Recent Supreme Court rulings have given the Trump administration some comfort in that immigration policy is slowing coming around.
That gives us some hope, especially here in Texas, that the border will become a bit more safe by being a bit more challenging to cross.
The new ruling by the John Roberts and the Supremes allows asylum seekers to be turned away without a trial at the border, provided they have not reached U.S. soil. Essentially, the sovereignty of the state was bolstered, and we get to decide who we want to cross over. No more open-borders nonsense.
A second ruling which has got the Democrat leadership in a frothing tizzy is that the Temporary Protected Status designation will become just that — temporary — for Haitian and Syrian immigrants.
The administration had attempted to end the TPS status for 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians, but, as has been de rigeur in the second Trump presidency for anything the administration attempted, lawsuits were filed and federal judges blocked the move.
The U.S. Supreme Court put the kibosh on that, which according to many, will make immigration enforcement easier for the Department of Homeland Security.
So, as in the proverbial broken clock, twice that day it was right. (There was a third ruling which makes it easier for DHS to deport green card holders who have been convicted of crimes, but that ruins the whole clock metaphor, so we’ll just say they know common sense when they see it. At least, the conservatively bent justices did.)
Since the judiciary issued those edicts, predictably, certain sects of society (read: liberals) are rending their clothes and donning sackcloth at the utter racism shown by the country; at the partisan politics pervasive in D.C., since the justices simply love siding with Trump; and at the complete disregard for humanity that the government has in wanting to send those productive pillars of our economy back.
Many on the conservative side ask the question: what is the definition of temporary? It does happen to be the underlying premise to the program, yet there are many cases of people remaining in the country for decades on the basis of a “temporary” program, which gives quite a bit of credence to Milton Friedman’s saying, “There’s nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”
I always have advocated for a robust immigration program, because I wouldn’t be here if not for my mother being able to come to this country. The difference is that she followed the rules — the law, if you will — and didn’t take advantage of this country and its benefits.
While I applaud the court for its re-establishment of the rule of law, there are two things that chew on the back of my brain, and that is the continued use of the courts to circumvent the separation of powers, and the fact that emotion is used in determining the legal validity of policy, not the law.
For instance, federal judges recently ruled that proof of citizenship was not required for registering to vote, and to limit sending mail-in ballots only to voters that are on an established list of registered voters.
It’s not up to the judges to determine the course of the country in establishing immigration and election parameters, yet the lawfare continues. At least, though, there were a few cases nudging the ship of state in the right direction.
Tony Farkas is editor of the San Jacinto News-Times and the Trinity County News-Standard. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
