charges, criminals or security risks were primarily pretexts for their real concern. That concern was that allowing in too many refugees would fundamentally alter the nature of American society.

Many decision-makers, particularly in the State Department, hailed from the WASP elite and perceived ambitious Jews as threatening their exclusive domains. The fewer Jews in the United States, the greater the chance of preserving the country as it had been and as they wanted it to continue to be. These officials justified any position and tolerated any cruelty, including refusing to change immigration policies once it was known the Germans were exterminating all of Europe’s Jews.

Roosevelt administration officials turned out to be both right and wrong in their fears.

They were right that the European refugees who came before, during and after the war, though small in number, reshaped the world of higher education, the arts and the sciences and contributed to the rise of the postwar meritocracy. That postwar meritocracy broke down the class-based system that kept Jews and Italians and eventually blacks and Latinos out of elite institutions.

But they were wrong that these changes undermined American democracy or changed the country’s spirit.

The nation was better off letting in 200,000 refugees between 1933 and 1945. It would have been even better off filling the quotas and allowing in the additional 200,000 refugees. And it would have been better off still had the country admitted anyone in need and tried to save all those who were imperiled as the Holocaust unfolded.

Some might object, probably under their breath, that these refugees were different. They were “good” refugees.

But that is not how they were perceived at the time. And that is exactly the point and precisely the parallel.

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

Throughout 2017, the US continued to carry out large-scale warrantless intelligence surveillance programs without transparency or oversight. Authorities used Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to target non-citizens (except lawful permanent residents) outside the country for warrantless communications monitoring and to “incidentally” gather large numbers of communications to or from people in the US.

Section 702 was scheduled to end at the end of 2017 unless Congress renewed it; at time of writing federal appeals courts had differing conclusions about the constitutionality of certain aspects of the law.

US surveillance of global communications under Executive Order 12333 remained shrouded in secrecy, with neither Congress nor the courts providing meaningful oversight. In January, the government disclosed procedures for the National Security Agency (NSA) to share data with domestic law enforcement agencies obtained by surveillance under the order. Documents disclosed to Human Rights Watch during the year revealed a Defense Department policy under the order sanctioning otherwise prohibited forms of monitoring of people inside the United States designated as “homegrown violent extremists.” The Defense Department has not revealed how it designates “extremists” or what types of monitoring may result.

In May 2017, the Trump administration approved a proposal that asks US visa applicants for social media handles and accounts from the past five years as part of its enhanced vetting process. The US also continues to assert broad authority to search electronic devices and copy data at the border without any suspicion of wrongdoing.

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

One week after his January 20, 2017 inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order to suspend the US refugee program, cut the number of refugees who could be resettled into the US in 2017, and temporarily ban entry of nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries. This and later versions of the order banning entry from various countries have been the subject of ongoing federal litigation.

In October, Trump signed an executive order resuming the refugee program but with new screening measures. The annual cap for refugee admissions for 2018 was set at 45,000, the lowest annual limit since Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980.

On the back of rhetoric falsely conflating illegal immigration with increased crime, Trump also moved to make all deportable immigrants “priority” targets for deportation, penalize so-called sanctuary cities and states that have limited local police involvement in federal immigration enforcement; expand abusive fast-track deportation procedures and criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses; and increase the prolonged detention of immigrants, despite evidence, documented by Human Rights Watch and others, of abusive conditions in immigration detention.

In August, President Trump repealed a program protecting from deportation immigrants who arrived in the United States as children, putting hundreds of thousands of people who grew up in the US at risk of deportation. President Trump signalled he would support legislation that provided legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. However, in October the White House released a hard-line set of immigration principles and policies—including weakening protections for child migrants and refugees—it considers necessary components of any such legislative deal.

Some cities and states sought to increase protections for immigrants by creating funds for legal services, limiting local law enforcement involvement in federal immigration enforcement, and resisting efforts to defund “sanctuary” cities. Others sought to pass laws punishing such localities.

In December, Human Rights Watch reported on the impact of the Trump administration on immigration policies, profiling dozens of long-term residents with strong family and other ties within the US who were summarily deported. US law rarely allows for individualized hearings that weigh such ties, and most immigrants do not have attorneys to help them fight deportation.

At time of writing, seizures for deportation of undocumented people from the interior without criminal convictions had nearly tripled to 31,888 between the inauguration and the end of September 2017, compared with 11,500 during approximately the same period in 2016.

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

Racial disparities permeate every part of the US criminal justice system, including in the enforcement of drug laws. Black people make up 13 percent of the population and 13 percent of all adults who use drugs, but 27 percent of all drug arrests. Black men are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of white men.

Police continue to kill black people in numbers disproportionate to their overall share of the population. Black people are 2.5 times as likely as white to be killed by police. An unarmed black person is five times as likely to be killed by police as an unarmed white person.

The Trump administration has expressed almost unconditional support for the prerogatives of law enforcement officers, scaling back or altogether removing police oversight mechanisms. The US Department of Justice began to discontinue investigations into, and monitoring of, local police departments reported to have patterns and practices of excessive force and constitutional violations.

The administration reversed an order from the Obama administration limiting acquisition of offensive military weaponry by local police departments. In a speech in July, President Trump encouraged officers to use unnecessary force on suspects. Congress introduced the “Back the Blue Act,” which would severely restrict civilians’ rights to sue police officers who unlawfully injure them.

