An alien who seeks political rights as a member of this nation can rightfully obtain them only upon terms and conditions specified by Congress. Courts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications; their duty is rigidly to enforce the legislative will in respect of a matter so vital to the public welfare. ~U.S. v. Ginsberg, 1917.
There was once a time when the Left relied on the executive branch to thwart immigration laws and make denizens of illegal aliens. Now that there is a president committed to actually enforcing the spirit and letter of our sovereignty laws, the Left has successfully gotten the courts to codify prior executive derelictions as the law instead of our actual statutes.
Despite being slapped down multiple times by the Supreme Court, lower court judges continue to violate rules of standing and create rights for foreign nationals to come here in multiple ways. They have no such power, but until the executive branch stands its ground and refuses to enforce those rulings, Obama’s third term will continue. And no, the Supreme Court will not put an end to this charade.
It’s truly hard to conjure up a greater judicial power grab than for a judge to demand that the Trump administration grant green cards to foreign nationals who seek to access welfare programs. It is settled law that foreign nationals have no standing for the right to immigrate or the right to seek welfare because they are not rights. Moreover, the public charge laws have been on the books since colonial times and have been codified by Congress since 1996. Those laws were never followed. When Trump implements just a modest enforcement of what those existing laws were trying to accomplish, a single New York judge called it "repugnant" and said it has "no rational basis" and issued a nationwide injunction against it in October. Irony might be dead, but the state of New York, which is the plaintiff in this case, was among the first to implement laws to prevent impoverished immigrants from landing.
Freeze-frame. Right at this point, the Trump administration should have declared the ruling null and void the same way the judge declared an injunction on Trump’s implementation of foundational law. Yet, unlike the judge, he actually has the power to enforce this because the issuance of green cards is an executive function. Nobody is discussing criminally punishing immigrants, which would intersect with judicial power. The case at hand is one of immigration benefits, which is solely within the province of executive power. That is how separation of powers works, yet now that the Trump administration has conceded that every district judge ruling, no matter how illegal, supersedes executive power, we have district judges sitting atop the political food chain, even when the Supreme Court already sided with the administration.
Thus, even after losing in higher courts, the Left brazenly comes back for another injunction. On Wednesday, the liberal Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction of New York District Judge George B. Daniels against the public charge policy, despite the fact that two of the most liberal circuits – the Ninth and the Fourth – have already stayed parallel injunctions issued by district judges in Washington and Maryland respectively. Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled the president can deny entry to anyone and place conditions on entry, per 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). For the administration to obsequiously accede to a New York judge in a case like this after the Ninth Circuit expressed in categorical terms last month that the “Executive Branch has been afforded the discretion” to continue would be an exercise in self-immolation.
Consider the absurd outcome here. Two of the most liberal circuits have already taken off nationwide injunctions, but we are to believe that another circuit can empower a New York judge to issue his own nationwide injunction? Is it that hard for Attorney General Barr to issue a statement and note that, per Clarence Thomas’ opinion, this practice is unconstitutional? Unless a different course is taken, if 93 district courts say Trump is right and one says he is wrong, the policy can still be enjoined nationwide.
Moreover, nobody is even paying attention to the absurdity of the standing in this case. The plaintiffs are the states of Vermont, New York, and Connecticut. Even if Trump were wrong on the merits of the law, how could states get standing to demand more immigrants to access welfare? The Supreme Court in Arizona v. U.S. already said that immigration policy is so federal in nature that a state cannot even complement and supplement the federal enforcement policy. But now courts are saying that states are so strong they can get standing to demand the feds bring in more immigrants. Then again, these same courts are saying states have power to thwart enforcement against illegal immigration; they just don’t have power to help enforce it. Up is down and down is up.