Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Forget sanctuary cities – the courts created a sanctuary NATION

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    JoJ
    JoJ is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    108

    Forget sanctuary cities – the courts created a sanctuary NATION

    Forget sanctuary cities – the courts created a sanctuary NATION

    Posted June 13, 2017 09:35 AM by Daniel Horowitz

    Sanctuary cities are yesterday’s news. There might be 375 jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but unless the courts are reined in, they will create a de facto sanctuary nation policy by preventing even cooperative states and localities from following the law.

    In other words, much like we are told “gay marriage is the law of the land,” the lower courts are now making sanctuary cities the law of the land.

    As part of a growing trend of stolen sovereignty, a Texas federal judge last weekruled that a county sheriff’s department cannot honor ICE requests for local law enforcement to hold illegal aliens for 48 hours after they would otherwise release them. Judge Orlando Garcia found the Bexar County sherrif violated the Fourth Amendment rights of an illegal alien for following federal immigration law and detaining a Mexican citizen without probable cause.

    Once again, the courts have conflated criminal law with immigration law. Nobody has the “right” to break into our country, unilaterally assert jurisdiction, and then be allowed to disappear into the population without detention just because there is no probable cause of another crime.

    The courts are now essentially granting judicial amnesty to anyone not accused of another crime outside of illegal entry. This decision will likely impact many other sherriff’s departments that want to comply with ICE detainer requests.

    More disturbing, this same judge is going to hear a case later this month against the recent anti-sanctuary bill signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. Senate Bill 4 requires county jails to honor ICE requests or face the loss of state funding.

    For the past decade, ICE has issued detainers on those arrested and suspected of being in the country illegally, but are about to be released. ICE asks local police to hold the individual for 48 hours if they have probable cause an individual is an illegal immigrant, in order to apprehend the criminal aliens.

    Now, a slew of lower-court judges are requiring there be probable cause of another crime other than an immigration violation — a complete nullification of state and national sovereignty.
    Last year, a district judge in Illinois voided thousands of detainers and asserted that ICE must obtain a warrant for each individual and prove that the suspected alien is a flight risk on an individualized level.

    This is absurd on its face because illegal aliens are the consummate flight risk.We know that, in 2014-2015, 84 percent of family units from Central America that received an immigration court notice absconded and disappeared into the population before the final decision could be rendered. Yet this judge in Illinois feels that none of them can be detained. Among young illegal aliens who have crossed over in recent years, 90 percent failed to show up for their hearings, according to data from the House Judiciary Committee.

    Then again, these court decisions are nothing new. With the Ninth Circuit joiningthe Fourth Circuit in granting First and 14th Amendment rights for future immigrants who’ve never stepped foot on our soil, most certainly the federal courts will also say those who’ve already illegally entered have constitutional rights to remain in the country against the national will.

    How far we have fallen from the days of Justice Robert Jackson, when the great champion of due process declared 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)].

    Just this week, the Ninth Circuit said the president can’t set the refugee cap at 50,000 … even though the president can set it at zero, according to statute! Thus, the courts are now demanding we go overseas and actively bring in more immigrants. As such, judicial amnesty for those already here is a walk in the park.

    Thus, the citizens of this country are sitting helplessly while their sovereignty is stolen, as statutes duly passed by their representatives to keep these unknown entities out are now abrogated by unelected judges who manifestly lack jurisdiction over these issues. These people can, in turn, sue to allow other illegal aliens to remain in the country.

    What is it going to take for Congress to kick the lower courts out of immigration?

    It’s time to face a stone-cold truth: If we are going to continue perpetuating this myth that the unelected federal judiciary has supreme and exclusive jurisdiction over every major social and political question, and is the sole and final arbiter of constitutional interpretation (including the very ability of a nation to remain sovereign and control its own future and the orientation of its own society), we have already lost the war for this country.

