‘No matter who is convened before Congress and regardless of circumstances, he accords objective reasoning…’
The court got it wrong!
Specifically, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declared President Trump’s immigration enforcement executive orders insufficient, citing insufficient evidence to uphold and support his national security assertions. Immigration enforcement was on hold as the Trump administration returned to the drawing board to redraft and sew up loose ends. Not so fast, bellowed the gentleman from South Carolina.
Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, considered a legal scholar after many years as a federal prosecutor and several terms as a US Congressman, draws admiration for his brilliance. He summed it up well when he unflatteringly said of the court’s opinion: “For those, like Alexander Hamilton, who once or now wondered if the judicial branch would be too weak, wonder no more.”
Despite his tone and choice of words in describing the flawed ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Congressman Gowdy also spoke out on the Trump Administration’s executive orders regarding immigration enforcement. The gentleman from South Carolina offered a particular critique to help clarify President Trump’s travel ban regarding seven majority-Muslim nations. Congressman Gowdy weighed in diplomatically with his legal expertise and suggested how the executive orders could be tidied up to withstand judicial scrutiny. In that same context, Mr. Gowdy shed light on how we mustn’t lend too much weight to “unelected federal judges” who may err in decision-making, akin to what transpired with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. That judicial opinion, as Mr. Gowdy indicated, implied that immigrants have rights where none apply, and that due process allowances do not apply to them in most circumstances.
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly endorsed and published “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest,” a memorandum outlining directives and procedures for federal law enforcement authorities to follow pertaining to illegal immigrant deportations. The question remains: How will local police forces be instructed? Will some coordinate the efforts? Will others turn away and attempt to block federal initiatives?
Despite answers to some of these questions, the DHS memorandum elicits local law enforcement cooperation and details their programs intended to forge partnership with street cops.
In US House chambers, on Fox News, and elsewhere, Congressman Gowdy rebuked the court’s ruling, highlighting how anyone who seeks to emigrate to the America has no right to be here and only does so after privilege is granted by the US government via vetting procedures.
Linking federal law enforcement arms responsible for immigration enforcement with some local cops remains detached. Some states, counties, and cities are prohibiting their police forces from cooperating with deportation processes. It appears we may be destined for the SCOTUS bench on this issue, until Supreme Court justices declare a national game plan in terms of immigration enforcement protocols.
The Police Officer’s Oath encompasses the following words, and I’ve purposely chosen a ceremony provided by the Phoenix Police Department—a sanctuary city whose police officers reaffirm their testament to honor the US Constitution and serve the people:
I (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and defend them against enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge, the duties of a peace officer, to the best of my ability, so help me God.
If a national dilemma spills over into the borders of our nation’s states and embeds, becoming an even larger problem, how can we abstain from allowing our cops—municipal, county, and state—to enforce laws pertinent to the rights and sanctity of all Americans? I don’t know how separatist thinking can keep the citizens of the United States united.
From some immigrants here illegally, violent crimes against American citizens ensue. As Representative Gowdy often enumerates, we not only permit but expect our nation’s cops to enforce laws such as those against homicide, sexual assault, child abuse, and kidnapping—yet we put them in time-out when it comes to immigration enforcement. “Why?” he wonders. So do I. Do you? Can you see the cycle of malice (violent, crime-prone immigrants) breeding more malice? Cops prohibited from enforcing immigration codes because their local governance/police leadership forbids them results in dividends, just not the good kind.
One need only take a review of what our friends in Sweden are confronting, including their police forces, which are candid about migrants overrunning their nation with crime-ridden activities. I believe President Trump alluded to Sweden recently and was prematurely blasted for it. Then hardcore reality set in, straight from the unbridled horse’s mouth.
One can always appreciate Congressman Gowdy’s reverence for the police institution. No matter who is convened before Congressm and regardless of circumstances, he accords objective reasoning. If one erred and is mired in mud (scandal, abuse of office, cronyism), Mr. Gowdy is going to help guide you to clarity, irrespective of your law enforcement credentials. I can honor a man who conveys honor to others, even when they are being grilled under the hot lights. A recent example is when Congressman Gowdy questioned FBI Director James Comey’s actions pertaining to the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Mr. Gowdy carefully extended his respect for the law enforcement mission yet also let it be known that he felt the FBI bobbled and dropped the ball of responsibility.
Nevertheless, Representative Gowdy invokes candor when he is doing his job in D.C. or in his South Carolina district, drawing praise for genuine elected representation. Hear him speak about tragic assassinations of cops and you will hear him choke back tears. Emote he does, emblematic of an authentic, principled man whose pride in the law enforcement institution is refreshingly uplifting to this retired cop.
Encompassing all the essential virtues, experiences, intellect, and potential in bidding for the US presidency, Gowdy’s got it! He has my vote.
Stephen Owsinski is a Senior OpsLens Contributor and retired law enforcement officer whose career included assignments in the Uniformed Patrol Division and Field Training Officer (FTO) unit. He is currently a researcher and writer.
To contact or book OpsLens contributors on your program or utilize our staff for your story, contact [email protected]
