Ninth Circuit legislates taxpayer-provided toothpaste at the border

· August 19, 2019  
    Font Size A A A
Pile of money
cherrybeans | Getty Images

It’s a one-two punch from the courts. They illegally ventured into national sovereignty policy, something they promised not to do for 200 years, by mandating that anyone who breaks into our country with a kid get de facto amnesty. Then, when the inevitable rush for this amnesty creates an impossible humanitarian situation for Border Patrol and ICE, immigrants get to sue in court to complain about the accommodations and demand that we taxpayers pay for them.

On Thursday, a panel of three Democrat appointees ruled that the Flores settlement, itself a made-up judicial legislative scheme from a single California judge in 2017, requires facilities to provide migrants with soap and toothbrushes. “Assuring that children eat enough edible food, drink clean water, are housed in hygienic facilities with sanitary bathrooms, have soap and toothpaste, and are not sleep-deprived are without doubt essential to the children’s safety,” wrote Judge Marsha Berzon, a Clinton appointee, on behalf of the panel. Becoming ever more specific over the original settlement itself, the court ruled that the listed items fall under the rubric of “safe and sanitary conditions.”

Of course any temporary confinement as part of enforcing our laws at our border must be done as humanely as practicable. It’s not the toothpaste or toothbrushes that are the problem, but what these lawless judicial mandates represent: The taxpayers of this country are compelled to pay for those breaking into our country.



We didn’t ask any of these people to come here. This is our country, and all the history of immigration law ensures that we should not pay a dime for this. In fact, under the immigration laws in effect during the Great Wave, even the cost of deportations wasn’t born by the taxpayers, but by the ship companies that transported inadmissible aliens. Yet today, the American people are forced to pay billions of dollars for care of mostly illegal immigrants at the border. Who says a court has jurisdiction to mandate these things or to grant standing to illegal aliens in the first place?

How come nobody in the executive branch is asserting settled case law on sovereignty and questioning the role of the courts in this entire issue? Already as far back as the 1950s, the Supreme Court had already said, “For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically within the United States.” Leng May Ma v. Barber, 1958. They simply should not get standing for any of these lawsuits.

Imagine if there were a bill in Congress inviting every impoverished person in the world to come to our border so we could provide them with billions of dollars’ worth of aid. Do you think such a bill would pass? Yet lower courts that will never be accountable to the electorate have been ceded power by the other branches of government to do this.

If we are responsible to ensure our standard for living to those who break into our country, why don’t we have an obligation to take care of the old or disabled in their home countries who weren’t able to make the trip? Why should those who violate our laws, empowering dangerous cartels that kill Americans with drugs, be treated better than those who never made the trip?

This is a bottomless pit. Who ever voted to pay for this? And why is the government not providing us with the taxpayer tab of the medical and humanitarian care, including lengthy hospital stays and taxpayer-funded surgeries? Our laws stress that anyone who is likely to be a public charge is inadmissible, yet scores of illegal immigrants come explicitly for the purpose of hospital care.

This is why it would be a good idea to allow Americans to sue the government for not enforcing our laws protecting the American taxpayer from public charge. If we are going to serve as the world’s hospital, babysitter, and food pantry, shouldn’t that be decided by the people, not unelected judges violating current law? And if illegal aliens can now sue taxpayers, why shouldn’t it be a two-way street? When do we get to sue for the billions of dollars we must pay?


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 Blaze Media’s Capitol Hill Brief in your inbox every morning! It’s free!

* indicates required


Author: Daniel Horowitz

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