On November 20, 2018 the Washington Post reported: “In blow to Trump’s immigration agenda, federal judge blocks asylum ban for migrants who enter illegally from Mexico.”
Here is how the Washington Post article began:
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, saying the president violated a “clear command” from Congress to allow them to apply.
In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy President Trump announced Nov. 8, which he billed as an urgent attempt to stop the flow of thousands of asylum-seeking families across the border each month.
The judge’s order remains in effect until Dec. 19, when the court will consider arguments for a permanent order. The administration offered no immediate comment, but has routinely appealed adverse decisions.
The president’s decree, now blocked, came just after the midterm election campaign, in which Trump made immigration and national security the GOP’s "closing argument". He and his allies spread fear about the “Caravan heading to the Southern Border,” which, as he asserted without evidence in one pre-election tweet, included “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners.” In another, he warned of “some very bad thugs and gang members.” Labeling the movements of Central American migrants a “national emergency,” Trump last month deployed active-duty troops to the border.
But the federal judge said the president could not shift asylum policy on his own.
“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” wrote the judge, nominated to the federal bench in 2012 by President Barack Obama. He reasoned that the “failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process.”
To begin with, we must apply a bit of common-sense to the President’s policies given the totality of circumstances that exist today.
The “War on Terror” is ongoing. The “All Clear” has not sounded and is not likely to sound for years to come. As I wrote in my recent commentary, The Impending Alien Invasion, Iran-backed Hezbollah operatives are working in Latin America in conjunction with drug trafficking and human smuggling organizations to flood America with drugs, aliens and sleeper agents.
The 9/11 Commission has been clear on the nexus between multiple failures of the immigration system and the ability of terrorists to enter the United States, embed themselves and go about their deadly preparations. The 9/11 Commission did not only focus on the attacks of September 11, 2001 but also looked back a decade into the actions of other terrorists and found that common thread running through their methodology.
President Trump’s policy applied to aliens who sought to avoid the vetting process conducted at ports of entry by Customs and Border Protection inspectors who are guided in their decisions by Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 which enumerates the classes of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, spies and aliens who were previously deported. Additionally, aliens are also excludible if they would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed; and aliens who would likely become public charges.
Our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.
It must be presumed that the only reason that an alien would seek to evade that inspections process is because he/she knows that he belongs to one or more categories of aliens who are statutorily ineligible to be lawfully admitted into the United States.
Failures of border security have also enabled transnational gangs such as MS-13 and drug trafficking organizations which easily traverse the porous Mexican border and infiltrate towns and cities across the United States.
Graphic evidence of the nexus between drug trafficking and violent crimes at the hands of the drug cartels is being currently provided at the trial of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman in the federal court in Brooklyn, New York for the Eastern District of New York. As the New York Post’s headline reported, El Chapo’s trial opens with chilling details.
Incredibly the presiding judge at that trial has agreed the highly unusual measure of keeping the names and addresses of the jurors a secret to protect them, in Brooklyn, New York, from potential Mexican sicarios (a term used to describe “hitmen”).
As for District Judge Jon S. Tigar's statements, let’s begin with the notion as reported in the Washington Post, that “Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden” ignores presidential authority that is clearly an concisely laid out in Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182(f), which reads:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
That section of law has been on the books since the INA was enacted in 1952 and has been successfully invoked by previous administrations including that of Jimmy Carter. President Trump is not rewriting any law, just attempting to enforce existing law.
Aliens who evade the inspections process are, at a minimum, trespassing on the United States. In an earlier article Aliens Trespassing, I noted that Senator Chuck Schumer had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on national landmarks or critical infrastructure a federal felony that would carry a five year maximum prison sentence. Here is a quote from Schumer’s official Senate website:
With terror threats at a high, it must be made loud and clear to any would-be trespassers, adrenaline junkies or potential criminals that the federal government and the NYPD take trespassing on critical infrastructure and national monuments very seriously; a law that makes this a federal crime and raises the current maximum jail time from one to five years would help deter this behavior, and provide the NYPD with stronger tools to combat this disturbing trend.
However, it would appear that while Schumer and his friends in the Democratic Party would put trespassers in jail for up to five years, aliens who trespass on the United States are somehow sacrosanct and, indeed, worthy of U.S. citizenship.
Perhaps in addition to reading the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge should read another important document, the official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, that was written by members of the 9/11 Commission staff- the federal agents and the attorneys.
The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
It also included these excerpts:
Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
The judge should read Article IV, Section 4 the Constitution, that states:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Finally, The judge should also read my recent article The Threats Posed By The Impending Invasion.
According to his bio, prior to becoming a federal judge, Mr. Tigar was a public defender. If ever there was a time the American public needed defending, this is the time.