President Trump’s border agenda unleashed by double victory at Supreme Court * WorldNetDaily * by Bob Unruh
President Trump’s border agenda unleashed by double victory at Supreme Court
By Bob Unruh
President Donald Trump’s agenda to secure the U.S. border and remove as many illegal aliens as can be found, especially the criminal illegals, got a huge boost with a double victory at the U.S. Supreme Court.
One published report said his hardline immigration agenda now will be unleashed.
The rulings allow Trump to revoke temporary protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals living in the United States.
And they gave the president a more definitive authority to limit asylum seekers coming into the U.S. from Mexico.
On the first ruling, the justices held the actual law allowing for temporary protected status for designated groups “bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims.”
The 6-3 opinion, opposed only by leftist justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Jackson, said the law itself states “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”
Those involved in the case, and the “courts below” have come up with “no sound theories to overcome the plain meaning of the judicial-review bar,” the opinion said.
“Respondents’ attempt to limit the judicial-review bar to the Secretary’s ultimate ‘determination’—not any subsidiary decision—is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutory text and contradicts the administrative-law principle that subsidiary decisions merge into final agency action,” the opinion continued.
“Ironically, respondents themselves offer a race-neutral explanation for the Government’s action: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program as it has been implemented in the past.”
In fact, the opinion confirmed, “None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.”
“The Supreme Court in March agreed to review the Trump administration’s bid to revoke Temporary Protected Status status for more than 350,000 Haitian recipients and roughly 7,000 Syrian recipients living in the United States,” the Daily Mail said. “But they declined at the time to grant the administration’s request to stay a lower court order that would allow them to immediately halt TPS designations for the migrants in question.”
At this point, hundreds of thousands of individuals in the U.S. suddenly are eligible for deportation.
At the same time, the Trump administration has, in his second term, started to unravel TPS designations protecting people from at least 13 nations. Haitians were given the protected status in 2010 after an earthquake hit their home country.
The court also ruled, 6-3, to allow a “metering” policy used by the Trump administration that allows federal immigration officers to turn away asylum seekers at the Mexico border.
The justices ruled along ideological lines that migrants seeking refuge do not “arrive” in the country by “attempting, and failing, to step foot” in the United States – clearing the way for the administration to restart its so-called “turn back” policy, the report said.
Justice Samuel Alito said for the majority, “The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil.”
Sotomayor in a dissent said, “They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country. Even if the port of entry has ample capacity to inspect that person, including an available asylum officer trained to process asylum applications. Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away.”
The so-called metering system was adopted because of the flood of illegal aliens seeking entry into the United States, and the ability of immigrants to overwhelm entry services.
“The question in this case is when an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning of that phrase in two key INA provisions … when the alien is standing in Mexico at the border, or only when the alien crosses the border and enters the country?”
The opinion explained in 2016 Customs and Border Protection saw a “surge of aliens” at admission ports, sometimes in numbers “far exceeding safe and secure processing capacity.”
The “metering” plan then was adopted allowing into the U.S. only the number of aliens that athe CBP could inspect each day.
A lower court decision seemed to settle on the idea that the U.S. was required to provide admissions and inspections for everyone who arrived at the border.
However, the Supreme Court said “An alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country.” That arrival is only when the alien “crosses the border.”
Bob Unruh
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is currently a news editor for the WND News Center, and also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Read more of Bob Unruh's articles here.
Donald Trump, Immigration, Supreme Court
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
