Another Federal judge—not even a judge, but a lowly magistrate—has taken it upon himself to begin the process to judicially impose the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) on the nation. And I did warn my readers and President Trump about both the kritarch and DACA menace to society.
SEATTLE – A federal magistrate recommended Tuesday that the case of a Mexican man who was picked up by immigration agents near Seattle despite participating in a federal program for those brought to the country illegally as children remain in federal court and not in immigration court. The judge also declined to immediately release 24-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina while the case proceeds.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue denied the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case brought by Ramirez, saying arguments that his constitutional rights were violated should be heard in U.S. District Court. Lawyers for Ramirez say his rights were violated with his February arrest and detention because Ramirez is a current Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program recipient.
Government attorneys had argued that under federal immigration law, Ramirez could challenge his detention in immigration court, a system within the Justice Department. But Donohue said Ramirez’s claims are “independent of his removal” from the country.
[Judge Denies DOJ Request To Dismiss Seattle ‘Dreamer’ Case, by Lisa Baumann, Spokesman Review, March 14, 2017]
In the case of immigration arrests, aliens cannot challenge the arrest, but only being held in custody, and that through the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), though in recent days other Federal courts have interfered with such decisions.
The judges of the EOIR are generally quite generous with bonds, which explains why so few illegal aliens appear for their deportation hearings. However, the initial arrest is never challenged in Federal court. The facts of the case are then argued before the EOIR in a hearing to determine alienage or removability, e.g. whether the person in question is an alien and if that alien can be deported. The alien can claim he is not an alien, e.g. is a U.S. citizen, or more likely admit alienage, and claim lawful presence, or claim some sort of relief from deportation.
Basically, Magistrate Donohue is setting the groundwork for sending all immigration cases to Federal Article III courts rather than the administrative law process at the EOIR, something that the Treason Bar has long sought.
And other judges have not been shy at claiming authority over other aspects of immigration law assigned by Congress to the Executive Branch.
A Federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his new travel ban against a Syrian family looking to escape their war-torn homeland by fleeing to Wisconsin.Worse yet, those family members are outside the United States and the judge's order includes instruction to begin processing the application.The ruling likely is the first by a judge since Trump issued a revised travel ban on Monday, according to a spokesman for the Washington state attorney general, who has led states challenging the ban.
[Judge: Revised Trump Ban Can't Be Enforced On Syrian Family Trying To Flee To Wisconsin, by Todd Richmond, AP/Chicago Tribune, March 10, 2017]
After the Trump ban was blocked the first time, the approval process restarted for the Syrian family and they're now preparing to travel to Jordan for visa interviews at the U.S. embassy, the last step before U.S. customs officials decide whether to issue them visas. But the family doesn't have dates for the interviews yet and Trump's new travel ban goes into effect March 16, stirring fears that the process could halt again before visas are issued, according to the Syrian man's attorneys.
Note that though they are allegedly in such danger, they did not flee Aleppo to refugee camps in Jordan, but they remained in Aleppo for about three years. Why?Because their claim is fraudulent.
The justices in the majority gave two separate reasons. Justice Antonin Scalia said the wife did not have a constitutional right to sue on behalf of her husband, who is not a U.S. citizen. She claims this "deprived her of her constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse. There is no such constitutional right," he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas agreed.
Taking a narrower approach, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the wife may have such a right, but officials had given her a sufficient reason for barring her husband. The government "satisfied due process when it notified Din's husband his visa was denied under the immigration's statute's terrorism bar," he wrote. Justice Samuel Alito agreed, making a majority.
[Fremont Woman Loses Supreme Court Appeal To Get Visa For Afghan Husband, by David Savage, LAT, June 15, 2015]The Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, spoken on the issue, but lower level kritarchs are ignoring those decisions, including the recent decision in the Arizona Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act decision:
The Federal Government's broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations.
[Arizona v. United States, FindLaw, June 25, 2012]In defiance of an abundantly clear Supreme Court, kritarchs are creating a dictatorship and most likely doing so because of the death of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia. President Trump will have a hard row to hoe now, especially because the Legislative Branch, led by Paul Ryan, will not impeach these kritarchs. We are at a crossroads, dictatorship looms. Who will do what to whom?
