Connect with us

News

Lower Courts are Undermining Trump’s Immigration Agenda

Published

on

Lower courts are undermining President Trump’s America First immigration agenda.

And, as expected, the Ninth Circuit is the culprit in this case.

In an article for the Conservative Review, Daniel Horwitz explained the implications of the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling.

Trending: More Americans Now Identify as Republicans Than They Do As Democrats

In his view, the courts “have fabricated a constitutional right for those denied asylum to appeal to federal courts for any reason.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

It’s no secret that the U.S.’s asylum laws are heavily exploited by immigrants, much to the country’s detriment.

Many immigrants turn to the “credible fear” of persecution claim to game the immigration system. Horwitz broke down how far some immigrants will go to exploit this part of the system:

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are flooding our border, claiming the formula of “credible fear” of persecution.They get to stay indefinitely while they ignore their court dates in immigration court. Because of an amalgamation of several prior activist court rulings, mainly by this very circuit, roughly 90 percent of credible fear claims are approved by asylum officers and the claimants shielded from deportation, even though asylum status is ultimately rejected almost every time by an immigration judge. Unfortunately, by that point it’s too late for the American people, who are stuck with the vast majority of these claimants remaining indefinitely in the country.”

But the story gets worse when taking into consideration the implications of this ruling:

Yet rather than ending this sham incentive, the Ninth Circuit drove a truck through immigration law by asserting that there is now a constitutional right for even the few who are denied initial credible fear status and are placed in deportation proceedings to appeal their denials, not just to an administrative immigration judge but to a federal Article III judge for any reason.

This strategy of litigating against deportation is how many legal immigrants prolong their stay in the U.S. From the bigger picture, lowers courts have engaged in this behavior to create legal, political, and policy momentum for creating new rights especially on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Now this is extending to immigration.

Unfortunately some Supreme Court justices, like John Roberts, has sided with liberals on the court to block Trump’s attempts to enforce his new asylum rules.All in all, this does not bode well for the Trump Administration’s immigration policy. This is just a reminder of how ingrained open borders are among political elites at practically all levels of government.

Political elites can enjoy talking about the virtues of open borders from their lofty mansions, but the rest of the country will eventually see crime rise and otherwise pristine neighborhoods turn into ghettoes.

Although globalists don’t have control of the entire federal apparatus, they can still use unelected lower courts to carry out their bidding and undermine Trump’s nationalist agenda.

If Trump is serious about immigration, he needs put the clamps on these lower courts’ shenanigans.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

You Might Like

News

Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?

Published

on

Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?

Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.

Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.

The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.

In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.

One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.

The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”

The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”

Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”

Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.

His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”

Sanders responded, “Yes.”

Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.

All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.

Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


You Might Like

Trending