By A Texas Reader
friday, june 23, 2023 at 10:27:18a.m. edt
supreme court upholds federal law used to prosecute people who encourage illegal immigration
 | the supreme court has upheld a section of federal law used to prosecute people who encourage illegal immigration, ruling against a california man who offered adult adoptions he falsely claimed would lead to u.s. citizenship. www.ksat.com |
That's the entire US government.GET 'EM!
ReplyDelete--GRA
"Supreme Court allows Biden administration to limit immigration arrests, ruling against states"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-immigration-ice-us-v-texas/
Every Trump appointee sided with the federal govt against the states. The states were opposed to the federal govt's decision to selectively enforce laws against being in the country illegally.
[At the center of the dispute is a memo issued in 2021 by the Biden administration that directed ICE agents to prioritize the arrest of immigrants with serious criminal records, national security threats and migrants who recently entered the U.S. illegally. The policy generally shielded unauthorized immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for years from being arrested by ICE if they did not commit serious crimes.]
So basically the SC is saying the govt can choose how it enforces laws passed by Congress. It can decide who merits arrest ("enforcement action") and who does not. Being in the US illegally is not sufficient for arrest. You have to be an illegal AND commit a criminal offense deemed serious enough.
These "lack of standing" decisions are strange. Every citizen, not to mention every state, ought to be seen as having de facto "standing" to sue the federal government. After all, it's staffed by "public servants", right?
[In a scathing dissent, Alito said the court's majority had incorrectly granted the executive branch "sweeping" powers, arguing that the states did have standing to sue over the ICE arrest policy.
"To put the point simply, Congress enacted a law that requires the apprehension and detention of certain illegal aliens whose release, it thought, would endanger public safety," Alito wrote. "The Secretary of DHS does not agree with that categorical requirement. He prefers a more flexible policy."]
So what's the point of Congress passing SPECIFIC LAWS with SPECIFIC LANGUAGE if the executive branch can pick and choose how it will enforce that law? Which language in the law it will ignore.
Aiding and abetting criminal misconduct. Nothing hard about that. Law school 101.
ReplyDelete