Deportation System Broke – Treason Lobby Against Fixing It.
Print Friendly and PDF

As long as the so-called "debate" on immigration is confined to technical issues like "securing the border," and whether or not the Bush Administration's plan to give work authorization and non-immigrant visas to illegal aliens is really an "amnesty" . . . the Treason Lobby will be just happy as a clam.

Why? Because they're confident that fellow-travelers in Congress, the federal courts and the federal immigration bureaucracy will sabotage any real effort to deport illegal aliens and criminal alien residents.

An example from the federal court front: I recently reported on how three black-robed individuals from the notorious federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—Judges Dorothy W. Nelson, Stephen Reinhardt and Sidney R. Thomas—struck down federal "reinstatement of removal" regulations in the eight states under their jurisdiction: Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii.  [Morales-Izquierdo v. Ashcroft, November 18, 2004 —PDF]

This case involved a twice-deported illegal alien who came back uninvited a third time and wanted to file an application for adjustment of status to permanent residence because of his marriage to a U.S. citizen.

The reinstatement regulations—which fortunately remain in effect in the 42 states fortunate enough not to be within reach of the Ninth Circuit—ensured that, when previously-deported aliens who reentered the U.S. illegally were caught, they would be summarily removed. They would not be allowed to escape into the bureaucratic litigation swamp of the of the Justice Department's EOIR Immigration Court system.

As I've written before, it's just never over until the alien wins.

Summary removal procedures—like Immigration Act section 235(b), and the reinstatement of removal authority under Immigration Act section 241(a)(5)—are the bane of the Treason Lobby.

But summary removal is also the key to any real immigration reform.

A whistleblower sent me these comments on the fallout from the Ninth Circuit's decision:

"You have no idea of the havoc this has created, at least in my office.  Everything has to be dropped every day to reprocess tons of prison releases [convicted illegal alien criminals who have completed their state or federal sentences] so that they get their little day in [EOIR Immigration] Court…

"Yep, I think the 9th is really pissed off that we have been arresting unsuspecting prior deports when they saunter in for their adjustment interview, and summarily remove them, forcing them to go through consular processing if they want to immigrate.

"The 9th also issued an equally devastating decision in Castro-Cortez v. INS [PDF] where they arrogantly said that reinstatements [i.e. of prior orders of removal] were illegal if the alien entered the U.S. prior to 4/1/97….[the]  case dealt with an alien who waltzed in [to a USCIS office] for adjustment and was reinstated . . .

"Of course, don't forget that these decisions are abundantly most profitable for AILA [the American Immigration Lawyers Association] and immigration attorneys, who can once again pursue adjustments of status for their clients rather than having their client promptly removed."

My correspondent noted that in Castro-Cortez the 9th Circuit effectively upheld the legality of reinstatement for aliens who entered the U.S. after 4/1/97—only to overthrow it later in Morales-Izquierdo.

The important legal distinction: Morales-Izquierdo was announced after the 2004 Presidential election.

As author and policy analyst James R. Edwards said recently about judicial meddling in immigration policy:

"Activist judges arrogate power to themselves, second-guessing elected legislators. The tools developed to invent new 'rights' for criminals, evict all semblance of the Founders' Christian civic religion and legalize the murder of the unborn are now used to set immigration policies from the bench.

"Activist judges would start serving the public good if they would respect Congress' broad power to set immigration policies and defer to the political process.  Judicial muggings of the processes of self-government only feed frustration, while stoking the public's ire toward immigrants."  ["Alien Enemies on the Bench," Human Events, Dec 23, 2004]

Talk about the public's ire . . . how about letting previously-deported criminal aliens enter the U.S. again and demand a "green card"?

It really happens. Though illegal aliens can be barred from adjusting status for other factors, "aggravated felons" can and do file for "green cards" as a matter of routine.

So as long as the EOIR and the federal courts have their fingers in the immigration pie, there's really not much to stop illegal aliens from getting some type of legal status somehow . . . as long as they keep coming back to try their hand with the federal immigration bureaucracy.

That's the way the Treason Lobby wants it.

Juan Mann [send him email] is a lawyer and the proprietor of

Print Friendly and PDF