“Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. … But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government. ~Galvan v. Press (1954)
The Ninth Circuit now believes that illegal aliens deserve affordable bond so they can be released into our communities and abscond from their deportation hearings.
I have warned several times that the lower courts are shutting down all immigration enforcement and discovering new rights for illegal aliens to violate our sovereignty every day. The Ninth Circuit has already concocted a right to bail for illegal aliens, the consummate flight risk. This is the subject of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez. But this week, the rogue panel in San Francisco went a step further and said that immigration officials must take into account the ability of illegal aliens to pay for bail and should set it at an affordable rate!
“No person may be imprisoned merely on account of his poverty,” wrote a sanctimonious Judge Stephen Reinhardt on behalf of the three-judge panel, forgetting that we are talking about illegal immigrants. The court ruled that DOJ immigration judges must conduct new bond hearings for numerous illegal aliens already detained within 45 days and consult with immigration lawyers on new standards for setting bail. In other words, people can come here illegally, violate our sovereignty, demand a court hearing to litigate their way into judicial amnesty, and get out on the streets through cheap bail. Isn’t it amazing how illegals can get standing in court to overturn our laws, yet Americans can’t sue sanctuary cities that waste their taxpayer funds and endanger their communities while violating federal law?
As we’ve observed on a number of occasions, there is no right to bond for illegal aliens, much less affordable bond, so long as we are trying to deport them. Remember, they can always voluntarily depart. Nobody is keeping them here. For them to demand legal status and to be free while adjudicating it is the height of chutzpah.
Against all precedent
The Left only values precedent when it violates the Constitution, not when it upholds the Constitution. The courts can redefine marriage once, and it’s the law of the land forever. Yet the most “firmly embedded” precedent — that courts have no say immigration policy — is tossed out without any thought.
An uninterrupted stream of settled case law, before the Left ignored it over the past few years, has concluded that illegal aliens are not considered present on our soil, they have no due process rights to remain in the country, and that the government can detain them while trying to deport them.
In United States v. Ju Toy (1905), the court said that anyone petitioning for legal status, “although physically within our boundaries, is to be regarded as if he had been stopped at the limit of our jurisdiction, and kept there while his right to enter was under debate.”
What the court meant by being stopped at the boundary is that they are not entitled to the very constitutional rights the modern courts are bestowing upon them as we speak. Like the court said a year earlier in Turner v. Williams (1904), “[An illegal entrant] does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter, forbidden by law. To appeal to the Constitution is to concede that this is a land governed by that supreme law, and as under it the power to exclude has been determined to exist, those who are excluded cannot assert the rights in general obtaining in a land to which they do not belong as citizens or otherwise.”
In Wong Wing. V. United States (1896), a case still cited by the Supreme Court in the modern era as precedent, the court ruled that “detention or temporary confinement, as part of the means necessary to give effect to the provisions for the exclusion or expulsion of aliens, would be valid.” They noted the obvious flaws with letting them go: “Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while arrangements were being made for their deportation.”
How prescient, as 120 years later, millions of illegals disappear into our population! As we noted last week, America has become a dumping ground where foreign invaders can assert jurisdiction, obtain rights, and disappear into our communities. Up to 90 percent of Central Americans abscond from their hearings, 2.3 million illegals have been released under loose ICE monitoring, and 1 million have final deportation orders and still remain in the country, 368,500 of whom have prior criminal convictions. Thank you, courts!
At least the Affordable Care Act passed Congress. The “affordable amnesty for illegals act” has been foisted upon the American people by lower court panels that could be abolished by Congress in a heartbeat. It’s truly a case of the inmates running the asylum.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.