The New York Times - 12.09.2019

THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONALTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 0 N A29

a majority also supported an as-

sault weapons ban, the support

was much thinner — just 56 per-

cent.

The 1994 law, which passed as

part of a broader crime bill cham-

pioned by Mr. Biden, then a sena-

tor, banned the sale of 19 specific

weapons that have the features of

guns used by the military, includ-

ing semiautomatic rifles and cer-

tain types of shotguns and hand-

guns.

It also outlawed magazines that

could hold more than 10 rounds of

ammunition, while allowing peo-

ple who already had such weap-

ons to keep them. But it had a sun-

set provision, and Congress re-

fused to renew it when it expired

in 2004, in part because Demo-

crats were nervous that it could

cost them re-election.

The politics have shifted since

then, especially after a summer of

deadly mass shootings.

Some Democrats in surprising

corners of the country have also

embraced a ban, even though the

political reality is that Mr. Trump

would never sign such a measure.

WASHINGTON — As Demo-
crats make an aggressive push for
new gun control legislation, they
have made a calculated decision
to stop short of pursuing their
most ambitious goal: an assault
weapons ban.
The overwhelming majority of
House Democrats — 211, seven
shy of the 218 needed for passage
— are co-sponsoring legislation to
ban military-style semiautomatic
weapons, similar to the ban in ef-
fect from 1994 to 2004.
But some centrist Democrats
remain skittish about any pro-
posal that keeps firearms from
law-abiding citizens — a frequent
charge against Democrats by Re-
publicans and gun rights groups
— making a ban politically risky
for moderates in Trump-friendly
districts. In the Senate, it draws
less support.
The split reveals just how com-
plicated gun politics remain inside
the Democratic Party, even as
mass shootings are terrorizing the
nation and the Twitter hashtag
#DoSomething has captured the
mounting public demands for
Congress to act.
On the presidential campaign
trail, Democrats like former Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are
rallying behind an assault weap-
ons ban, and Beto O’Rourke, the
former congressman from Texas,
has gone so far as to call for a man-
datory government program to
buy back the weapons of war.
But on Capitol Hill, Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck
Schumer of New York, the Demo-
cratic leader, have barely
breathed a word about reviving
the ban.
Even Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Democrat of California, who spon-
sored the 1994 assault weapons
ban and is one of its most ardent
defenders, did not raise the issue
when she spoke about gun safety
alongside Mr. Schumer on Tues-
day afternoon. “We don’t have the
votes to pass it,” she later ex-
plained.
“Let’s be honest,” said Repre-
sentative David Cicilline of Rhode
Island, the sponsor of the current
assault weapons measure, who
described himself as a “huge pro-
ponent” of the ban. “Every other
bill that we’ve done tries to keep
guns out of the hands of people
who shouldn’t have them. This is
the one piece of legislation that
keeps a particular weapon out of
the hands of law-abiding citizens.
A lot of people have enormous ob-
jections to that.”

Instead, as they wait for Presi-

dent Trump to make an announce-

ment — possibly as early as

Thursday — about what kind of

gun legislation he would support,

Democrats are single-mindedly

focused on hammering on Senator

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the

majority leader, to take up a

House-passed bill expanding

background checks to cover sales

at gun shows and online.

On Wednesday, three senators

who have been in negotiations

with the White House — Joe

Manchin III, Democrat of West

Virginia, Christopher S. Murphy,

Democrat of Connecticut, and Pat-

rick J. Toomey, Republican of

Pennsylvania — said they had a

wide-ranging 45-minute call with

the president about gun meas-

ures.

Mr. Manchin and Mr. Toomey

are the sponsors of a bipartisan

background checks bill that is not

quite as expansive as the one that

passed the House, and they want

Mr. Trump to sign on. Mr. McCon-

nell has refused to take up any gun

legislation unless the president

agrees to sign it, and Mr. Trump

has not made his intentions

known.

The push for background

checks instead of an assault weap-

ons ban makes political sense for

Democrats, who see it as a win-

ning issue. A recent Washington

Post-ABC News poll found 89 per-

cent of Americans in favor of uni-

versal background checks. While

Two moderate Democrats who

beat Republicans for House seats

last year — Representatives

Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and

Jason Crow of Colorado — spoke

out last month in favor of a ban,

with an opinion article in USA To-

day. Both are military veterans,

and Mr. Crow ran on an ag-

gressive platform of combating

gun violence.

Even some Republicans have

signed on to the idea. Among them

is Representative Michael R.

Turner, Republican of Ohio, whose

district includes Dayton, where a

gunman killed nine people outside

a bar last month. Representative

Brian Mast, Republican of Flor-

ida, where a 2018 mass shooting at

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High

School in Parkland galvanized a

youth movement for gun safety,

also supports a ban.

