U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Judges Declare Judges Can Grant Immigration Visas, Even When Elected President Disagrees
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... n-sue-for-entry-united-states/
Published: Feb 10, 2017
Author: Neil Munro
Post Date: 2017-02-10 09:34:39 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 1175
Comments: 6
Judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California are opening a new immigration route for foreigners, which would bypass the federal agencies’ sole authority to approve or decline foreigners’ immigration or entry into the U.S. The new route is created by the Feb. 9 decision which blocks the White House’s very popular reform of immigration rules. If upheld by the Supreme Court later this year, the new declaration would allow overseas foreigners — including those hostile to the United States — to hire lawyers to persuade judges to grant them visas, residency permits and eventually citizenship. That courtroom route would bypass denials or approvals from the elected President’s administration and its subordinate agencies, including the intelligence, law-enforcement and national security agencies. In practice, the decision would give foreigners the right to sue the federal government when they’re denied entry by the federal government. That right, when pressed by many migrants, will ensure that some gain entry to the United States despite opposition from the voters and their chosen government. That created right to sue for immigration rights would also give the nation’s corps of immigration lawyers more opportunities to trade U.S. citizenship to foreigners in exchange for lawyers’ fees. Currently, immigration lawyers bring 1 million immigrants and roughly 1 million contract workers into the Unite States each year, where they compete against native-born Americans for jobs, economic benefits, and political power. At least 165 million foreigners, including 6.2 million Mexicans, want to migrate to the United States, according to a 2009 survey by Gallup. Currently, the U.S. population is roughly 320 million. The judges’ legal claim is also an 180-degree flip-flop from court decisions declared during President Barack Obama’s tenure, when the Supreme Court insisted that states do not have any significant immigration-related authority, not even a right to create and enforce laws that mimic unenforced federal immigration laws against illegal immigration. The radical, open-doors policy demanded by the liberal judges relies on a 2001 decision by the Supreme Court, which had formerly been limited to foreigners who were resident in the United States. According to the new claim: Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context… The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP 21 presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. The 2001 decision is Zadvydas v. Davis. That decision has already forced the federal government to release many illegal immigrants — including illegals who have committed violent crimes — if their home government doesn’t accept their return. Since that decision, the federal government has released more than 300,000 illegals, including tens of thousands of foreign criminals, back into Americans’ neighborhoods. That total included at least 121 foreigners charged with murder after being released back into the United States. Late this year, or in early 2018, the eight or nine judges on the Supreme Court are expected to review the decision by their colleagues on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Legal experts expect the four progressive judges to back this new legal power for the courts, ensuring that the critical vote will remain with Justice Anthony Kennedy. Legal experts expect the four progressive judges to back this new legal power for the courts, ensuring that the critical vote will remain with Justice Anthony Kennedy. In the past, Kennedy has written rulings that say the federal government has sole power over the immigration law. But he has also voted in several cases to grant citizenship-like right to foreigners, including jihadi prisoners locked up in Guantanamo, so he may also back the new right-to-immigrate right that is being created by the Ninth Circuit. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: cranky (#0)
The case has not yet even been heard or decided on the merits. All the 9th Circuit did was temporarily keep a stay order in place.
#2. To: nolu chan (#1)
Well then, much ado about nothing. POTUS must still have absolute authority to control immigration. That's good to know.
That was the end result, yes. But more importantly were the reasons they gave for temporarily keeping a stay order in place: -- That what Trump said on the campaign trail can be used as proof of his real motive behind the Executive Order. -- That the court, essentially, deserves a place at National Security briefings to confirm that the President has a constitutional reason to bar immigrants. -- That religious affiliation trumps national security as determined by the court, not the President.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe new route is created by the Feb. 9 decision which blocks the White House’s very popular reform of immigration rules.
Replies to Comment # 1. All the 9th Circuit did was temporarily keep a stay order in place.
#3. To: nolu chan (#1)
"All the 9th Circuit did was temporarily keep a stay order in place."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]