You’ve probably heard by now about President Trump’s executive order immigration. I’m not a fan on the merits and am biased against it for personal reasons.
Gross, an affront to our shared American values, and as a kicker won’t solve the problem anyway.https://t.co/nRICbYmsTi
— Andrew Rotherham (@arotherham) January 28, 2017
So that about covers it from where I sit. Also, this executive order today is preposterous. Government regulations are not a 40-man baseball roster.
On policy, the immigration EO did not get into the DACA/Dreamers issue. By all accounts this Reuters article is right that there is a split in the Trump camp over how to handle the DACA policy. In that regard the executive order this weekend is instructive on form more than content. A very small group around President Trump is making decisions (and not just on this issue) and you’re not getting the normal agency, legislative liaison, and stakeholder input on big decisions that generally helps shape policy including EOs. That could have big impact on the DACA question because most of the opposition to repeal is from the Hill, agencies that would have to implement a plan, and key stakeholders like some conservatives concerned about the impact of a DACA repeal on families. The opposition to DACA repeal is not strong among Trump’s key advisors.
Second, and more generally, the ham-handedness of how this went down is a problem. Policy specifics aside, it’s startling and no way to run a railroad. The lack of agency input. No prep or transition time. Total chaos as a result. The President can’t do an Executive Order implementing school choice but they can design a proposal that is more or less vetted and thought out. They can do a DACA revision that causes more or less chaos and confusion. If this EO on immigration is any indication, look out.
Good news for DACA supporters? Well, so far President Trump has done pretty much what he said he would (turns out Trump voters should have taken him literally…thanks guys!). And he has said he’d find a way to protect dreamers. We’ll see.
The Times takes a look at Betsy DeVos’ personal approach on LGBT issues. I don’t know her so have no idea on this – though I have no reason to doubt the Times’ reporting on it either. But, it does point up an interesting partisan dynamic. On this issue I’ve been struck at how quickly it’s become politicized and more about someone’s general politics than their behavior on the specifics of LGBT policy. Personally, I’m a lot more interested in what a politician or public figure was doing in, say, the 1990s than what they are doing now after they “evolved” when the politics became easier. It’s great that people change their views and all that but it’s good to look under the hood as what people are about may be more complicated than their avatar on Facebook or what you read on Twitter.
And don’t miss some actual nuance from Jay Mathews about DeVos.
Education Next takes a look at Match Beyond:
Yet, with all of these obstacles, Match’s graduates “had to adjust to the [college] model rather than the model adjusting to their complicated lives,” Hill said
He and his colleagues decided to transform that model, at least for Match’s graduates.