{"id":35257,"date":"2021-08-28T07:49:49","date_gmt":"2021-08-28T11:49:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=35257"},"modified":"2021-08-28T07:52:31","modified_gmt":"2021-08-28T11:52:31","slug":"court-rules-against-president-dementia-on-immigration-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=35257","title":{"rendered":"Court rules against President Dementia on Immigration case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. One of the problems we had in the past, and is now happening again, are the tens of thousands of illegal aliens crossing the border and claiming asylum. When they do this, it triggers a number of things that prevent kicking their criminal buts back across the border.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

When President Trump took office, he put in place a policy that kept illegals making the claim of asylum out of the United States. It was called the \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d policy and, like many things that the Greatest President of the 21st<\/sup> Century put in place, it worked as designed. Most of the fake asylum seekers gave up and went back to their Turd World Hovels where they belong. (You want to come to America, we have a procedure to follow)<\/p>\n

One of the first things President Dementia did was revoke that policy, along with everything else that President Trump put in place to Make America Great Again. The result was a flood across the border. Now a judge has ruled against Dementia Joe\u2019s maladministration and ordered the Trump policy put back into place. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

A federal judge on Friday, <\/b>(August 13<\/b>th<\/b><\/sup>)<\/b> ordered the Biden administration to “enforce and implement” the Trump-era Remain-in-Mexico policy<\/a> in response to a lawsuit<\/a> from Texas and Missouri, which claimed that the administration\u2019s attempt to terminate the policy was illegal and harmful. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The two Republican states had sought a preliminary injunction against the administration\u2019s June 1 memo formally ending the policy — officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). They argued that the ending of the policy was in breach of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). <\/b><\/p>\n

I am NOT going to start digging into the APA or any of the other legal gobbledygook in the decision. First, I\u2019m not a lawyer, (Thank GOD!), and second, I can\u2019t be bothered. I\u2019ll let others who are of a masochistic mind do all the digging.<\/p>\n

The ruling by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk<\/a>, orders the Biden administration “to enforce and implement MPP in good faith” until it has been “lawfully rescinded” in compliance with the APA, and until the federal government has enough detention capacity to detail all migrants subject to mandatory detention.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

Well, there\u2019s some \u201cSauce for Gander.\u201d Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is a Trump judge. If this had been an Obama judge, he\/she\/it would have ruled against both the law and the states, and probably ordered the two states to start housing the criminals crossing the border. From what I can ascertain from the order, Judge Kacsmaryk is telling the maladministration that we are a nation of laws and they should try following them for a change.<\/p>\n

H<\/b>owever, it notes the injunction is narrow and also states: “Nothing in this injunction requires DHS to take any immigration or removal action nor withhold its statutory discretion towards any individual that it would not otherwise take.”<\/b><\/p>\n

However, the court has stayed the applicability of the opinion and order for 7 days to allow the government to appeal it. <\/b><\/p>\n

In other words, the Judge isn\u2019t legislating from the bench and is writing a tight decision. I suspect that may make this a bit tougher for the Maladministration to get overturned on appeal. (Unless they hit a court full of Obama judges)<\/p>\n

“My office has been leading the way nationally in fighting human trafficking, and the Biden Administration\u2019s lax border policies increase the risk for human trafficking at the border and, in turn, in Missouri,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement. “Today\u2019s massive win was crucial \u2013 re-implementing the Migrant Protection Protocols will help secure the border and fight the scourge of human trafficking.” <\/b><\/p>\n

“Together we sued, and just handed Biden yet another major loss!” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office tweeted. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Migrant Protection Protocols were put in place by President Trump in 2019 and sent illegal aliens back to Mexico until their cases could be heard. Previously, they would be released, and in most cases, would never be heard from again. The main reason that the illegals would vanish is simple. They flat out don\u2019t qualify for asylum, and if they actually went to court, would be arrested and put on a plane out of the country.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration argued that the policy ended “catch-and-release” — by which migrants were released into the U.S. — which it saw as a major pull factor drawing migrants north. Critics said the policy was cruel and led to migrants being put in danger in camps across the border.<\/b><\/p>\n

And now we have the Dementia Joe Policy of \u201cCatch and bus to another state then release and forget about.\u201d<\/p>\n

Missouri and Texas sued the administration claiming that ending the policy was both illegal in the way that it was done, and that it harmed both border states and states deeper in the interior by encouraging migrants and therefore fueling the crisis at the southern border. <\/b><\/p>\n

The lawsuit claimed some of the migrants released would commit crimes in their states, that it would lead to an increase in human trafficking, and that it would lead to higher costs for the states in areas like education and healthcare.<\/b><\/p>\n

Which is what is happening, not that President Dementia, (Who doesn\u2019t know what day it is), the Maladministration or the Communazi party cares about. It\u2019s all part of the Progressives plan to end the United States as a free and sovereign nation.<\/p>\n

The ruling found that the termination of MPP “has contributed to the current border surge” and that DHS counsel had conceded as much. The judge also noted the increase in border apprehensions from fewer than 80,000 in January to about 173,000 in April when the lawsuit was filed. In July, there were more than 212,000 encounters at the border. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The ruling found that the states have shown they will suffer injury attributable to the ending of MPP, since it leads to more migrants being released and paroled into their states. It also found that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas failed to consider a number of factors, including some of the main benefits of MPP. <\/b><\/p>\n

Mayorkas didn\u2019t \u201cFail to consider\u201d the benefits of the MPP, he ignored it outright. There is a reason that there is a move to impeach and remove him from his position as head of the DHS. He\u2019s beyond incompetent and is a direct threat to the security of the country and the safety of the American people.<\/p>\n

The ruling accuses Mayorkas of not having addressed the problems created by false asylum claims, that it discouraged migrants from traveling, or that DHS had previously found that 9 out of 10 asylum claims from Northern Triangle countries are ultimately found not to have merit.<\/b><\/p>\n

“By ignoring its own previous assessment on the importance of deterring meritless asylum applications without \u2018a reasoned analysis for the change,\u2019 defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously.” <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The ruling also accused Mayorkas of not having considered warnings that ending MPP would lead to a surge in migrants crossing the border, and that he didn\u2019t consider the costs to the states. Kacsmaryk also said he found DHS arguments, such as the potential negative effect on diplomatic relations, “unpersuasive.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

Would someone tell me why the Department of Homeland Security, (Which should be abolished in my opinion), should have any concern over diplomatic relations with other countries? Isn\u2019t that the job of the Department of State? I was under the impression that the DHS\u2019s job was to protect the United States of America from potential internal attack from our enemies. Oh wait, I forgot. The DHS considers Americans to be \u201cThe enemy,\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

While\u00a0Kacsmaryk says the court does not have the authority to tell a DHS employee which individual migrants must be enrolled in MPP, it finds that it can enjoin a blanket policy that again allows front line Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to use MPP to return migrants to Mexico. <\/b><\/p>\n

Again, we have a judge who understands the constitutional limits of his office. This is something that the Progressives have ignored for generations and we have suffered because of it. Now, thanks to President Trump, we have a number of judges on the bench who understand what their role is, and what the limits of it are. (Sadly, a few buffoons did manage to sneak in and have made a few bad rulings) Now we just need to remove all the moonbats, progressives and RINO\u2019s from congress and elect more patriotic, constitution respecting Americans to Congress. Then we need to get rid of President Dementia and Vice President Blow Job.<\/p>\n

***UPDATE***<\/h2>\n

The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision and restored the Trump Remain in Mexico policy.
\n(This is what happens when events outrun my posting abilities. Sorry)<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (2<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n