We might have finally started to put money toward maybe hopefully starting to build that border wall, but that’s just the tip of the problems with America’s immigration system.
Case in point: a three-judge panel of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just invalidated a lawsuit by Kate Steinle’s parents against the city of San Francisco and former sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, over the latter giving ICE the shaft and releasing the illegal immigrant who went on to murder her.
The facts of the case are “undeniably tragic,” but the sheriff was well within his authority when he issued a memo that limited his department’s cooperation with immigration officials, 9th Circuit Judge Mark Bennett said. Bennett was nominated to the court by Trump, a frequent critic of the 9th Circuit.
“The tragic and unnecessary death of Steinle may well underscore the policy argument against Sheriff Mirkarimi’s decision to bar his employees from providing the release date of a many times convicted felon to ICE,” Bennett said. “But that policy argument can be acted upon only by California’s state and municipal political branches of government, or perhaps by Congress.”
Federal immigration laws cited by the plaintiffs also did not require Mirkarimi to provide Garcia-Zarate’s release date, Bennett said.
Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz explains the truth behind this madness:
It’s not surprising that the Ninth Circuit would shield San Francisco from a lawsuit stemming from violating federal immigration law. The court itself just violated federal law by illegally adjudicating a case to grant constitutional habeas corpus rights for illegal aliens to obtain endless appeals. Yep, they are willing to give illegal aliens standing to sue when statute explicitly denies the courts such power, but will never hear cases from the families of citizens killed by illegal aliens.
In a vacuum, it’s understandable why, absent a direct federal or state grant of action to sue, a judge might dismiss this claim on grounds that public officials are immune.
As the three-judge panel wrote, “The tragic and unnecessary death of Steinle may well underscore the policy argument against Sheriff Mirkarimi’s decision to bar his employees from providing the release date of a many times convicted felon to ICE.” What is indefensible, though, is how this same court grants illegal aliens the right to access federal courts when Congress has explicitly barred it.
Somehow, we only become sticklers for discretionary immunity to shield government officials from lawsuits when it comes to victims of illegal aliens, but illegal aliens themselves can sue any law enforcement that follows federal law.
Every decent American needs to be outraged by this. More importantly, though, we need to channel that outrage into action, into pressuring Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans into fighting for two main causes.
First, the crackdown on sanctuary cities we voted for in 2016: defund them, prosecute rogue leaders, the works.
Second, a long-overdue crackdown on judicial anarchy.
The first reform that comes to mind is either splitting up or outright abolishing the Ninth Circuit (which only exists due to an act of Congress), but as we discussed last week, there’s more that can and should be explored — for instance, limiting courts’ jurisdiction over hot-button issues, doing away with lifetime appointments, or supermajority congressional vetoes of SCOTUS rulings.
This is the real swamp, and we haven’t even started to drain it. Will we ever?
Thanks to our good friends at The Federalist Papers for permission to republish this material.