On Tuesday, Judge Emmet Sullivan told Gen. Michael Flynn that “arguably” his action “undermines everything this flag over here stands for! Arguably, you sold your country out!” Well, one day later, Judge Sullivan inarguably sold out to every foreign invader and illegal alien in the world, most particularly the brutal drug cartels. Sullivan gave standing to foreign nationals to sue for a right to change the DOJ’s correct definition of asylum, thereby creating a right for anyone in the world to get standing to sue for asylum. In illegally placing a nationwide injunction on proper asylum policies, Sullivan is demanding that Trump continue completing the criminal conspiracy of drug and human smugglers to invade our country with criminals and drugs and harm Americans and migrants alike.
On Wednesday, Sullivan issued an illegal universal injunction against former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ asylum policies that properly interpreted asylum statute as written. The show-boating judge, at the behest of the ACLU, granted standing to 12 individuals denied asylum. With this permanent injunction, he ordered people already deported to be returned!
Every day, we see one ruling more radical than the next on immigration, but this one really takes the cake. Statute explicitly bars judges from reviewing asylum denials like this, but the judge read that provision extremely narrowly, while reading the asylum grant extremely broadly. Congress should explicitly and categorically bar lower federal courts from taking any immigration cases.
The single biggest kill shot of the Obama administration on our sovereignty was when, in 2014, his Justice Department decided to illegally expand the definition of “credible fear.” Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that the asylum applicant “must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” This means people like Asia Bibi in Pakistan who are persecuted by a Muslim government for being a Christian. Say what you want about Latin America, but it is very homogenous, and there is no group or individualized persecution.
If general violence and poverty or personal domestic violence is a qualification, then half the world would be eligible. And indeed, violence has been plummeting in Central America since before the wave of migration, while violence has spiked in Mexico even though migration from there is down. It’s all a lie. But Obama wanted to spawn mass migration, and indeed that is what happened. When Trump took over, just the perception that he would shut this down stopped the flow. But Obama’s policies continue, and judges issued all sorts of rulings that directly invited in family units because of catch-and-release mandates.
Keep in mind: Sessions merely repealed Obama’s illegal expansion of the definition of asylum.
I spoke with Dan Cadman, former ICE agent and fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies, about the ruling, and he was concerned about the growing pattern we are seeing in the courts:
“Standing is an elastic concept that I find distasteful because in the modern judiciary, it always seems to invest foreign nationals with the power to sue, on the notion that denial — or imminent denial — of a benefit is always a tangible harm giving rise to judicial review, even when legislation is passed specifically suggesting the contrary.”
Cadman notes how illegals are able to sue for anything, contrary to law and long-standing judicial precedent, but Americans can never sue for the fiscal and security costs they impose on them:
“Consider the reverse, though, which is that ordinary Americans who suffer the harm of unchecked immigration never seem to be granted standing to sue because they can’t point to a specific harm.”
Indeed, ICE agents were denied standing to sue against DACA when Obama forced them to disobey statute.
“The courts’ interpretations of standing have led the nation down the slippery slope of mass migration because this notion of ‘harm’ vests virtually any alien who is denied anything at any time with the right to sue and to tie up the nation’s courts in litigation, often for years,” said Cadman.
Even if we were to build a wall, if we will allow any liberal judge to mandate that anyone can come into the country and apply for status, these hundreds of thousands of people will just come to the points of entry. No wall can block out a lawfare invasion, if we agree to it.
Cadman noted that this is a general problem with judicial supremacy that we must all pay attention to:
“Jurists simply don’t ever believe that they aren’t entitled to substitute their views for the executive or the legislative branches these days, because they have become accustomed to wielding unchecked power and have been given undue deference by the other two supposedly co-equal branches at their own expense. Under this kind of sustained assault, the plenary power doctrine has slowly eroded away like limestone in the face of a persistent flow of water.”
Cadman also made another important point about the practical problem of turning governance over to a single judge. It’s one thing for judges to grant relief to individual cases with clear standing. But when they rule on broad national policy, aside from the fact that they lack the power to do so, why would anyone believe they have the acumen and wherewithal to make such decisions?
“How can a district court jurist possibly be competent in all things at all times where the law is concerned? The United States Code consists of 54 different titles involving dozens of volumes of law, plus interpretations and regulations and precedent decisions.”
Judge Sullivan’s busy week is a perfect example. As Cadman trenchantly observes, “How, for instance, can a single judge preside over a criminal sentencing hearing for Michael Flynn one moment, and the next, delve into the highly complex world of asylum and immigration law, and do each matter the justice it deserves?”
What do you do when a federal judge orders everyone else in government to continue doing something “dangerous and unconscionable,” “subject to the whims of evil individuals,” resulting in the “absurd and illogical” outcome of “not only allowing them [the migrants] to fund the illegal and evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them to do so,” as another federal judge warned in 2013 when Obama began these policies?
As Judge Andrew Hanen warned, expanding statutes to invite in mass migration beyond the strict definition of these humanitarian provisions “successfully complet[ed] the mission of the criminal conspiracy” of drug smugglers to smuggle people over the border “at significant expense” to taxpayers, resulting in the outcome of helping “fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico.”
These liberal judges are engaging in civil disobedience against our laws and settled doctrine on sovereignty under the guise of subjective compassion. Sadly, they are violating the law as well as any modicum of compassion for anyone but the smuggling cartels.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.