Court ruling on immigration endangers Americans again

· August 19, 2015  
    Font Size A A A
Joe Arpaio
In this Dec. 18, 2013, file photo, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio pauses as he answers a question at a news conference at Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Headquarters in Phoenix. Ross D. Franklin | AP Images

Consider the following injustice: the sheriff of the fourth largest county in the country, which is located just miles from the southern border, lacks standing to sue Obama for burdening his county with illegal immigration due to his unconstitutional amnesty programs.  Yet, illegal aliens are granted standing to sue for a full array of rights paid for by the American taxpayer.

On July 24, Central California District Judge Dolly Gee essentially ruled that the federal government must release from detention all illegal aliens who come here with a minor child (Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.).  Americans are forced to foot the bill for thousands of indigent illegal immigrants flooding the southern border who are now able to use our own court system against us.  Despite the fact that 84% of family units from Central America that received a notice to appear before an immigration judge absconded and disappeared into the population, the court feels that none of them can be detained.

Just last week, an illegal alien from San Luis Obispo County, California failed to appear for his first court hearing after being charged with beating a two-year-old girl to near-death.  So why was he released in the first place?

According to Cal Coast News, Chavez is a “Mexican national with an extensive criminal history that includes convictions for drug trafficking and assault with a deadly weapon.” After being deported once and returning to California to commit more crimes, Chavez was released from jail following his arrest for the heinous beating.  Here was the sheriff’s explanation:

Following Chavez’s release, Sheriff Ian Parkinson said the law prohibits sheriffs from holding inmates on ICE detainers unless federal authorities issue warrants for them. Parkinson appeared on a Fox News broadcast last week in which the interviewer reported that Parkinson said he would have gotten sued by the ACLU had he honored the ICE detainer for Chavez.

Not only is this another example of Obama’s amnesty allowing yet another violent criminal alien to disappear into the population, it is a vivid illustration of how the court system is dismantling our immigration enforcement.  The courts and their cohorts who represent illegal aliens pro bono are deterring law enforcement from detaining these violent criminals and are endangering the lives of all Americans.

So where are the bleeding hearts rushing to the defense of Americans?  The refusal to detain, deport, and enforce is the most heartless policy of this administration.  And with 350,000 known criminal aliens on the loose, the courts are determined to invalidate all efforts to maintain our sovereignty and protect the American people.

With this outrageous injustice fresh in your mind, note that the federal courts have already invalidated Arizona’s law denying bail to illegal aliens.  Those who come here illegally have no constitutional rights and represent the consummate flight risk in our criminal justice system, yet the courts have ensured on multiple fronts that there is no recourse to detain violent criminal aliens.

At the same time, these courts denied Sheriff Joe Arpaio standing to sue Obama for his illegal implementation of DACA and DAPA.  Last week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling that his grievances were speculative, thus denying him standing to fight Obama on the merits of the amnesty. A massive surge in illegal immigration for a border county is just a speculative grievance?

The same thing happened to a group of ICE agents who are being threatened with punishment if they enforce existing law instead of Obama’s illegal amnesty.  In August 2012, 10 ICE officers, led by ICE Union president Chris Crane, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the administration’s policies of suspending deportations against those illegals who would qualify for the Dream Act – a law the never passed Congress.

On April 4, 2013, Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the Obama administration’s DACA program was in clear violation of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the INA, which requires ICE agents to place all illegal aliens into removal proceedings.  However, he said the agents lacked standing for the lawsuit and referred them to an administrative court.  After being ping-ponged back and forth between the administrative court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, nobody wanted to grant these ICE agents standing to redress this immediate and profound grievance.

A number of figures in the conservative legal community have expressed concern about my idea of stripping courts of jurisdiction over immigration enforcement.  They contend that we need the courts to help us against Obama.  But it’s clear that the radical courts are a one-way street and a dead end for constitutionalists.  Illegal aliens have standing to sue for rights, but law enforcement has no standing to block lawlessness.   As Janice Rogers Brown wrote in her concurring opinion in the Arpiao case where she reluctantly accepts the precedent on standing issues, “if an elected Sheriff responsible for the security of a county with a population larger than twenty-one states cannot bring suit, individual litigants will find it even more difficult to bring similar challenges.” Clearly, the courts will never serve as an avenue for restoring our sovereignty.

Likewise, some conservatives have expressed doubt about closing the birthright citizenship loophole for illegal aliens out of fear that the courts will overturn any statutory fix.  They contend that we should focus on other enforcement mechanisms.  What they fail to understand is that if nothing is done about the courts, they will overturn many other enforcement laws.

Mark Levin sounded the alarm years ago on the courts dismantling immigration enforcement with his detailed analysis of Plyler v. Doe in his book Men in Black.  In 1982, William Brennan and four other justices mandated taxpayer-funded education for those who come here illegally.  The courts have never turned back since issuing this perverse judgment, yet conservatives have not heeded Levin’s warning and have refused to take up the cause of jurisdiction stripping.

Conservatives must remember that even if the most conservative candidate is elected president and every senator suddenly supports the enforcement bills sponsored by Jeff Sessions, none of it will matter if the courts are not stripped of their jurisdiction over immigration.   A handful of unelected judges have the perceived power to overturn every state and federal immigration law at the behest of illegal aliens.  And now we learn that the courts won’t even overturn Obama’s lawlessness at the behest of the very law enforcement agents tasked with executing these laws.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote of the Judiciary, “It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”  Over two hundred years later, this same branch of government now has the force to side with foreign invaders and the will to deny our law enforcement officials their constitutional right to defend their own borders.


Want to keep up with what’s going on in Washington without the liberal media slant, establishment spin, and politician-ese?

Sign up to get CRTV’s Capitol Hill Brief in your inbox every evening! It’s free!

* indicates required


Author: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.