editorials
I n a 5-4 ruling last week, the Supreme Court
blocked the lifting of a Trump-era Title 42
order on immigration, which left in place the
federal directive that has been used to prevent
the entry of millions of asylum seekers at the
southern border.

The Biden administration promised to lift Title
42 — a public-health-based order implemented
at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which
has been used by both the Trump and the Biden
administrations to expel more than 2 million
migrants on public health grounds. While the
Immigration activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme
Biden administration outwardly sought to termi-
Court in Washington on April 26, 2022.

nate the rule, it is actually breathing a grateful
sigh of relief at the Supreme Court’s Title 42 exten- overwhelmed border states.

sion. That’s because the administration hasn’t yet
The last time this country made a serious eff ort at
developed a plan to handle the mounting mass of immigration reform was in 2005, in a bill co-sponsored
migrants gathering along the U.S.-Mexican border and by Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen.

seeking asylum or other grounds to enter America.

Ted Kennedy. Their eff ort was supported by President
The United States is the destination of choice for George W. Bush. But the bill never got a vote in the
tens of thousands of people from Latin America Senate. Eighteen years later, as the demand for entry
who are fl eeing violence, gangs, poverty, corruption from the south has increased many-fold, there is still
and the depravity of their own governments. But no answer. Everyone acknowledges the problem.

we have no comprehensive plan in place to deal
The most aff ected states in this mess are
with the ever-growing immigration demands. And, Republican-led. And the stunts from those states
even with Title 42 in place, the migration wave has — like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sending two
Trump’s Tax Returns
L ate last month, following a successful multi-year
battle over the right to see former President
Donald Trump’s tax returns, a House panel voted
along party lines to release several years of those
tax returns to the public. The returns were released
on Dec. 30, just days before Democrats will turn
over control of the House of Representatives to
Republicans. Reactions were predictable. Republicans called
the move a vindictive, partisan cheap shot, wholly
inconsistent with historical practice. And they said
the move would result in retaliation against President
Joe Biden and other Democrats when Republicans
take control of the House. Democrats claimed that
the release of the returns was “in the public interest,”
arguing that American citizens have a right to know
fi nancial information about their president and his
claims of wealth and fi nancial success.

When the House Ways and Means Committee
fi rst sought copies of Trump’s tax returns several
years ago, it argued that it needed them to help craft
10 JANUARY 5, 2023 | JEWISH EXPONENT
legislation regarding the Internal Revenue Service’s
presidential audit program. The committee was also
troubled by the fact that Trump refused to release
his returns when running for president or while in
offi ce, as had become the tradition since the Nixon
administration. But those past disclosures were all voluntary — as
there is no law that requires presidential candidates
or those in offi ce to make those disclosures. Trump’s
decision not to release his tax returns — despite
repeated, vocal demands that he do so — was a polit-
ical risk he was willing to take. He got elected anyhow.

The Ways and Means Committee may be right that
changes are necessary in the IRS’ presidential audit
program. And the issues of regular audits of presi-
dential tax returns and the mandatory disclosure of
tax returns and other fi nancial information by those
seeking the presidency may be appropriate issues
for consideration going forward. We can even accept
the argument that the committee needed access to
Trump’s returns in order to help evaluate the need for
planeloads of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in
Massachusetts in September and Texas Gov.

Greg Abbott sending three busloads of migrants
to Washington, D.C., on Christmas — are off en-
sive. But the off -putting moves by Southern
governors are driven by genuine frustration.

Their states are unable to cope with the many
challenges presented by rising migrant numbers,
and there is no federal plan to help.

Nearly two years ago, President Joe Biden
appointed Vice President Kamala Harris as his
“border czar” to tackle the immigration crisis. We
don’t know what the vice president has done
regarding that assignment. But we do know that
since Biden took offi ce in 2021, we have seen increas-
ing levels of migrant crossings, further inundating a
border already heavily strained by irregular migration
and an overwhelmed asylum-processing system. It is
clear that the longer the problem is not addressed with
a comprehensive plan, the worse it is going to get.

The Supreme Court bought the administration some
additional time to get its immigration act together. We
call on the administration to develop an updated,
comprehensive and realistic immigration policy. If
the vice president can’t lead that eff ort, then fi nd
someone who can. ■
such legislation.

But we are hard-pressed to understand how any of
those considerations justify the public disclosure of
Trump’s tax returns for the period of 2015-20. Instead,
it is pretty clear that the primary purpose for the
disclosures was a purely political eff ort to embarrass
the former president.

Yet here, too, reactions to the disclosed information
were mixed, with Trump critics claiming that it shows
him to be a terrible businessman, a tax cheat and
worse, and others accepting of Trump’s claims that he
took advantage of legitimate, legal loopholes to allow
him to avoid signifi cant tax payments. We leave that
analysis to others.

What bothers us is the precedent. In our hyper-po-
larized political environment, the Democrats on the
House Ways and Means Committee have invited a
tit-for-tat response from Republicans. That is not a
good thing. We urge Congress to rise above petty
partisanship and to respect personal privacy, even of
their political rivals. ■
Bill Clark/Newscom
Where Is the Progress on Immigration
Reform?