JOHN DICKERSON: The rule of law has a carveout for strawberries. Donald Trump has agreed to make exceptions to his immigration enforcement strategy, ordering a halt to workplace raids in key industries like agriculture, hospitality and restaurants. The president posted, referring to those businesses: “our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good longtime workers away from them.” When I interviewed Trump's immigration czar Tom Homan last week, he said, “if you're in the country illegally, you’ve got a problem”, meaning no exceptions. Companies that employ migrants? No exceptions either. A Department of Homeland Security sign makes no distinctions at all, encouraging people to, quote: “report all foreign invaders.” Now the poster needs edits- not to ensure due process that the courts have asked for or for humanitarian exceptions, but to accommodate industry lobbying. Now, presidents must consider economic impacts and make pragmatic concessions. But the Trump team previously scoffed at those kinds of accommodations, so this is a big change. Making exceptions means you're not enforcing the law. You're enacting a preference. Just as sanctuary cities bent rules for their reasons, Trump now bends them for his. This method is the same. Political discretion replaces equal application of the law. That puts the debate on different terrain. Once you make exceptions, why not make others? Republicans once advocated, for example, for humanitarian leniency, like the 2012 GOP presidential candidate who said, “I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families.” That was Newt Gingrich, former Speaker. No squish. But that mindset was deemed weak by the man who, ten years ago, this day began one of the most successful transformations in American politics. Descending an escalator to declare undocumented immigrants, criminals, rapists, and adding “and some, I assume, are good people.” Ten years later, he’s found them.
. Ben Graham
