Saturday, March 16, 2013

Dictatorship Of The Pseudo-Kritarchs

Or, more accurately, the kritarch wannabes.  Actually, in this case, the "judges" in question, are, in fact, Executive Branch employees, nothing more than any other bureaucrat in the Executive Branch.  But in this case the kritarchs desire to emulate the dictator wannabes in the Judicial Branch.  And the issue melds with the ongoing Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty for illegal aliens.  

For some time, radicals in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), part of the Department of Justice, the so-called immigration courts, have desired to impose their own will on both Congress and the President, creating their own immigration law enforcement system in imitation of the coup d'etat directed at the Constitution by the FDR and Warren Courts.  Both sought in their own way the overthrow of the historical Constitution and its replacement with radical leftist contempt for the separation of powers between the Federal government and the States.  The FDR courts sought to insert the Federal government in the smallest economic decisions by the citizenry and the Warren Court, even more radicalized, sought to impose its own moral system on the States, destroying traditional law enforcement, causing stunning increase crime, fomenting a race war of black on white violence, and imposing a racial spoils system on the nation based on preferences in all areas for non-whites over whites.

The cadre of hearing officers in the EOIR is envious of the raw power and independence of the Federal judiciary and wishes to become more like it, creating its own power center in the area of immigration law.  And they don't want to more actively enforce the law, but develop and expand their own immigration amnesty as this blog has reported.

The first connection is that one of the rationalizations of the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty and its "prosecutorial discretion" is that the EOIR is overwhelmed with cases, all the fault of Congress who allow aliens to access to such a system and the Regimes, past and present, who refuse to enforce Expedited Removal, and cases need to be dismissed so the EOIR can deal with a reasonable case load. 

No surprises, as the wholesale dismissal of cases by the Obama Regime has not impacted the EOIR burden.

TRAC March 13, 2013 
Immigration Court Backlog Reaches New High 
(13 Mar 2013) The number of cases awaiting resolution before the Immigration Courts has risen along with the average time these pending cases have been waiting. As of the end of February 2013, the backlog has reached a new all-time high of 325,296. 
According to the very latest data obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), that total rose by 1,571 just during February. 
The court backlog is now 9.3 percent higher than it was at the end of FY 2011 when ICE Director John Morton announced a review of cases designed to reduce both the backlog and wait times. Instead, the backlog has increased, and the average time cases have been waiting to be heard has jumped to 553 days, compared with 489 days at the end of FY 2011 when the review began.


It appears that one of the ostensible reasons for the Regime's lawlessness has been completely discredited and John Morton exposed as a liar.  Par for the course with the Regime though.

But on top of this failure, the agitators in the cadre of EOIR hearing officers is a assault on the Constitution.  Minor functionaries, following the Regime's example of contempt for the Constitution and the separation of powers between the Legislative and the Executive, have announced their own Administrative Amnesty.

San Antonio Express-News March 14, 2013 by Jason Buch 
Migrant Courts Get More Latitude 
With immigration courts still backlogged more than a year after the Obama administration launched a controversial policy to close certain deportation cases, the nation's top immigration judge has encouraged colleagues to take matters into their own hands. 
In a memo issued this month, Chief Immigration Judge Brian O'Leary wrote that judges are “encouraged to consider” a landmark ruling from last year that allows them to close deportation cases over the objection of prosecutors. 
The decision was hailed by immigration lawyers, who said it will help relieve heavy dockets of languishing cases. San Antonio had the second-largest backlog in the state with 10,000 cases pending last year. 
But a former immigration judge criticized the guidelines as sending the message that immigration laws won't be enforced, adding that administrative closure, which puts deportation proceedings on the shelf, leaves immigrants in legal limbo. 
The recommendation to consider closing cases despite the government's objection came in a memo in which O'Leary lamented the backlog in the nation's immigration courts.

This is all the more shocking since any case that remains after the Regime's wholesale dismissal of cases must be quite significant, but the Kritarch O'Leary is clearly seeking to make the EOIR a fourth branch of government, beyond the law and Constitution.  His ambition and thirst for power is readily apparent.  

But note that the Regime has not brought this minor functionary in the Department of Justice to heel, so it must be part of their ongoing Administrative Amnesty.  It is of interest that any objection in the story is from a retired immigration judge, not a Regime spokesman upset by the Constitutional overreach of a bureaucrat.

As if to signal their further contempt for the law, an immigration judge has decided that getting propositioned in the streets is now a basis for asylum in the United States.

ILW.com (The Treason Bar) March 15, 2013 by David Cleveland 
Immigration Judge Grants Asylum To a Woman from El Salvador Who Rebuffed Romance from a Gang Member 
Immigration Judge Amy C. Hoogasian granted asylum to a woman from El Salvador who refused to be the girlfriend of a MS-13 gang member, in a 16-page Decision dated November 7, 2012. 
“Women in El Salvador” is a cognizable particular social group, ruled the Judge. 
Facts 
In September 2009, respondent met a MS-13 gang member named El Crazy at a bus stop. She met him three more times that month. At first, El Crazy was merely forward and aggressive, as he asked her to be his girlfriend. But, as respondent kept on rejecting him, El Crazy became angry.* At their last meeting, he shouted “I’ll kill you.” 
Respondent did not report anything to the police, because “members of MS-13 are well-known for abusing and raping women, and the police do not help such women.” 
 Respondent fled El Salvador in October 2009, and testified in court in 2011.* She admitted that El Crazy did not know her name, nor where she lived.
Country conditions evidence 
The parties submitted “hundreds of pages of country conditions evidence.”The Immigration Judge found that the national police and the judiciary “suffered from inefficiency, corruption, political infighting, and insufficient resources.” 
 “Substantial corruption in the judiciary contributed to a high level of impunity…The criminal conviction rate was less than five percent.” Id. 
“Intimidation and killing of police officers, crime victims, and witnesses created a climate of fear complicating investigation of violent crime and alleged human rights abuses.” Id. at 7. 
“Additionally, street gang intimidation and violence against witnesses contributed to a climate of impunity from criminal prosecution.” Id. *Gang members “frequently utilize intimidation and violence against others and have been responsible for killings of police officers.” Id. at 14. 
“El Salvador has one of the highest murder rates in the world.” Id.at 7 [emphasis added].

All of interest especially since El Salvador's crime rate has declined 40%.  But despite El Salvador's murder rate of 71 per 100,000 it is still higher than Detroit's at 54 per 100,000.  However, having a high crime rate or a high rate of murder of police officers does not give any person the right to live in the United States. If that were so, then much of the world would have a right to live here.  And that does not give one any reasonable standard.  Don't men in El Salvador also have a right not to be murdered?  Does everyone in El Salvador have a right to asylum in the United States?  Doesn't everyone have a right not to be murdered.  That would make any murder rate anywhere a valid reason for asylum.  Essentially the immigration judge here, Hoogasian, has decided that she wants as many immigrants here as possible and will reach that conclusion in all cases, the law and Constitution be damned.

But, of course, it is not the facts of any particular case, or any social conditions, or any imagined social group.  

The point of this decision by the Kritarch Hoogasian, much like her Chief Kritarch O'Leary, is the claim of power, taking from the Legislative Branch that is responsible for making immigration law, and giving to the Executive, an assault on the Constitution and its separation of powers.  Hoogasian and O"Leary are contemptuous of the Constitution and seek to establish their own branch of government in violation of the Constitution.  All for the purpose of electing a new people.  A new people that will have a very high murder rate if we keep giving asylum to people from such violent societies.

It is time for impeachment.
 

No comments: