If judges are nullifying immigration statutes, the entire concept of nation-state sovereignty, the Constitution, and settled case law in order to concoct new rights for foreign nationals, how in the world could any amnesty plan work before we fix the judiciary? To demonstrate how any limited legislative amnesty will change and grow immediately into judicial amnesty and grind all deportations to a halt, here are two brand-new examples from radical federal judges in New York.
A right for criminal aliens to say goodbye to family members
On Monday, Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the release from ICE custody of a criminal alien being deported. Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir, a former legal immigrant from Trinidad and Tobago, served two years in prison for wire fraud in 2001 and was informed 10 years ago that he would be deported, pursuant to law (section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the INA). Yet because it takes forever to deport even criminal aliens, Ragbir had enough time during his legal maneuvering and four stays of deportation to create an organization called New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City to advocate for illegal aliens and criminal legal immigrants being deported.
That last piece of information, according to Judge Forrest, evidently entitles Ragbir to the newly minted constitutional status of “immigration activist,” thus shielding him from deportation. Wouldn’t we all like to start a 501c3 declaring sanctuary from health care laws, thereby exonerating us of violating Obamacare?
What about immigration law requiring ICE to deport him? Judge Forrest recognized that the unambiguous laws duly passed by Congress were followed and that Ragbir was under final order of deportation “without further right of contest.” But then the judge engaged in civil disobedience to create a new amendment requiring that ICE afford the alien ample time “to say goodbye” to loved ones before being deported. Never mind the fact that this man had about 10 years to roam free from the time he was warned about his impending deportation in 2008. It’s quite transparent this is a surreptitious way of indefinitely blocking a deportation.
If you had sent this to me several years ago, I would have thought it was a parody, but this is a real opinion from the Southern District of New York:
There is, and ought to be in this great country, the freedom to say goodbye. That is, the freedom to hug one’s spouse and children, the freedom to organize the myriad of human affairs that collect over time. It ought not to be — and it has never been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust, regimes where those who have long lived in a country may be taken without notice from streets, home, and work. And sent away. We are not that country; and woe be the day that we become that country under a fiction that laws allow it.
The entire seven-page order reads like a Nancy Pelosi press release.
We have now reached the point where laws don’t matter, even to judges tasked with applying them. Alt-left political sensitivities are now the law of the land.
While Judge Forrest admitted that ICE followed the law, she expressed concerns that Ragbir had “been targeted as a result of his speech and political advocacy on behalf of immigrants’ rights and social justice.” In other words, she is now nullifying the law she recognized because there is a conflation of a “right” to say good bye with the “right” to be a social justice activist that together render deportation a form of cruel and unusual punishment. It’s not apparent from her ruling how long a goodbye Ragbir is to be afforded, given that he already had 10 years. But what is clear is that she intends to block his deportation for as long as it works.
It’s important to remember that aside from the fact that no Article III court should have jurisdiction to block the deportation of any non-citizen, a district judge in particular clearly lacks the jurisdiction even under prevailing practice. Any appeal from the administrative judges and the administrative appellate body (Board of Immigration Appeals) goes directly to the federal circuit courts, in this case the Second Circuit, not the New York district court. But rules of standing don’t matter when it comes to the #Resistance.
With more than 950,000 illegal aliens under final order of deportation but still remaining in the country, and with hundreds of thousands absconding and never reporting in to ICE, this is how we have criminal aliens disappear into our country, never to be heard from until they commit another crime. Among young illegal aliens who have crossed over in recent years, 90 percent failed to show up for their hearings, according to data from the House Judiciary Committee. The more judges are able to force ICE to release them from custody, the fewer deportations will ever take place. Forget about sanctuary cities; the sanctuary courts run by the #Resistance are declaring sanctuary nation.
It’s racist not to break immigration law
In one of the many insane lawsuits wherein illegal aliens are being granted standing to mandate that Trump keep Obama’s amnesty and not follow the law, another New York judge issued a political screed during oral arguments. The Wall Street Journal reports that Judge Nicholas Garaufis went off on a rant about Trump being a racist. He essentially tossed his robe and donned a pink hat while making comments from the bench that are more appropriate at an Antifa rally than in a court of law.
Garaufis contended that Trump’s attitude towards Latinos was “vicious,” “extremely volatile,” “incendiary,” and “not what we see from our leaders.” Evidently, at an earlier hearing, Garaufis said that the DOJ “can’t come into court to espouse a position that is heartless.” After Attorney General Jeff Sessions lambasted these statements in a recent speech at Heritage, the loony judge bitterly complained on Tuesday, “He seems to think the courts cannot have an opinion.”
This is the same judge who ordered Trump in November to surrender all the information and advice he got from his staff in making his decision to terminate unconstitutional amnesty. Garaufis was later overturned by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court unanimously shot down a similar effort by a San Francisco judge.
Folks, I don’t care if you love Trump or hate Trump, love immigration laws or hate them, love illegal immigrants or hate them. We have a judicial emergency when courts are not stewards of the law but more political than politicians and actually render opinions and break laws based solely on their political views.
But you already knew that.
If the courts are this bad when immigration law is unambiguous, what do you think will happen once we pass a new law that codifies “of no fault of their own” into law and actually affords anyone who came here before the age of 18 an opportunity for legal status? The courts will grind every last deportation to a halt. It will take years just to deport 100 people, even those cases the government ultimately wins. The Left has an army of thousands of pro-bono immigration lawyers who will shop these cases around to the most liberal courts in New York and San Francisco and roll them into class action suits.
Remember, almost all the worst criminal aliens are young males who will be prima facie eligible for the amnesty. They will at least be afforded the opportunity to litigate themselves into status. Just this week, three DACA recipients were caught attempting to smuggle more people in from Mexico. They feel emboldened with their unconstitutional legal status, and it’s already quite arduous to deport them. These are the very people who would wind up staying because any legislative amnesty in this environment will be expanded by judicial amnesty.
There is simply no way any legislative amnesty can be limited in nature until something is done about the courts. And Trump’s advisers who are pushing him on amnesty are doing him a disservice by ignoring the ramifications of judicial amnesty at the hands of the Antifa judges.
Author: Daniel Horowitz
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.