After the Supreme Court granted the president some crumbs from its royal table and overturned part of the egregious lower-court injunction on his immigration order, I warned that unless Trump pushes for judicial reform, the stolen sovereignty from the lower courts will only get worse. It has.
Late Tuesday, a federal district judge in Michigan halted the deportation of 1,400 Iraqi immigrants who had been convicted of criminal offenses, including some with convictions for rape and murder.
The Constitution is very clear about Congress having the final say over which aliens get to remain in the country and under what circumstances they may remain.
Congress has passed a series of immigration laws spelling out which criminal offenses should warrant deportation, and the Trump administration is faithfully executing that law, which requires him to deport criminal aliens. That these people allege the return to Iraq would be a death sentence is a political or emotional argument, not a legal argument.
Yet, Mark Goldsmith, a puny district judge thinks he can nullify statute and the Constitution, as well as national sovereignty, and grant criminal aliens a new constitutional “right” to remain in the country when it offends his sensibilities. Worse, he recognized that he has no jurisdiction over this issue, but said that his emotions will not get in the way of him legislating from a lower-court bench.
He even bemoaned the fact that the poor immigration lawyers were stretched thin defending 1,500 Iraqis (mainly Chaldeans) because there is now evidently a constitutional right for criminal aliens to have representation to remain in the country.
Folks, we have reached peak danger and insanity with the issue of judicial stolen sovereignty. Mark Goldsmith must be impeached and this order must be ignored. By his own admission, Goldsmith has no jurisdiction over this issue. If Congress felt bad enough for these criminals, rapists and murderers among them, they could carve out an exception. Absent that, Trump must follow the law and the Constitution, not the hormonal rantings of an insidious lower-court judge.
The irony is that even the Obama administration would have deported these people, if not for the fact that Iraq wasn’t repatriating their aliens. The Trump administration recently secured an agreement from the Iraqi government to take back their criminal aliens in return for being de-listed from the travel ban.
If you remember, Mark Goldsmith was the judge who nullified Michigan’s election law on behalf of Jill Stein in order to extend the Hillary-driven recount in the state.
Stolen Sovereignty has reached crisis levels
Due process for aliens is whatever Congress decides to give them. To be clear, aliens have due process against being punished through imprisonment and indefinite detention, but they do not have a fundamental right to remain in the country against statute.
The laws are clear and this clownish judge recognizes it; Goldsmith has decided to engage in civil disobedience. Are we going to treat him as “the law of the land”?
Justice Robert Jackson, the great champion of due process and the dissenter in the Korematsu case said that “due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.” [Shaughnessy v. Mezei, (1953)]
This was a sentiment that reigned supreme in our body politic and in the court system since the founding of our country. Even during the bowels of the Warren-era Supreme Court when the courts were completely taking over abortion, social issues, and major political decisions from the elected branches of government, there was a universal understanding that only the people, not the courts, can determine who gets to come into the country and who stays.
Even as they were concocting one BS “right” after another for Americans, they all understood the concept of national sovereignty – that courts cannot create rights for aliens to immigrate or remain in the country against the national will. This desideratum is reflected in an uninterrupted stream of caselaw that has been regarded as the most settled area of law.
Yet, over the past few years, the lower courts – even though they sit under Congress at the bottom of the governing food chain – have completely taken over immigration. As I noted in my July 4 manifesto and in my book, “Stolen Sovereignty,” having unelected judges decide which aliens get to come here and which ones can remain is the most egregious violation of the Declaration of Independence and the social compact.
Astoundingly —much like with the courts redefining life, marriage, and human sexuality — there seems to be nothing they can do against our sovereignty and security that will finally elicit a righteous response from Congress. This is how the judiciary, indeed even the lower courts, have become king.
James Madison said clearly that no branch can define the scope of its own powers, yet we allow even congressionally-created courts to dictate its own powers in cases where the judiciary itself has spoken with one word for years to the contrary.
As Madison wrote in Federalist #49: “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”
Forget about the so-called travel ban, unless Trump uses his bully pulpit to make the case for judicial reform (at least for the lower courts), we are rapidly approaching the time when we can’t even deport criminal aliens.
Don’t get distracted by the emotional arguments — this, in conjunction with many other recent cases, demonstrates that the courts can and will overturn every single deportation. We have no country left. Forget about executive amnesty, we now have judicial amnesty. And to allow criminal aliens to remain violates not just the law but our immigration values since colonial times.
The irony of all ironies is that this is the quintessential reason why judges are not elected. They are not elected precisely because they can’t make political determinations and must follow the law and the Constitution, even when the case before them is a harsh application of the law. Laws can be changed by politicians because they are elected.
Trump needs to get off Twitter and out into the public and give a series of speeches making the populist case for the people deciding immigration, not the courts, and for restoring the role of the courts to the intent of our founders, lest we have no security or sovereignty.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.