But for centrists like Represent-

ative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan

and Kendra Horn of Oklahoma —

both of whom also flipped seats in

districts Mr. Trump won — sup-

porting an assault weapons ban

could be politically toxic.

Representative Henry Cuellar,

Democrat of Texas, who enjoys

the backing of the National Rifle

Association and is facing a prima-

ry challenge from the left, does not

support a ban.

“I am for reasonable gun re-

form,” Mr. Cuellar said in a recent

interview. “But I’m not going to

take guns away from people like

they want to do.”

Christopher S. Murphy was one of three senators who spoke with President Trump on gun control.

ERIN SCHAFF/THE NEW YORK TIMES

Support Erodes for a Ban on Assault Weapons

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

‘A lot of people have

enormous objections,’

a sponsor said.

WASHINGTON — From his of-

fice on the first floor of the Capitol

on Wednesday, the second-rank-

ing House Democrat, Representa-

tive Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland,

was unequivocal: An impeach-

ment investigation of President

Trump is not underway.

Over in the Rayburn Building,

the chairman of the House Judi-

ciary Committee, Representative

Jerrold Nadler of New York, has

been hard at work at what he says

is exactly that.

And while she moved briskly

through the corridors of Congress

this week, House Speaker Nancy

Pelosi seemed to navigate some-

where in between, reiterating a

kind of mantra — “legislate, inves-

tigate and litigate” — that seems

tailor-made to avoid the “i” word.

As their investigations of Mr.

Trump enter a new phase after six

weeks away from Washington,

Democrats from all corners of the

House are finding it increasingly

difficult to agree on how to label

just what it is that they are up to in

building a case against the presi-

dent — particularly when it comes

to the politically charged and con-

stitutionally weighty term “im-

peachment.”

Progressives have rushed to

embrace the term and Mr. Nadler

has been ever more willing to ut-

ter it, while more moderate mem-

bers who remain fearful of the po-

litical consequences have contin-

ued to steer clear of the notion that

the House has actually made the

leap forward into a formal inquiry.

The confusion and contradic-

tory statements are in some ways

to be expected, as Democratic

leaders toil to navigate the tricky

political terrain and complex legal

landscape of considering whether

— and how — to prosecute a case

against a sitting president. Mr.

Hoyer quickly backtracked from

his remark on Wednesday in an ef-

fort to eliminate the dissonance,

and Democrats sought to shift the

discussion away from disagree-

ments over terminology.

“I don’t want to get caught in se-

mantics. We all agree, from

Speaker Pelosi through every sin-

gle member of the House Demo-

cratic Caucus, that we have a con-

stitutional responsibility to hold

an out-of-control executive ac-

countable,” said Representative

Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the

leader of the Democratic caucus

who also sits on the Judiciary

Committee. “That’s what six com-

mittees are doing — not simply

the Judiciary Committee — and

the committees should be allowed

to do their work without getting

involved in semantical distinc-

tions.”

But the persistent ambiguity is

also increasingly becoming a li-

ability for Democrats, who risk

appearing feckless and inept as

they take on perhaps the most

consequential responsibility that

Congress has.

“The politics of impeachment

are debatable. Maybe they are

good. Maybe they aren’t. No one

knows,” Dan Pfeiffer, a top adviser

to President Barack Obama,

wrote on Twitter. “But I do know

that the current Democratic strat-

egy of telling the base they are im-

peaching Trump and telling the

moderates the opposite is an abso-

lute disaster.”

On Wednesday, the mixed mes-

saging veered into the absurd. Mr.

Hoyer tried to silence days of

questions from reporters about

whether the House was pursuing

an impeachment investigation

with an unequivocal “no,” fol-

lowed by a tangled explanation

that only raised more questions.

“I don’t want to be simplistic

about it, and I don’t want to quib-

ble on words either, but impeach-

ment, what you imply is consider-

ation of an impeachment resolu-

tion and a possible vote on an im-

peachment resolution — that is

not what is currently before the

committee,” Mr. Hoyer told re-

porters.

Mr. Hoyer suggested instead

that Mr. Nadler and members of

his panel were merely trying to

convince the federal courts that

they were contemplating im-

peachment so they could expedite

their court cases and meet the cri-

teria for sharing sensitive grand

jury secrets collected as a part of

the Russia investigation.

For weeks, Mr. Nadler and

members of his committee have

been saying just the opposite —

and not just in court filings. He has

billed a committee vote scheduled

for Thursday as an important step

to formalize its impeachment in-

vestigation by adopting a set of

procedures to govern it going for-

ward. Ms. Pelosi and her leader-

ship team have approved each

step.

