Asbury Park Press from Asbury Park, New Jersey • A9

APP.COM FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 2018 9A Commentary The family of Stephon Clark, a 22- year-old unarmed black man who was shot by Sacramento police, has a lawsuit in federal court, denouncing his death as yet one more police-per- petrated murder. The were responding to complaints about a car prowler when they 20 shots in fewer than seconds at Clark. Eight bullets struck him, primarily in the back, raising tre- mendous doubt about the claims that he was a threat. The autop- sy indicates that Clark lived for three to 10 minutes after being shot, which brings up additional concerns about the six minutes it took for him to re- ceive medical treatment. While the case is a but not surprising example of police shooting and asking questions later or more accurately, creating narratives later, it is far from guaranteed that the family will receive any kind of recom- pense from the who killed him.

Police have what is known as qual- immunity, which means it is very to win lawsuits against them. The idea of immunity makes a certain sense, as it intended to en- sure that police do not have to worry about frivolous lawsuits, but in the last several decades the Supreme Court has expanded its protections so dra- matically it is, as Justice Sonia Soto- mayor has said, a license to kill and an shield for law enforcement Just this week the Supreme Court ruled on another immunity case, reversing a lower denial of immunity in a case in which an cer shot a woman four times who was not posing a threat to anyone in her yard. Despite her unthreatening be- havior toward the and her roommate, Sharon Chadwick, who was there, and the account from an- other on site who said he was still trying to use verbal commands to get Hughes to drop the knife, the court relied on its usual logic to say that no lawsuit could continue. At least in this case Hughes survived, but that Kisela acted rashly in shooting her seems quite clear. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.

is a judicial remedy to in- dividuals who deprivations of their constitutional rights. An excep- tion is immunity, which shields state and local law from personal liability if they acted in an objectively reasonable manner and did not violate clearly es- tablished federal law. In an odd piece of what seems little more than literary wrangling, the court has determined that can act unconstitutionally but not violate established constitu- tional rights, as it is on to show those rights through, guess what? Previous court decisions. If the court is unwilling to ever rule that constitutional rights are violated in these excessive force cases, then no one can ever document those deci- sions to build a case. The court has not ruled in favor of the in more than a decade, despite hearing more than 18 cases related to im- munity.

More than one-third of the cases resulted in summary reversals. The Supreme Court has used qual- immunity to deny damages to an eighth-grade girl who was strip- searched by school who thought she had a rogue ibuprofen pill. It denied damages to a man who was held in a maximum-security prison for 16 days and on supervised release for 14 months, without cause for arrest nor intent to use him as a material witness. Ending police abuse is going to take continued vigilance and a multi-facet- ed approach. But one important way to hold police accountable is for citizens to be able to bring and win civil suits.

Today, the playing for doing so is so deeply tilted toward protecting po- lice that there is no semblance of ac- countability in the legal realm. Con- gress can and should remove the interpretation of immunity, at a minimum. Po- lice cannot continue to be giv- en free rein to harass, assault, wound and kill simply because others before them have gotten away with it. Laura Finley, Ph.D., teaches in the Barry University Department of So- ciology Criminology and is syndicat- ed by PeaceVoice. immunity needs to go Your Turn Laura Finley Guest columnist WASHINGTON President tweet promising MORE DACA was an Easter gift to Democrats, letting them the hook for their failure to seriously negotiate an immigration agreement.

Rather than pulling the plug on any Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals talks, Trump should Democrats a simple deal: He would agree to of President Ba- rack DACA action in exchange for funding for the border wall. Earlier this year, Trump extended Democrats a remarkable Instead of simply granting legal status to cur- rent DACA recipients, he would agree to a path to citizenship for nearly 2 million those who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own if Democrats would agree to fund his border wall, limit chain migration and get rid of the visa lottery system. It was a bold move, one that earned him scorn from many in his own base. Democrats should have seized this opportunity. Instead, they rejected it and refused to make a seri- ous Their actions showed they care more about mobilizing voters in 2018 with faux outrage than they do about helping actual dreamers become American citizens.

Trump tried going big, and it work. Now he should go small. executive action on DACA was far more limited than what Trump proposed for dreamers, no path to citizenship or even permanent legal residency. It simply shielded the dreamers from deportation, allowing them to remain in the United States to work and study. But action was arguably unlawful because it by- passed Congress the same reason the Deferred Action for Parents of Ameri- cans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, program was declared unlaw- ful by the courts.

Codifying the order would remove the threat of deportation for DACA recipients. It would get Trump the wall funding he so desperately wants. And it would save making a deal to provide a path to citi- zenship in exchange for reforms to our legal immigration system for another day. Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune, S.D., has legis- lation to do just that. bill is a simple trade: It would extend the DACA program in exchange for $25 billion in border-security funding.

