In a recently filed complaint, Mark Brnovich (AG of Arizona), Austin Knudsen (AG of Montana), and Dave Yost (AG of Ohio), sued the Biden Administration over the limits it placed on what criminal illegals could be deported. As the Montana Standard reported:
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Ohio, alleges that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ policy set to go into effect Nov. 29 precludes federal immigration officials from enforcing immigration law by limiting deportation of immigrants living in the country illegally unless they meet certain aggravating circumstances.
The complaint begins by arguing “This is a suit to enforce bedrock requirements of immigration
and administrative law.” It then alleges that:
On September 30, 2021, in a brazen display of contempt for Congress’s statutory commands, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas—Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)—announced a policy that abandons DHS’s duties to enforce or implement entire swaths of immigration law. Exhibit A. Specifically, Defendants will no longer enforce immigration law against removable aliens, including the execution of final orders of removal, without some additional aggravating circumstance, such as that individual’s participation in terrorism or espionage, despite statutory mandates to act. As long as unauthorized aliens present in the United States prior to November 1, 2020, have not committed crimes related to terrorism and espionage, or do not pose egregious threats to public safety, they are not subject to deportation under this policy. And based on DHS data covering the periods before and after the issuance of similar but less far-reaching policies, on information and belief, a necessary consequence of DHS’s policy is that individuals will be released into Plaintiff States’ communities.
The complaint goes on to argue that each of the states will be deleteriously impacted by Biden’s limits on how many illegal aliens will be deported and gives examples of how that policy will harm the states.
The September 30th policy to which the complaint refers fenced off a sweeping range of “protected areas” where illegals can’t be arrested, including schools, medical facilities, houses of worship, social services establishments, emergency relief facilities, and places where funerals occur.
And that radical policy came on the back of an even more radical memo from Mayorkas in which he ordered ICE agents to desist from arresting illegal immigrants on the sole basis of their entering the country illegally. According to the new guidelines promulgated by Mayorkas, the basis of the suit, “As long as unauthorized aliens present in the United States prior to November 1, 2020, have not committed crimes related to terrorism and espionage, or do not pose egregious threats to public safety, they are not subject to deportation.”
Referencing that radical change, the suit alleges that the so-called “Permanent Guidance” “represents an attempt by the Administration to unilaterally amend the immigration laws as applied to the vast majority of the removable or inadmissible aliens in this country without the required congressional act. The Constitution and controlling statutes prevent the executive branch from effecting such a seismic change to this country’s immigration laws by executive fiat.”
Furthermore, the suit argues that “The presence of these aliens in each State—who have already
been afforded multiple opportunities to seek removal protections—violates each State’s quasi-sovereign interest in its territory and the welfare of their citizens…The unlawful policy also costs the State millions, as explained in further detail below.”
Commenting on the problem caused by the Mayorkas guidance, Montana AG Knudsen said “Law enforcement officers in Montana are doing what they can to combat crime resulting from drugs trafficked across the southern border, but we’re fighting an uphill battle until the Biden administration does its job and enforces immigration laws. The President’s attempt to release thousands of people into our communities with no consideration of their potential criminal history is a dangerous policy.”
This story syndicated with permission from Will – Trending Politics
"*" indicates required fields