“What we’re doing is very

clear,” Mr. Nadler told reporters

Monday evening. “You can call it

an impeachment investigation, an

impeachment inquiry, or what-

ever term you want, as short-

hand.”

Part of the murkiness comes

from the fact that there are no

ironclad rules defining or govern-

ing the impeachment process, and

specifically what constitutes an

impeachment investigation. The

Constitution lays out only the

barest facts about impeachment,

and traditionally the House has

proceeded based on a mix of its

own rules and precedents.

Mr. Hoyer’s staff moved quickly

on Wednesday to walk back his re-

marks, blaming it on a misunder-

standing.

“I thought the question was in

regards to whether the full House

is actively considering articles of

impeachment, which we are not at

this time,” Mr. Hoyer said. “I

strongly support Chairman

Nadler and the Judiciary Commit-

tee Democrats as they proceed

with their investigation ‘to deter-

mine whether to recommend arti-

cles of impeachment to the full

House,’ as the resolution states.”

But the episode was enough to

set off a new round of speculation

over what exactly Democratic

leaders were trying to accom-

plish. And it added to a sense of

uncertainty among rank-and-file

lawmakers about what the House

was planning to do.

“The caucus is anxious to have

direction on whether we are going

to move toward an impeachment

inquiry and if so, what is the tim-

ing on that going to be,” said Rep-

resentative Harley Rouda, Demo-

crat of California, a freshman who

supports an impeachment inqui-

ry.

Julian Epstein, who was the

chief counsel to Democrats on the

Judiciary Committee during the

impeachment proceedings of Bill

Clinton, said the confusion might

be at least somewhat intentional,

reflecting Ms. Pelosi’s best at-

tempt at balancing the rifts

among Democrats about how to

proceed.

“What I fear about this is you

are hanging a lantern on the divi-

sions in the caucus,” Mr. Epstein

said. “That might give you a little

bit of short-term gain in terms of

how you manage the caucus to-

day, but long term, I am not sure it

helps.”

Republicans are gleefully min-

ing the divides, as they accuse

Democrats of ignoring pressing

policy issues in a single-minded

quest to impeach Mr. Trump. At

the same time, they have argued

that the party is pursuing a fake

impeachment that is shredding

solemn constitutional precedents

solely to satisfy its left wing.

Representative Doug Collins of

Georgia, the top Republican on

the Judiciary Committee, said

Thursday’s votes on procedures

for the panel’s inquiry would only

continue the farce.

“Tomorrow’s committee busi-

ness is a meaningless reiteration

of existing committee authorities,

allowing the chairman to keep this

story in the news when moderate

Democrats simply want it to go

away,” he said.

What Kind of Inquiry?

Inquirers Strain to Say

By NICHOLAS FANDOS

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed

reporting.

Steny H. Hoyer tried to silence questions about the status of an

impeachment investigation, but it didn’t quite work.

ERIN SCHAFF/THE NEW YORK TIMES

‘I don’t want to get

caught in semantics,’

one Democrat said.

The 45th PresidentThe Agenda

The rules reversed longstand-
ing asylum policies that allowed
people to seek haven no matter
how they got to the United States.
A federal appeals court had large-
ly blocked the policy.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the
American Civil Liberties Union,
which represents the challengers
in the new case, stressed that the
Supreme Court’s action was provi-
sional. “This is just a temporary
step,” he said, “and we’re hopeful
we’ll prevail at the end of the day.
The lives of thousands of families
are at stake.”
The case will almost certainly
return to the Supreme Court, but
that will take many months.
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the act-
ing director of United States Citi-
zenship and Immigration Serv-
ices, pledged on Wednesday night
to “commence implementing the
asylum rule ASAP.”
“While congress continues to do
nothing,” he wrote on Twitter,
“@realDonaldTrump’s adminis-
tration uses every tool in the tool-
box to try and solve the crisis at
our southern border.”
In a Supreme Court brief in the
case, the solicitor general, Noel J.
Francisco, said the new policy
was needed to address “an un-
precedented surge in the number
of aliens who enter the country
unlawfully across the southern
border and, if apprehended, claim
asylum and remain in the country
while their claims are adjudicat-
ed.”
Under the policy, which was an-
nounced July 15, only immigrants
who have been denied asylum in
another country or who have been
victims of “severe” human traf-
ficking are permitted to apply in
the United States. “The rule thus
screens out asylum seekers who
declined to request protection at
the first opportunity,” Mr. Fran-
cisco wrote.
Under the rules, Hondurans
and Salvadorans must seek and
be denied asylum in Guatemala or
Mexico before they can apply in
the United States. Guatemalans
must seek and be denied asylum
in Mexico.
Migrants from Honduras, El
Salvador and Guatemala have
made up the vast majority of asy-
lum seekers who have tried to en-

ter the United States in record

numbers this year. The Border Pa-

trol has arrested 419,831 migrant

family members from those three

countries at the southwestern

border so far this fiscal year, com-

pared with just 4,312 Mexican

family members.

