The legal profession continues to steal our sovereignty

· April 18, 2016  
    Font Size A A A
United States Supreme Court. Davis Staedtler | Flickr

As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case of Obama’s executive amnesty today, it’s important to remember that even if there is enough remaining sanity on that bench to uphold the 5th Circuit Court’s injunction against the illegal action, in the long run the courts are a much bigger liability than asset.  And the 5th Circuit also happens to be the only remaining originalist panel on the federal appeals level.

Our states, and even the federal government, have been rendered impotent in defending against illegal immigration and violent drug cartels.  The legal profession across the board has crowned itself king of our sovereignty and has been empowered to litigate every single deportation.  Whether it’s ICE or state law enforcement, they have to spend endless hours and resources defending every last deportation in court.  Even in the best case scenario (for conservatives), law enforcement gets a hearing before a judge that still upholds the law, but are deterred from further pursuing enforcement because of the endless judicial trench warfare.  In the worst case scenario, the judges “overturn” the laws.

Here are two more examples from this past week:

States Cannot Punish Those Who Harbor Illegal Alien Gang Members 

In 2015, confronted with the massive surge in Central Americans at the southeastern corner of the state, Texas officials passed House Bill 11.  This bill was designed to combat human trafficking by slapping criminal penalties on those who encourage illegal aliens to enter the country or harbor immigrants as members of a street gang.  But the George Soros-funded  Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a lawsuit on grounds that the Texas law is preempted by federal law, even though Texas was upholding federal law.

Last Thursday, Judge David Allan Ezra of the Western District of Texas issued an injunction on three sections of the state’s law.  He based his decision, in part, on the specious “preemption” argument posited by the six liberals on the Supreme Court in the 2011 case involving the Arizona law.  But as Scalia so clearly articulated in his dissent, states have full authority to restrict illegal immigration so long as that action is not expressly prohibited by federal statutes.  In all of these cases, such action either complements or adds to federal laws.  “The State has the sovereign power to protect its orders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition,” wrote Justice Scalia in 2012. “The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition.”[i]

Scalia further noted that immigration laws were never designed to hamper the states. “The naturalization power was given to Con­gress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it,” wrote Scalia in that same dissent.  His voice will surely be missed in today’s fight between Texas and the Obama administration over whether the state has standing to fight executive amnesty.  

ACLU Sues to Release Thousands of Illegals into Our Communities

As radical as the Obama administration is with regard to suspending deportations, the legal profession is working to invalidate the few remaining enforcement measures ICE has retained.  Last Tuesday, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in Minnesota against ICE, claiming they are detaining thousands of illegal aliens for too long.  In a disturbing trend of abusing our asylum laws, thousands of them are claiming fear of persecution under the Convention Against Torture protection if they are returned home.  Ironically, the only reason they are being detained and not deported is precisely because our system is clogged with so many aliens gratuitously offered a day in court to overturn their deportation.  Again, our own generosity is used against us and our nation’s sovereignty.

According to Law360, the ACLU also filed a class action suit in California “to force the federal government to consider a detainee’s ability to pay when setting bond in immigration cases.”  Illegal immigrants have no right to remain in the country, yet courts are increasingly granting them a right to bail, even though they represent the consummate flight risk.  The ACLU is now feasting off of years of lawless court decisions to further steal our sovereignty.  Even if the federal courts decline to side with the ACLU this time, they will easily make the jump within a few years to invalidate all of the detentions.  There is a voracious army of immigration lawyers prepared to litigate every last illegal alien into citizenship.

Irrespective of how the Supreme Court rules in the DAPA case, conservatives would be wise to declare war on judicial amnesty, which will make executive amnesty look like child’s play.

[i] Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (Scalia, J., dissenting, slip op. at 13)(2012)


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.