When President Trump issued his revised immigration order, I warned that unless we reassess our erroneous views of judicial power, the courts would create an affirmative right to immigrate.
Even though the revised order applies only to prospective immigrants who have never stepped foot on our shores, we predicted that the courts would completely erase national sovereignty. They did not disappoint.
Over the past few days, several liberal legal groups and a handful of blue states (led by Hawaii) have sued against the new order. One federal district judge grotesquely manipulated the rules of standing and issued a temporary restraining order against the executive order, even in a case where Trump’s moratorium was inapplicable.
Trump’s original executive order was on solid enough ground, backed by seven statutes and Article III powers. But this new order cuts to the very foundation of a sovereign nation, the president’s foreign affairs powers, and Congress’ plenary power over immigration, which it delegated 100 percent to the executive branch to ratchet down immigration as needed.
The manipulation of the rules of standing is how the judiciary has become a super-legislature. Hence, an affirmative right to immigrate.
Yet none of these issues were even cited by these federal judges, who have replaced the law and the Constitution with their personal social justice agenda.
On Friday, Judge William Connelly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a temporary restraining order against the new Trump moratorium as it relates to family members of an asylee living in America who is concerned that, despite his approval for asylum status, the petition to bring in his wife and daughter from Syria will be blocked by Trump’s order when it takes effect. Although Connelly did not issue a nationwide injunction on the underlying moratorium, the fact that the judge is granting any relief raises some serious questions.
The Trump administration already made it clear that this order does not apply to those refugees already approved and in the pipeline. So how does a plaintiff get standing to sue based on a “fear” that when the order takes effect (on Thursday), his family might be excluded — if their contention is that they were already in the pipeline?
To begin with, the courts have no right to demand that any alien be admitted to the country even after his visa is approved. But for the courts to grant standing preemptively to someone who doesn’t even have an injury-in-fact is a clear indication that they plan to attack the merits of the underlying executive action when it takes effect. The manipulation of the rules of standing is how the judiciary has become a super-legislature. Hence, an affirmative right to immigrate.
In addition to the pending lawsuit in Wisconsin, the state of Washington went back to District Judge Robart and asserted that the temporary moratorium on immigration from six countries and the refugee program (sections 2(c) and 6(a)) even for FUTURE hypothetical immigrants should be subject to his original TRO. While Robart declined to issue a judgement because of a lack of proper filings, it is safe to assume he will issue some sort of TRO on the revised executive order as well. The logic behind such an order would be no less insane than the logic behind his original TRO.
And don’t think the chicanery is limited to the 9th Circuit. As we’ve noted before, most of the circuits are irremediably broken. They are flipping federal immigration power on its head by allowing states to complain that Trump limiting dangerous immigration is adversely affecting their tourism industries. It would be akin to a state obtaining standing to sue against a president’s foreign policy or military decisions. Meanwhile, states were denied standing to sue when Obama violated immigration law and Arizona is being forced by the 9th Circuit to grant driver’s licenses to illegals unlawfully amnestied by Obama.
There is nothing more dangerous to our national security than stolen sovereignty at the hands of the unelected courts. They are remaking the Constitution, erasing our borders, ignoring foundational statutes, overturning 200 years of settled case law, and unilaterally expanding their own jurisdiction.
Look at the House GOP’s agenda since January. It has been devoid of any substance. What other majority party with control of the White House has failed to act on a single significant issue in its first 100 days? Why are they not passing bills defending Trump’s executive order, and why are they not stripping the courts of jurisdiction over immigration?
Trump’s only major accomplishment thus far was the refugee moratorium and that is hanging by a thread thanks to the erroneous outsourcing of legislative and executive authority to the courts. It’s time for Trump to work with House conservatives to bolster his immigration agenda against the courts, instead of fighting conservatives to enshrine Obamacare into law.
Trump must demand that Congress back his immigration order in the April budget bill by defunding the refugee resettlement program and the issuance of any visas from the six countries on his list. House conservatives should also work with Trump to defund Obama’s executive amnesty.
Instead of threatening conservatives with primary challenges if they fail to betray Trump’s own election mandate, why not threaten to primary the RINOs for not backing his immigration agenda? Or is it easier to go after conservatives because they are politically expendable?
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.