The administration made the

unilateral move after months of

pushing Guatemala and Mexico to

commit to going along with the

plan. Mr. Trump went as far as to

threaten both countries with tar-

iffs unless they did more to halt

the migration.

The administration struck such

a deal with Guatemala in July that

would force the country to absorb

Central American migrants. But

Guatemala’s Constitutional Court

has ruled that it needs further ap-

proval, and the countries are still

working on a plan to carry it out

the deal.

The Mexican government has

pushed back against the so-called

safe-third-country agreement,

which would force it to absorb asy-

lum seekers from Guatemala.

Instead, Mexico deployed thou-

sands of security personnel to its

southern border and agreed to

collaborate with the United States

on a program that returns mi-

grants to Mexico to wait out their

cases.

Two federal trial judges had is-

sued conflicting rulings on

whether the new plan was lawful.

In July, Judge Timothy J. Kelly

of the Federal District Court in

Washington, who was appointed

by Mr. Trump, refused to stop the

administration’s rules.

That same day, Judge Jon S.

Tigar of the Federal District Court

in San Francisco, who was ap-

pointed by President Barack

Obama, blocked them, saying

they were put in place without fol-

lowing the required legal pro-

cedures.

In her dissent, Justice So-

tomayor said Judge Tigar’s ruling

“warrants respect.”

“The rule the government pro-

mulgated,” she wrote, “topples

decades of settled asylum prac-

tices and affects some of the most

vulnerable people in the Western

Hemisphere — without affording

the public a chance to weigh in.”

The two other members of the

court’s liberal wing, Justices

Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Ka-

gan, had dissented in earlier cases

on Trump administration immi-

gration policies. They did not note

dissents from Wednesday’s order.

Judge Tigar ordered the admin-

istration to continue accepting ap-

plications from all otherwise eligi-

ble migrants, even if they had not

sought asylum elsewhere on their

journey north.

Judge Tigar said his ruling ap-

plied across the nation. Such na-

tionwide injunctions have been

the subject of much criticism, but

the Supreme Court has never is-

sued a definitive ruling on

whether and when they are

proper.

In August, the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-

cuit, in San Francisco, narrowed

the geographic scope of Judge

Tigar’s more recent ruling while it

considered the administration’s

appeal, saying it should apply

only in the territorial jurisdiction

of the Ninth Circuit, which in-

cludes two border states, Califor-

nia and Arizona. (Two other bor-

der states, Texas and New Mex-

ico, are in the jurisdictions of other

federal appeals courts.)

On Monday, however, Judge

Tigar again imposed a nationwide

injunction, saying he had been

presented with additional evi-

dence justifying one. “Anything

but a nationwide injunction,” he

wrote, “will create major adminis-

trability issues.” On Tuesday, the

Ninth Circuit temporarily blocked

the new injunction and ordered

the two sides to submit briefs on

whether it should issue a stay.

In an emergency application to

the Supreme Court last month

seeking a stay of Judge Tigar’s ini-

tial ruling while the case moved

forward, Mr. Francisco argued

that the administration was enti-

tled to skip ordinary notice and

comment requirements for new

regulations because foreign af-

fairs were at issue and because a

delay after the announcement of

the procedures “may prompt an

additional surge of asylum seek-

ers.”

In any event, Mr. Francisco

wrote, the Ninth Circuit’s nar-

rower injunction, covering only

the states in its jurisdiction, was

still too broad. At most, he wrote,

the injunction should cover only

clients of the four groups chal-

lenging the new policy — East

Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro

Lado, Innovation Law Lab and

Central American Resource Cen-

ter in Los Angeles.

In response, the American Civil

Liberties Union, which represents

the groups along with the Center

for Constitutional Rights and the

Southern Poverty Law Center,

said the administration was try-

ing to rewrite a federal immigra-

tion law enacted in 1980. There

was no reason, the A.C.L.U. said,

to alter “the 40-year-long status

quo while this case is heard on an

expedited basis in the court of ap-

peals.”

“The current ban would elimi-

nate virtually all asylum at the

southern border, even at ports of

entry, for everyone except Mexi-

cans (who do not need to transit

through a third country to reach

the United States),” the A.C.L.U.’s

brief said. “The court should not

permit such a tectonic change to

U.S. asylum law.”

Justices Permit U.S. to Exclude More Asylum Seekers

From Page A1

A revived ban on some asylum claims may affect migrants, like

this Venezuelan family, from nations that don’t border the U.S.

LUIS ANTONIO ROJAS FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed
reporting.