    Article: https://www.conservativereview.com/a...nctuary-nation

  2. #2
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443
    Have about lost all confidence in our judicial system beginning with a judge that overturned the will of the voters with Prop. 187 many years ago. Seems any kind of immigration limiting or enforcing goes to a court that is mostly comprised of judges who were nominated by a Democrat president. Judges appear to follow their party over the law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned court so just maybe the Supreme Court will come through. We shall see.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Super Moderator GeorgiaPeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,835
    It has gone on too long without real efforts to stop it and now it seems nearly impossible to reverse it. We had/have hope with President Trump but the courts are not cooperating.
    Matthew 19:26
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    ____________________

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)


  4. #4
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    Trump Immigration Order Took Another Hit: Now SCOTUS Must Get Involved

    By Hans von Spakovsky | June 15, 2017 | 11:54 AM EDT

    No one should be surprised that a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, made up of three judges appointed by President Bill Clinton, upheld the injunction on Monday against President Donald Trump’s revised executive order temporarily halting entry from six terrorist safe haven nations.

    The 9th Circuit panel was simply following the lead of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also recently ignored binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that gives the president the authority to do exactly what he did.

    This was another political decision—not a legal decision—by judges who seem to believe that they have the right to substitute their judgment on national security issues for that of the president.

    Despite this latest pronouncement of the 9th Circuit, the president’s actions are lawful and fully within the constitutional authority delegated to him by Congress.

    As five dissenting judges of the 9th Circuit pointed out in a previous decision on the executive order, the judges who are ruling against the president are confounding “Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent,” which makes clear that “when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, [the courts] must defer to the judgment of the political branches.”

    The judges who issued Monday’s decision are not deferring as they are required to do, and neither did the judges in the 4th Circuit decision. The only branch of the government that is acting outside its constitutional authority is the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

    Hopefully, all of that will soon change.

    Supreme Court Looks to Weigh In

    On June 1, the U.S. Justice Department filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court asking the court to review and overturn the 4th Circuit’s decision.

    Normally, a party responding to a petition for certiorari has 30 days to file its brief.

    But in a sign of how seriously the Supreme Court takes this litigation battle over the president’s authority on national security matters, the court on June 2 ordered the challengers in the case to file their response to the government’s petition by June 12.

    The challengers met that deadline on Monday, filing a brief that opposes the government’s arguments that the Supreme Court should accept the case for review.

    Additionally, 16 states and the District of Columbia, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court not to take up the appeal of the case and to let the lower court decisions and the injunctions stand.

    One of the reasons given is that there is no conflict between the lower court holdings.

    Of course, while a conflict between the courts of appeal is often a reason for the Supreme Court to take up an appeal, that is not the only reason for the court to grant certiorari.

    If the lower courts are uniformly getting it wrong and failing to follow the Supreme Court’s binding precedents on an issue, that is a more than sufficient reason to take up a case.

    In fact, the court has an obligation to do so in order to prevent chaos in the legal system resulting from lower courts refusing to follow the law.

    That is especially true when the judicial branch is interfering with the president’s prerogatives in the national security and immigration area.

    Given the vital importance of this litigation, it seems almost certain that the Supreme Court will grant the Justice Department’s petition and accept this case for review.

    As the Justice Department said in the petition, the 4th Circuit’s claim that the national security basis for the president’s action “was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for” religious discrimination, “is wrong and in manifest need of this court’s review.”

    http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ha...t-get-involved
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. From Sanctuary Cities to Sanctuary Nation
    By Jean in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-09-2016, 04:35 PM
  2. TEXAS CITIES IN CROSSHAIRS AS U.S. SENATE VOTES ON DEFUNDING ‘SANCTUARY CITIES’
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-20-2015, 02:29 PM
  3. 'Sanctuary Cities' not offering sanctuary to illegals
    By OneNationUnderGod in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-29-2010, 05:55 AM
  4. No Sanctuary for Sanctuary Cities
    By Populist in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-26-2009, 01:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •