At last, someone has taught Biden an important lesson by disassembling the legal framework for immigration.
Just this week, a federal court made the official decision to block a mandate created by Biden administration to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to prioritize individuals that possess serious criminal histories and review the entirety of that person’s circumstances prior to moving to deport them.
Following Biden assuming office last year, he made the decision to release numerous illegal immigrants from the southern boarder to points throughout the country.
This motion being put forth can be blamed on the disgrace of a homeland security secretary, as she chose to aid President Biden’s evil plan to America with illegal aliens.
However, this time around, a federal judge in Ohio, said “no” on Tuesday.
CBS News stated:
District Judge Michael Newman — appointed in 2020 by then-President Donald Trump — issued a nationwide injunction again enforcement of parts of a memo issued in September by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that limited the cases where Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents should seek to deport illegal aliens.
Newman ruled in favor of attorneys general from three Republican states – Arizona, Montana and Ohio – who challenged the Mayorkas memo as flouting federal law under the guise of making law enforcement more efficient.
Washington Examiner made clear:
Under Trump, ICE officers were told to pursue any illegal immigrant, including those arrested after driving under the influence or charged with other less violent crimes. Since February 2021, ICE officers have had to go through an internal approval process by management before going into communities and arresting specific immigrants if they do not meet the three criteria.
Interestingly, under Biden’s DHS, it’s a different day. Mayorkas’ memo instructed ICE agents:
“To focus on arresting immigrants found to pose a threat to national security or public safety, as well as migrants who recently crossed a U.S. border illegally.”
And it was all in reference to how illegal immigrants are solely pursuing the American dream as a goal.
“In exercising our discretion, we are guided by the fact that the majority of undocumented noncitizens who could be subject to removal have been contributing members of our communities for years.”
(Note: When Mayorkas uses the phrase “undocumented noncitizens,” he means “illegal aliens.” Duplicitous euphemisms are the refuge of the weak.)
“The fact that an individual is a removable noncitizen, therefore, should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it.”
As we can see, Mayorkas’ memo was making the assumption to himself, and to the Biden administration, the authority to decide what the law is.
Newman’s ruling focused on the core of the issue, and that, his ruling stated, was going too far.
The U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Ohio wrote:
“The states sue because they believe DHS skirted Congress’s immigration enforcement mandates when it issued a policy that prioritizes certain high-risk noncitizens for apprehension and removal. DHS contends that seemingly mandatory statutes must be read flexibly to permit efficient law enforcement. At bottom, that is what this dispute is about: can the Executive displace clear congressional command in the name of resource allocation and enforcement goals? Here, the answer is no.”
He then chose to quote a very fitting line from a 1952 Supreme Court decision that would probably best fit carved over the Oval Office door as a reminder no matter which party is in the White House:
“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”
More details on this commentary report can be found at TheWesternJournal.