• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge reverses Biden immigration orders that released detained immigrants

Doug64

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
653
Reaction score
217
Political Leaning
Conservative

The Biden administration must revamp its deportation policies, a Trump-appointed judge ruled Friday, finding they conflict with immigration statutes by making optional the detention of noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies and other serious crimes.


“The core of the dispute is whether the executive branch may require its officials to act in a manner that conflicts with a statutory mandate imposed by Congress. It may not,” U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton wrote in the first lines of his ruling.


Tipton struck down a memo from U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that took effect in November and established guidelines detailing when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers should take undocumented immigrants into custody for deportation.

Here's the actual memo:
And from the judge's opinion:

That brings us to the relevant immigration statutes. This case is not about aliens in general, or even aliens who are in the United States illegally. Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code state that the Executive Branch “shall” detain aliens convicted of specific types of crimes or who have final orders of removal. The Federal Government acknowledges that some immigration statutes mandate detention. But it disputes that Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) are among those statutes. In support, the Federal Government offers an implausible construction of federal law that flies in the face of the limitations imposed by Congress. It also invokes discretion and prioritization in an effort to evade meaningful judicial review.

True, the Executive Branch has case-by-case discretion to abandon immigration enforcement as to a particular individual. This case, however, does not involve individualized decisionmaking. Instead, this case is about a rule that binds Department of Homeland Security officials in a generalized, prospective manner—all in contravention of Congress’s detention mandate.

It is also true that the Executive Branch may prioritize its resources. But it must do so within the bounds set by Congress. Whatever the outer limits of its authority, the Executive Branch does not have the authority to change the law.

Using the words “discretion” and “prioritization,” the Executive Branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates. The law does not sanction this approach. Accepting the Executive Branch’s position would have profound consequences for the separation of powers.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,322
Reaction score
50,318
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yep, the executive often uses its (self-defined?) ‘prosecutorial discretion’ to essentially decriminalize crime or to unequally apply the laws. This is done at the state and local government levels as well.

Pretending that ‘prosecutorial discretion‘ is OK if (when?) done on a ‘case by case’ basis is nothing more than the courts officially tossing “equal protection of the laws” out the window.
 

Doug64

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
653
Reaction score
217
Political Leaning
Conservative
Pretending that ‘prosecutorial discretion‘ is OK if (when?) done on a ‘case by case’ basis is nothing more than the courts officially tossing “equal protection of the laws” out the window.
No, it's a recognition that there's only so much room on the docket, and so prosecutors need to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is worth spending time an resources. And yes, there is certainly room for prejudice and bias to play a role, but the circumstances of individual cases usually makes it impossible to prove that.

None of which has to do with the fact that a) prosecutorial discretion doesn't give the executive branches the right to ignore the mandatory nature of laws, and b) having someone other than the prosecutors laying out general "guidelines" is the opposite of prosecutorial discretion, rather than its application.
 
Top Bottom