Writes Amy Howe, at SCOTUSblog.
[T]here are over 11 million noncitizens currently in the United States who could be subject to deportation, but that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of them.... Texas and Louisiana went to federal court in Texas to challenge the Biden administration’s policy, arguing that federal law requires the government to detain and deport many more noncitizens than those identified by [Secretary of Homeland Security] Mayorkas as high prioriti[ies]....
The district court vacated the policy, and the Supreme Court agreed to take the case without waiting for the Court of Appeals.
The justices directed the Biden administration and the states to address three specific questions. The first is whether the states have... standing.... Texas and Louisiana insist that ... the policy inflicts “real, particularized, and concrete harms” on them.... by increasing... the costs to the states for everything from health care and education to incarceration.
The second question in the case is whether the policy is consistent with federal immigration law and the federal law governing administrative agencies.... The [statute's] use of “shall” means that these provisions are mandatory, the states argue, but Mayorkas’ memo makes them discretionary by allowing immigration officials to make a case-by-case decision about whether to detain a noncitizen....
The third question in the case is whether [the district court] had the power to set aside the policy. The Biden administration points to a provision of federal immigration law providing that, as a general rule, only the Supreme Court can “enjoin or restrain the operation” of immigration law....
Posts
27 comments:
Prosecutor's discretion is not just ignoring all laws the administration doesn't like. No matter how loud Biden yells about it.
There have been 11 million illegals here for 40 years. It is more like 50 million by now. 5 million came in the last 2 years alone. They keep lying to us, and the Propaganda media repeats their lies. WHY can't we count them, since we are supporting them in every way??
The second question in the case is whether the policy is consistent with federal immigration law and the federal law governing administrative agencies.... The [statute's] use of “shall” means that these provisions are mandatory, the states argue, but Mayorkas’ memo makes them discretionary by allowing immigration officials to make a case-by-case decision about whether to detain a noncitizen....
No, it is not consistent with Federal immigration law.
"Shall" means "must", it does not mean "unless you don't want to"
You know in all this discussion about not enforcing immigration policy; nothing is done to make the lawful entry into the country at authorized ports of entry easier for citizens and foreign travelers. Why is it ok to walk/swim across the US southern border but not bypass immigration and customs at the airport? And for the Europeans that think we are so racist in wanting to enforce such laws; my average wait to enter your country through authorized checkpoints is at least an hour, most often 2 to 3 hours. Why are you enforcing those laws?
I think we know the answer, and the answer is the harm such immigration policy is doing to the states, which is fine until those states bus people to sanctuary cities.
'[T]here are over 11 million noncitizens currently in the United States who could be subject to deportation, but that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of them....'
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Were I the president, I would form a department of illegal alien removal.
Illegals can go 'back to the shadows,' somewhere they haven't really ever been.
No services at all other than emergency medical care.
All remittences out of the country would be taxed at 50%.
They would all self-deport.
Also, make the penalty for crossing the border around 10-20 years in a federal penitentiary.
Bring in workers on temporary visas where needed.
The problem would solve itself quickly.
And '11 million' is a fucking pipe dream. We passed that number 30 years ago...
The second question in the case is whether the policy is consistent with federal immigration law and the federal law governing administrative agencies.... The [statute's] use of “shall” means that these provisions are mandatory, the states argue, but Mayorkas’ memo makes them discretionary by allowing immigration officials to make a case-by-case decision about whether to detain a noncitizen...
After WV v EPA, this might get interesting. The impression I get is that the current majority is looking to kill Chevron by a thousand cuts, or at least carve away at it. This strikes me as a way to do so by clarifying that an agency can't exploit any discretionary power to the point of ignoring the law entirely in order to sidestep Congress.
The “11 million” illegal immigrant number has been talked about for at least two decades. Given the unending illegal immigration, some have said it’s now more likely on the order of 45 million, or roughly 14% of US population. Whatever it is, the case should reflect a number closer to reality to discern damages in any one state. Of course, DHS would prefer to keep lying about it.
Maybe the Supreme Court will build upon its 'major questions' doctrine by expanding the concept of standing. To me, implicit in Court's concept of standing - e.g., the need for individualized harm so that merely being a taxpayer or citizen doesn't provide the basis for bringing a lawsuit - is that the gov't is functioning the way it's required to - President faithfully executes the laws; appropriation bills starting in the House, passed by Congress, and signed by the President. When that's absolutely not happening like here or with student loan forgiveness (a standing/major question combo), then a broader view of standing is needed.
Or else the Supreme Court can fiddle while the Republic continues to burn. Sure, it might put the Court in a very awkward position of dictating to the President on how/how much faithful execution is needed and what happens if he doesn't. But the result of concluding with a lack of standing or that it's all a political question to be solve via impeachment or in an election (yeah, right) is a living Constitution and an authoritative executive (even more than we have today) who becomes even more divorced from the role that the Constitution envisioned. I'd rather the President openly defy a Supreme Court's order or ruling and let's proceed from there, than act like everything's hunky dory.
The Biden regime is dedicated to the policy Tucker Carlson calls "Replacement Theory." A leftist writer named Ruy Teixeira wrote a book about this 20 years ago. Another leftist collaborated on the book which was called "The Emerging Democratic Majority"
Both assumed the Hispanic illegal immigrants would always vote Democrat once they could vote and would thus replace the white majority. As Hispanics shifted to voting Republican, Teixeira has revised his opinion and recently left the leftist "think tank" where he had been for 20 years.
The Biden regime has shifted emphasis now to admitting nameless illegals from everywhere. The theory is the same.
Yeah...don't have a law you're not willing to equally enforce against everyone...
