It may surprise you to learn that the most common type of case federal prosecutors bring is not for drugs or fraud, as many think. As reported by The Washington Times, that honor goes to cases against illegal aliens who try to reenter the country after having been deported. And almost all those charged are Hispanic, of course.
Now, according to The Times, federal courts are facing the ridiculous question of whether the “imbalance” in deportations means U.S. immigration law is… wait for it… racist.
Ridiculous? One court in Nevada has ruled it means exactly that.
Judge Miranda Du, an Obama appointee [no kidding?], said the section of immigration law that makes it a felony for an illegal alien previously ousted to sneak back into the country “has racist antecedents dating to the 1920s.” This is insane.
Though the law has been updated since then, noted The Times, Congress has never “confronted the racist, nativist roots” of the law, Du ruled. She said that fact — coupled with the overwhelmingly Hispanic targets for prosecution — makes the law unconstitutional. This is beyond insane.
Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Immigration Law and Policy Center at UCLA School of Law and a noted scholar on the history of the illegal-reentry law, told The Times in an interview earlier this year:
If we are trying to uproot systemic racism, that means we have to consciously understand what motivated a law’s original enactment, and then make the conscious decision whether we want to change it or whether we want to continue it.
What difference does the motivation behind the enactment of the law make?
The section of the illegal reentry law in question, section 1326 of Title VIII of the U.S. Code, governs “reentry of removed aliens,” noted The Times.
Those found guilty of reentry can be sentenced to up to two years in prison. Those with drug records or a basic felony on their criminal record can face up to 10 years, or 20 years if they have an aggravated felony record. Whether or not any of that happens to any degree of effectiveness is another story.
Kris Kobach, a former Republican secretary of state in Kansas and prominent legal figure among groups pushing for stricter immigration control thinks the judge’s ruling is ridiculous, as transcribed by The Times.
The judge’s conclusions are ridiculous. The law is neutral on its face, and it is justified by a multitude of legitimate reasons having nothing to do with race.
It is nonsense to declare that the statute must be ‘cleansed’ in some way because an unknown number of legislators who supported a predecessor statute a century ago might have been racially biased.
Obviously, Kobach is a white supremacist.
But Kobach was right. “Ridiculous” doesn’t even begin to describe this latest example of “progressive” insanity. As I’ve suggested multiple times in the past and will undoubtedly continue to suggest in the future, everything Democrats support, oppose, propose, or reject can be connected to the ballot box with no more than two dots.
And now, inflicted with a special kind of stoopid in which everything known to mankind is rooted in systemic racism and white supremacy, Democrat insanity is off the charts. But here’s the thing: If pollsters stood on the Southern border and found that the majority of illegal aliens streaming across Biden’s porous border would vote overwhelmingly Republican if ever given the right to vote, the Democrats would be frantically doing everything they can in an effort to keep them the hell out of the country. Cases like this one would not exist.
The Biden Border Crisis™ would not exist. Sanity would prevail.
At least on the border.
Related on RedState: