excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,149
- 34,380
- 2,290
Really? Shocking. Well, not. Biden is the one who threw the border wide open the first day he was installed in office.
And now it appears he’s colluding with far-left open border types. Represent the America people? Not Joe Biden.
www.washingtontimes.com
And now it appears he’s colluding with far-left open border types. Represent the America people? Not Joe Biden.
A federal appeals court judge berated the Biden administration on Wednesday for seemingly underhanded legal tactics in a key immigration case, accusing the Justice Department of “colluding” with the ACLU and other immigrant rights advocates to surrender a major new get-tough policy.
Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the Biden team seemed to be trying to derail the case so it didn’t reach the Supreme Court and unravel years of migrant-friendly rulings out of the famously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The judge said the administration may be trying to avoid a politically embarrassing loss, or it may be engaged in a subterfuge where it is working with the activists to try to get an outcome that would tie the hands of a future president who was more interested in stiff enforcement.
Whatever the motive, he said, the government is involved in political shenanigans.
“At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year,” wrote Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee.
...
The thinking is that an actual refugee fleeing government persecution could claim asylum in the first country it comes to. That suggests those who cross several Central American nations and Mexico on their way to the U.S. are more like traditional migrants than asylum seekers.
Immigrant rights groups recoiled at the rule and sued to stop it.
For months, the Biden administration fiercely opposed the immigration activists. Government lawyers told the judges that the border could fall into a total breakdown if the asylum rule were overturned.
Yet now the administration has linked arms with its opponents — including the American Civil Liberties Union — and asked the judges to put the case on ice while it negotiates a settlement.
The court agreed, in a 2-1 decision.
Judge VanDyke dissented, saying they were allowing the administration to game the system.
“Either it previously lied to this court by exaggerating the threat posed by vacating the rule, or it is now hiding the real reason it wants to hold this case in abeyance,” he wrote.
He said the case smacked of the sort of deal-making that takes place between liberal administrations and like-minded activists. The playbook calls for the activists to sue, then the administration to mount a weak defense or no defense at all, eventually agreeing to a settlement that binds the government to actions or policies that both sides really wanted all along.
...
He said the administration appeared to have a strong argument on its side of the case, so the decision to seek settlement was odd — particularly because “it is clear enough that the government is destined to prevail before the Supreme Court.”
“Given all of this, it’s hard to avoid any impression other than that the administration is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — purposely avoiding an ultimate win that would eventually come later this year, whether from this court or from the Supreme Court,” he said.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the Biden team seemed to be trying to derail the case so it didn’t reach the Supreme Court and unravel years of migrant-friendly rulings out of the famously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The judge said the administration may be trying to avoid a politically embarrassing loss, or it may be engaged in a subterfuge where it is working with the activists to try to get an outcome that would tie the hands of a future president who was more interested in stiff enforcement.
Whatever the motive, he said, the government is involved in political shenanigans.
“At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year,” wrote Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee.
...
The thinking is that an actual refugee fleeing government persecution could claim asylum in the first country it comes to. That suggests those who cross several Central American nations and Mexico on their way to the U.S. are more like traditional migrants than asylum seekers.
Immigrant rights groups recoiled at the rule and sued to stop it.
For months, the Biden administration fiercely opposed the immigration activists. Government lawyers told the judges that the border could fall into a total breakdown if the asylum rule were overturned.
Yet now the administration has linked arms with its opponents — including the American Civil Liberties Union — and asked the judges to put the case on ice while it negotiates a settlement.
The court agreed, in a 2-1 decision.
Judge VanDyke dissented, saying they were allowing the administration to game the system.
“Either it previously lied to this court by exaggerating the threat posed by vacating the rule, or it is now hiding the real reason it wants to hold this case in abeyance,” he wrote.
He said the case smacked of the sort of deal-making that takes place between liberal administrations and like-minded activists. The playbook calls for the activists to sue, then the administration to mount a weak defense or no defense at all, eventually agreeing to a settlement that binds the government to actions or policies that both sides really wanted all along.
...
He said the administration appeared to have a strong argument on its side of the case, so the decision to seek settlement was odd — particularly because “it is clear enough that the government is destined to prevail before the Supreme Court.”
“Given all of this, it’s hard to avoid any impression other than that the administration is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — purposely avoiding an ultimate win that would eventually come later this year, whether from this court or from the Supreme Court,” he said.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Federal judge lashes out at Biden DOJ over ‘colluding’ with activists on major immigration case
A federal appeals court judge berated the Biden administration for seemingly underhanded legal tactics in a key immigration case, accusing the Justice Department of “colluding” with the ACLU and other immigrant rights advocates to surrender a major new get-tough policy.
www.washingtontimes.com
