Federal judge rules Biden’s lax deportation policy is illegal

GummyVitamins said:

It specifically says they will not enforce immigration laws on existing illegal aliens unless they're a known terrorist.

Click to expand...

Nope. What is does say is "an immediate pause". To pause an action is not the same thing as cancelling it permanently.

GummyVitamins said:

They basically shut down deportations in the interior until federal judges told them they have to at least pretend to enforce the law since they are required to follow the laws passed by Congress. Instead, the Biden administration came in and ordered ICE to effectively stand down until they could figure out how or if they wanted to enforce the law.

Click to expand...

Yep, and the operative words there are "stand down" and "how". You do know that there was no suspension of process that would result in people being assigned to the category of "persons ordered deported, but who are not being deported right now, but may well be deported in the future".

GummyVitamins said:

Federal judges told them they can't do that because they are charged to enforce the laws despite the Biden administration not wanting to.

Click to expand...

The federal judge is attempting to tell the Executive Branch HOW to administer the law. Strangely enough, the Judicial Branch does not have the legal competence to tell the Executive Branch how the Executive Branch MUST exercise the unfettered discretion which the constitution has bestowed upon it.

MamboDervish said:

I didn't see the phrase "lax deportation" anywhere in the text. Perhaps you can point it out for me.

Click to expand...

No, the article didn’t use the word “lax”—instead, it reported this:

According to secret data ICE has yet to release, its enforcement and removal operations division recorded 48% fewer arrests of convicted criminals in 2021 than in 2020 and deported 63% fewer criminals.

ICE issued 46% fewer “detainer” requests asking state and local police to hold someone for pickup by deportation officers.

That data undercuts Mr. Mayorkas’ argument that his guidance is pushing ICE to focus on the most important cases.

Click to expand...

That certainly looks “lax” to me.

MamboDervish said:

As for your own editorializing, "The truth is that the Biden administration* simply doesn't want to enforce our border laws at all, . . " Where is that conclusion arrived at in the decision?

Click to expand...

As you say, that’s my editorializing—a reasonable conclusion, I think, based on both what Democrats have said and when the Biden administration* has both done and (as pointed out in the article) not done.

TU Curmudgeon said:

"A Trump appointee" to "a federal court" in "the Southern District of Ohio", yep, I'm sure that that decision (which is to the effect that the Executive Branch can not decide how to administer the laws of the United States of America) is going to stand up.

Click to expand...

And district court judges didn’t issue national injunctions throughout Trump’s time in office? Personally, I find the idea of district court judges being able to single-handedly shut down government policies across the entire nation to be a bad one; all courts should, IMHO, only be able to issue rulings for the parts of the country over which their authority extends. But our court system apparently disagrees with me.

RAMOSS said:

And this is the Washington times bias fact check

Click to expand...

I’ve encountered that site before. It’s interesting, looking at the reasons they give for their ruling. The “poor sourcing” means their online articles don’t have links; does that mean physical newspapers are by definition questionable? There’s holding views contrary to scientific consensus; I agree with Michael Crichton—any time you hear someone talking about “scientific consensus” hold onto your wallet, you’re being had. As for the failed fact checks, considering how heavily biased our so-called “fact-checkers” are I’d need to see which ones they are talking about.

GummyVitamins said:

No, I truncated it because 4 was the last exception. Look it up. It's only a 5 page document.View attachment 67381655

Biden eventually lost this battle in court after fighting it for a while. He then kept trying to impose additional measures to prevent deportations as much as he could within the confines of the law. He has had his hand slapped like this repeatedly over the past year or so he's been President.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Integrityrespec said:

Just say it like it is. Biden is doing the liberal bidding. The democrats believe if they aid millions of illegals to get into the country and then give them the right to vote, and may or may not make them citizens, those folks will vote for democrats. You best bellieve that if the democcrats believed these once illegal immigrants were voting Republican, the border would be locked down tighter than Fort Knox.

Click to expand...

Got any evidence of noncitizens voting? Provide your source por favor.

Hamish Howl said:

Sort of like Trump just violating treaties in defiance of article VI of the US Constitution?

That sort of thing, Doug?

Click to expand...

But...but...Truuuuuuuuuuuump!!!

j brown's body said:

Biden's policy is just common sense. With limited resources, ICE should focus on removing the most dangerous undocumented immigrants.

Click to expand...

If he disagrees with the law, he should seek to change it.