By Jon Dougherty

(TNS) If ever there was a federal court that President Trump needs to “flip” it’s the 9th Circuit, and thankfully, he’s well on his way to doing that.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the president’s “Remain in Mexico” asylum policy somehow runs afoul of U.S. immigration law.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

A federal appeals court has ruled the Trump administration must halt a policy of returning Central American migrants to Mexico while their requests for asylum in the U.S. are considered.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, on Friday ruled the plan was inconsistent with federal law. The decision marked a shift for the appeals court, which had issued a preliminary ruling that allowed the administration to implement the policy while legal proceedings continued.

You Might Like

The policy, which is formally called the Migrant Protection Protocols, was introduced by the administration in January 2019 as the White House looked for ways to avoid releasing families seeking asylum into the U.S. That’s because in the past, most families that were released ‘awaiting their hearing date’ were never seen or heard from again.

That, however, seems to not be an issue with the notoriously Left-wing 9th Circuit.

Also, the court seems unconcerned that the policy has led to the return of 60,000 migrants back across the U.S. border, where they could wait for their hearing among people with whom they at least shared some cultural and historical ties. And oh, by the way, by remaining in Mexico these folks were not a drain on U.S. taxpayers — something else the 9th Circuit seems unconcerned with.

What’s also true is that the vast majority of asylum seekers were not escaping political persecution and violence, which are pre-conditions for being given asylum to remain in the U.S. They were coming mostly for economic reasons, which Homeland Security officials have been noting for more than a year now.

Then-Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan also noted in July 2019 that asylum seekers from Central America were violating U.S. immigration law because they were not seeking asylum in the first stable country they encountered — Mexico.

“Ultimately, today’s action will reduce the overwhelming burdens on our domestic system caused by asylum-seekers failing to seek urgent protection in the first available country, economic migrants lacking a legitimate fear of persecution, and the transnational criminal organizations, traffickers, and smugglers exploiting our system for profits,” he said.

Guess the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals isn’t concerned about any of these ‘inconsistencies’ with U.S. law.

You Might Like

And do you know what other ‘rule of law’ this court ignored? The Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, President Obama’s ‘policy’ of allowing illegal immigrants brought into the country as children to remain outside the scope of federal immigration enforcement.

While that seemed a ‘humane’ thing to do, Obama admitted nearly two dozen times before he wrote the Executive Order creating DACA that he did not have the authority to do so because he was literally changing immigration law — something on Congress can do.

But okay. The program was created by Executive Order, it can be rescinded by Executive Order, right?

Nope — not you’re name is Donald Trump.

The Constitution Center noted in November 2018:

Quoting the Supreme Court’s landmark Marbury v. Madison decision, a three-judge Ninth Circuit has upheld a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or DACA) program. 

In a 99-page opinion, the panel said it had the power to review the case despite claims from the United States Attorney General’s office and the Department of Homeland Security that the DACA rescission order was beyond judicial review. …

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1803 that, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” in the decision that set a standard for judicial review and the ability of courts to finds law unconstitutional.

You Might Like

And, of course, it’s the Judicial Branch’s responsibility to say what the law isn’t, apparently. So while the Executive Branch supposedly can’t have it both ways, the Judicial Branch can.

Got it.

  • Get your FREE Patriotic Trump Winter Beanie — click here!

What all of this wishy-washy nonsense really proves is that the president and the GOP-controlled Senate must continue to replace the judicial activists who have long dominated the 9th Circuit with constitutionalists, which is what he’s nearly accomplished.



Would love your thoughts, please comment.x