"the Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of them"
Since when has lack of funds ever been a defense to unlawful activity?
mikee said...Prosecutor's discretion is not just ignoring all laws the administration doesn't like. No matter how loud Biden yells about it
It often seems like that's what prosecutorial discretion means. And the president's power of the purse has been used to defend spending $0.00 on something the president doesn't like. Courts often take the attitude that if we don't like it, we are welcome to vote against him in the next election.
Finally, an activist court we can trust.
This is the first court I would trust to hear such a case, and even then, I have little faith the Law will be followed as written. "Shall" just don't mean what it used to. Just look at amendments One and Two and how that word is all but ignored over and over although unlike the issue at hand those are both "shall nots" and Congress really hates being told NOT to so stuff.
I'm so happy Howard's 11:12 comment was posted before my first went up! A rare moment of agreement, even his is sarcastic, which I'm not certain it is. Did ya'll know Howard lives in the same general area I do? Same with Gahrie. Althouse has a clot here in southern Cal's Inland Empire region.
If the justices rule that the administration is acting illegally by thinking shall is a suggestion, they should give any and all administration officials who ignore them 180 days in jail to think about it Ignoring "shall" must by definition be willful. This would extend to the attorney general. We are not dealing with wedding cakes here, rather national security.
If the justices rule that the administration is acting illegally by thinking shall is a suggestion, they should give any and all administration officials who ignore them 180 days in jail to think about it Ignoring "shall" must by definition be willful. This would extend to the attorney general. We are not dealing with wedding cakes here, rather national security.
"[T]here are over 11 million noncitizens currently in the United States who could be subject to deportation, but that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of them...."
Probably true, but this case isn't about removing the (cough) 11 million or about immigration enforcement at the border. That's a plea for sympathy based on misdirection.
It is primarily about apprehension and removal of specific groups of aliens - those identified as "criminals" outside of their immigration violations - and DHS's ability, stated in the vacated memorandum, to muck about with the decisions on those specific individuals in contradiction with direct legislative language that does not grant them that discretion.
Not quite a tempest in a teapot but better than nothing.
Also, this, from the Government's lawyer is just too rich to overlook:
"And respondents effectively concede that their standing to bring this suit rests on a sweeping theory that would allow States to challenge virtually any federal policy by leveraging even a dollar’s worth of incidental, indirect effects on state expenditures into a nationwide vacatur or injunction -- transforming every district court into a council of revision and injecting the Judiciary into countless policy disputes within our federal system."
Aloha!
There have been 11 million illegals here for 40 years. It is more like 50 million by now.
Sounds high to me. But if that's the case we are spending 1/2 trillion a year on them by many estimates. That dollar per illegal rate is figured on 11m illegals. The last time we had anything close to an accurate count. I'd put the number at between 20 to 30m illegals, so between 200 to 300b per year. Also the more illegals the lower the assimilation rate and the higher the civil costs.
I think the Biden Administration is clearly breaking the law in both word and spirit, but it will likely ignore any court ruling against it on this matter. It really is up to Congress to discipline the executive branch on this matter. They can start by impeaching both Biden and Mayorkas for dereliction of duty. Sure, you won't convict and remove them, but the rules have changed since 2016.
"[T]here are over 11 million noncitizens currently in the United States who could be subject to deportation, but that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of them...."
I think that the law should be that if the government denies having the resources to enforce a law, then that denial should serve as authorization for the people to enforce that law.
catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (CAIR) in lieu of emigration reform to mitigate progress and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout. Girls are raped and the "burden" of evidence is scalped, perhaps cannibalized, then the carbon remains are sequestered in darkness.
'Also the more illegals the lower the assimilation rate and the higher the civil costs.'
My bilingual (English/Spanish) uncle lives in an agricultural town of about 150,000 in California.
It's quaint and rural. We met there once and all I heard was Spanish being spoken.
When I asked him about it, he said 'I haven't heard English spoken in this town in the past 5 years.'
>>No, it is not consistent with Federal immigration law. "Shall" means "must", it does not mean "unless you don't want to"
You still believe that the American Aristocracy is governed by law?
They are governed only by their current belief about what they can get away with.
Just ask any of the five millionaires in the Biden family.
Mr. Hand : What are you, Mr. Biden? On dope?
"but that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of them...."
Perhaps resources (read: funding) could be obtained by diverting the money that would otherwise go to paying for student loans?
Just a thought...
Joe Smith (10:09am):
Temporary visas can work very well. Around 25-30 years ago the Washington Post had a long article about apple-picking on the east coast. Much of it was (is?) done by Jamaican fishermen who came over for 6 weeks or 2 months (I forget), picked apples all day for minimum wage, and went home with what was a nice tidy sum in Jamaican terms. (The article didn't say, but I gathered that apple-picking season in Virginia is fish-aren't-biting-anyway season in Jamaica, so they weren't losing any money on their primary occupation.)
They all had wives, kids, and boats back in Jamaica, so no incentive whatever to stick around as illegals. Their lodgings (migrant worker cabins) and food (mostly canned, heated on hot-plates) looked pretty crappy, but that just kept them putting in more paid-by-the-hour time on the trees. Best of all, college students or other Americans would not only have had to be paid a lot more than minimum wage, they would have been very prone to falling off the 40' ladders while drunk or hung-over or drugged or just stupid. Jamaicans who had spent a few years climbing the rigging on small boats tossing up and down in the Caribbean were extremely unlikely to fall off a stationary 40' ladder leaning on a tree.
All in all, a win-win situation. We need more such. A strict head count arriving and departing, with severe penalties for the organizing company if anyone was missing, would of course be necessary, just to make sure.
Post a Comment