Despite voicing concern over the opioid crisis, the Trump administration signaled an intent to re-escalate the “war on drugs” and de-emphasize bipartisan public health approaches to drug policy. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded his predecessor’s Smart on Crime initiative, which had prioritized federal prosecutions of individuals accused of high-level drug offenses, reduced racial disparities in federal drug sentencing, and improved re-entry opportunities.

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

Maybe it’s not so easy after all. President Donald Trump’s struggles to push immigration legislation through Congress and his about-face on breaking up immigrant families are putting a spotlight on his competence in carrying out his policies.

The fallout from Trump’s handling of the separation of immigrant children from their families, which led to a sharp reversal from the president, has been reminiscent of the chaos sparked when Trump opened his administration by imposing a travel ban on immigrants entering from majority Muslim countries.

Taken together, the events demonstrate how little Trump appears to have learned or adjusted his approach after that first rocky encounter with governing. From issue to issue, from immigration to health care to trade and more, Trump’s pattern has been to outline a plan with scant concern or preparation for its immediate impact or consequences, and to make changes on the fly with the same lack of planning.

The result has often gone far beyond bureaucratic confusion, and has, at times, inflicted painful and unexpected consequences on people’s lives.

“It’s not something that appreciates these young children and was certainly done in a ‘ready, fire, aim’ way, obviously,” said Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, describing the administration’s immigration policy. “There was no preparation for it.”

Trump implemented a major new policy this spring with no apparent plan or new resources to handle the influx of people who would be detained and prosecuted as a result. When a public outcry ensued, the administration could not answer basic questions about it. Trump then changed the way the policy worked — leaving officials within the administration and at the border confused on how to enact the changes. Plus, it took several days for the government to say how it planned to reunite families and where the separated children were located.

Trump’s struggles on immigration follow his failure last year to repeal the so-called Obamacare law, a central tenet of GOP orthodoxy since President Barack Obama signed it into law in 2010, and the president’s uneven implementation of his travel ban, which will be the subject of a Supreme Court ruling this week. New tariffs have strained relationships with European and North American allies and his Middle East peace plan is still under development amid a standoff with the Palestinians after he said the decades-old problem wouldn’t be hard to solve.

Trump has often mused since the 2016 presidential campaign that it would be “so easy” to pass a sweeping immigration law and construct a “big, beautiful” border wall, paid for by Mexico. Earlier this week, he tweeted that his Democratic leadership adversaries in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, would be “forced to do a real deal, so easy, that solves this long time problem.”

But the upcoming week could offer fresh evidence that the reality of governing is much more challenging.

Republicans are seeking to steer an immigration bill through the House despite skepticism among conservatives and uncertainty about Trump’s commitment to the plan. The president told House Republicans he was “1,000 percent” behind their effort last week but then suggested just three days later on Twitter that Republicans wait until after the fall midterm elections.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he received assurances from the White House during the weekend that Trump was “still 100 percent behind us.” But the fate of the bill remains in doubt and it remains unclear if House Republicans could pass a narrower version that would only address the separation of children and their families.

Confusion has lingered over Trump’s border policy, meanwhile. After a public uproar over the “zero tolerance” policy that led to more than 2,300 immigrant children being separated from their families near the Mexican border, the president signed an executive order last week for the children to be brought back together with their families. The order seeks to keep families together in detention instead of separating them while their legal cases are heard by the courts.

A 1997 landmark case known as the Flores settlement governs how children are handled in immigration custody and generally prevents the government from keeping them in detention, even with their parents, for more than 20 days. Trump is seeking to amend the agreement to allow for families to be detained indefinitely together. But Justice Department has said the 20-day policy remains in effect until Congress or the courts take action to change that.

That means if Congress fails to pass legislation or the courts decline to change the terms of the settlement, the administration could be forced to again separate the immigrant children from their parents in three weeks.

In the meantime, officials have issued conflicting signals over the state of the administration’s policy and some parents have said they don’t yet know where there children are.

Trump tweeted Sunday that the U.S. “cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country.” He said when someone attempts to enter illegally, “we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said that is both illegal and unconstitutional.

Trump also continued to blame Democrats in the Republican-controlled Congress, saying House Republicans could “easily pass” a strong border security bill, but it would still have to pass the Senate “and for that we need 10 Democrat votes, and all they do is RESIST.”

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a frequent Trump critic, said the problem was larger than a partisan fight.

“When the president says that and calls them clowns and losers, how does he expect the Democrats to sit down and work with Republicans on these issues? And so words matter. What the president says matters. And he ought to knock that off,” Flake said.

Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University, said the federal government is not the “agile instrument” for policy that Trump seems to think it is.

“It’s very difficult to make a U-turn, then make another U-turn,” Light said, adding that’s exactly what Trump did last week in signing the executive order after he and other administration had insisted for days that their hands were tied and that only Congress had the power to step in and do something.

“He sees decisions like ordering at McDonald’s. You order, it comes, good-bye,” Light said. “That’s not the way government works.”

Corker spoke on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” McCaul spoke on “Fox News Sunday” and Flake appeared on ABC’s “This Week.”

It’s only fair to share…Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on VKBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

Next Page »