Pirate's Cove

This seems to be one of those cases which seems to have a serious Constitutional component, where it’s being taken up because the majority on the Court want to make something happen, and it will be up to the lawyers for the states to make a good argument to Court to kill off Biden’s pro-illegal rules

SCOTUS to Hear Case Challenging Joe Biden’s ‘Sanctuary Country’ Orders

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear oral arguments in a case where states are seeking to block President Joe Biden’s so-called “sanctuary country” orders from being implemented.

In February 2021, Biden implemented a series of enforcement orders that protect most of the nation’s 11 to 22 million illegal aliens from arrest and deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Specifically, the orders prevent ICE agents from arresting and deporting most illegal aliens in the U.S. unless they are considered a threat to public safety, a threat to national security, or arrived sometime after November 2020.

In August 2021, Judge Drew Tipton of the Southern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, halting the implementation of the orders, after Texas and Louisiana sued the Biden administration. That injunction was put on hold by a three-judge panel in September 2021 but the full 17-judge Fifth Circuit vacated that decision.

The Brandon admin is going to argue today that the orders only have “incidental effect”, hence, states are not allowed to sue the federal government. And the States are arguing

First, it is contrary to law because sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) mandate detention, as this Court has repeatedly stated. DHS identifies no INA provision that prevents this Court from reaching that conclusion. Second, the Final Memorandum is arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider important aspects of the problems criminal aliens create, including recidivism and States’ reliance interests. Third, the Final Memorandum is procedurally invalid because it was not adopted through notice-and-comment procedures, which are required where agency action substantively changes a regulatory regime. [Emphasis added]

Interesting arguments. I’m no lawyer, but, perhaps they should be straight up arguing that federal law requires illegal aliens to be deported, and that the Constitution requires the federal government to protect the borders? Sometimes, lawyers can get a bit too cute.

Someone in the Breitbart comments makes a good point

Trump showed exactly how to easily fix the illegal immigration problem. Just reinstate his policies (plus add a few others he wasn’t able to at the time, and it’d be even better).

? Actually enforce existing laws
? Remain in Mexico to await legal hearings for asylum
? Loudly publicize that they will NOT be released in to the nation
? Loudly publicize that they will be returned to their starting country
? Loudly publicize that if caught a second time, they will be criminally prosecuted
? Finish the wall
? Deport all illegals caught, especially those with any criminal offenses
? Detain all caught until they can be deported – no more catch and release
? E-verify or clear proof of citizenship for hiring (Trump didn’t manage to implement that one, unfortunately)
? Make it clear that they will NOT get amnesty, and will NOT get citizenship
? Make it clear that they are welcome to come here legally – but if they do so illegally, they will be treated as criminals
? Deport back to their home nations, not just across the border into Mexico where they can turn right around and easily try again
? Go after visa overstays rather than ignoring them (Trump didn’t implement this one either)
? Stop giving them welfare, food stamps, etc.

Well, yes.