This should be a no-brainer for Demo- crats. If they were to refuse, they would have to explain to dreamers why stop- ping Trump from building a wall is more important than protecting their ability to stay in the United States. Historically, Democrats and Repub- licans have agreed that a nation-state needs to control its own borders. It is a national-security imperative, a law en- forcement imperative and a im- perative. Only in the age of Trump have Democrats taken opposition to border security to such an absurd extreme.

They the well-being of real people (DACA recipients) over their opposition to a symbol (the wall). If Democrats rejected such an it would expose the crass way they are holding the DACA recipients hostage for political gain. And if, by some mir- acle, Democrats did agree to such a deal, it would be a step that might make further bipartisan action on immigration possible. This should be a no-brainer for the president as well. Polls have shown that nearly 9 in 10 Americans want DACA re- cipients to stay, and Trump himself has repeatedly said he wants to a way for them to remain in the country.

So why would Trump choose to take re- sponsibility for the failure to reach a DACA deal that would let them stay, rather than keeping the blame right where it belongs with Democrats? After tweet, Dem- ocrats were quick to blame Trump. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) responded on Twitter by declaring Admini- stration want a solution for Dreamers. They want red meat for their ironic, but that is precisely the immigration strategy.

Trump should call them on it, by mak- ing them an they refuse. Marc A. Thiessen is a syndicated col- umnist Dems to blame on woes Trump Easter tweet let them the hook for failure to act Marc A. Thiessen Columnist President Donald Trump, joined by the Easter Bunny and lady Melania Trump, speaks from the Truman Balcony of the White House in Washington, D.C. on Monday, during the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.

CAROLYN KASTER, AP WASHINGTON What is the skit- tish stock market telling us? Its recent declines have been blamed on many causes: fears of a between the United States and China; growing controversy over the power of Face- book and other tech giants; general worry about the Trump administra- behavior. But the true explana- tion may be a broader economic slow- down that lasts well into the future. Stock prices, in theory, the present value of all future Al- though no one can consistently predict future everyone can try. Shifts in the expectations of both short-term and long-term then get translated into stock prices. If the economy grows more slowly than in the past, business will presum- ably also grow more slowly.

Once in- vestors realize this, stock prices will fall to the darker outlook. The mechanism works in both di- rections. If expectations im- prove, so should stock prices. One dra- ma of the Trump era is the quarrel be- tween the administration (which in- sists that its tax cuts and regulatory policies will raise economic growth and and some of its critics (who believe that an economic growth slowdown is unavoidable). Slipping stock prices may vindicate the critics.

Pertinent to the debate is a new study by economists at the Interna- tional Monetary Fund (IMF). They ar- gue that recessions and economic cri- ses leave that lead to perma- nent losses in production and income. Their hypothesis is not just a hunch. They studied recessions and economic crises in 190 countries both ad- vanced and developing nations be- tween 1974 and 2012. The negative ef- fect on their economies varied be- tween 5 percent and 15 percent of out- put, depending on the type of setback.

Economic growth usually resumes but from a smaller base. This contradicts the con- ventional wisdom about business cy- cles, say IMF economists Valerie Cerra and Sweta C. Saxena. The common view, they contend, holds that deep re- cessions are followed by strong recov- eries that make up the ground lost dur- ing the slump. The fact that this usually happen but is be- lieved to occur may explain why many recent economic forecasts (in- cluding those of the IMF, the Obama administration, the Federal Reserve and many private economists) have been unduly optimistic.

Just what weaken economic recoveries, the paper say. But the usual suspects are no secret: heavy debt burdens by businesses, govern- ments and households that inhibit spending; greater risk aversion by companies that slows hiring and in- vesting; more caution by consumers in shopping. a danger of a cious circle of low investment, con- sumption, hiring and Cer- ra and Saxena said in an email. There are other trends working in the same direction. Growth of the working population is slowing, as baby boomers retire.

Productivity gains have similarly diminished. Both changes weaken the economy. true that Cerra and Saxena apply their theory to the stock market. Their focus is on the nature of the busi- ness cycle. Still, their analysis if cor- roborated by others has obvious im- plications for stocks.

If recessions and economic crises permanently damage the economy, then the consequences will, sooner or later, show up in stock prices. Whatever the cause, the euphoria of the Trump stock market seems to be dissipating. This could weaken the real economy of production and jobs as pri- vate investors feeling poorer curb their spending. Robert J. Samuelson is a syndicated columnist Stocks boomerang on Trump Euphoria of stock market seems to be dissipating APRIL 4: Traders and professionals work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) ahead of the opening bell on Wednesday in New York City.

The Dow dropped more than 300 points on Wednesday morning after China announced new tariffs on 106 U.S. products. GETTY IMAGES Robert J. Samuelson Columnist.