At the end of the proverbial day, the only thing accomplished by the Senate's doomed-from-the-start border "security" bill was a needed reminder of the depth of the chasm between patriotic Americans dedicated to protecting the sovereignty of this country and those on the left who seek to destroy it.
That, and Mitch McConnell again reminding us that the uniparty is alive and well on Capitol Hill.
So as the illegal alien invasion continues with no end in sight, the question of how we got here is worthy of examination. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, then-candidate Joe Biden virtually pledged to welcome with open arms as many illegal aliens as could scurry across the southern border, while candidate Donald Trump pledged to "build the wall."
The rest is history, and here we are.
But how did we get to "here"? In other words, what made it possible, if anything, for Biden to singlehandedly — and intentionally — become a clear and present danger to America by throwing open the southern border and refusing to enforce immigration laws that already exist?
Jonathan Turley, renowned legal scholar, writer, and political commentator, broached the subject in a recent column titled "Open Borders and Closed Courts: How the Supreme Court Laid the Seeds for the Immigration Crisis." In short, Turley argues that SCOTUS set the stage for today's illegal alien crisis more than ten years ago —during the Obama administration.
The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. U.S., if not earlier. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action.
The court declared that the states were preempted or barred from taking such action. While giving the state a small victory in allowing state officers to investigate the immigration status of a suspect with reasonable suspicion, it left little room for independent state action in the area.
[...]
At the time, many of us asked where the line would be drawn in the future, often raising the hypothetical of a president who abandons enforcement entirely or to a large extent.
Hmm. "A president who abandons enforcement entirely or to a large extent." Does anyone named Joe Biden come to mind?
Concerning Arizona v. U.S., here's the case — in plain English:
Arizona had taken the lead, in 2010, in a renewed effort by states to adopt policies that would control many of the aspects of the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had entered the U.S. without legal permission to do so.
The law has been challenged by various civil rights groups as a form of racial bias, but that was not an issue before the Supreme Court. The law also had been challenged by the federal government as unconstitutional, on the theory that Arizona was trying to move in on the federal government’s superior power to enforce federal immigration laws.
That is the challenge that the Court decided ... In the end, by a vote of 5-3, the Court nullified three of the four provisions because they either operated in areas solely controlled by federal policy, or they interfered with federal enforcement efforts.
Nullified were sections making it a crime to be in Arizona without legal papers, making it a crime to apply for or get a job in the state, or allowing police to arrest individuals who had committed crimes that could lead to their deportation.
"It took a decade," Turley wrote, "but that hypothetical seems dangerously close to reality."
Mayorkas is carrying out the policies of President Biden, who continues to praise his work and the worst record of enforcement in history. One of the first things that Biden did when coming into office was to seek to shut down policies and construction used to deter unlawful migration.
At the same time, both Biden and Mayorkas were widely viewed as supportive of those crossing the border as many Democratic cities declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented migrants pursued by ICE.
Bingo. And as we speak, both Biden and Mayorkas (with an occasional assist from Secretary of State Antony Blinken) could not be more blatant — and blatantly dishonest — about the continuing crisis, even as it spreads across the country. Turley agreed, re: the nationwide spread.
The current crisis is a practical invasion, overwhelming towns and cities across the country. No state faces a greater danger than Texas.
[...]
States have also tried to go to court to enforce these laws in cases like Arizona v. United States and, most recently, in U.S. v. Texas. They have often found the courts closed to them. The courts have denied standing to sue in many cases or else granted sweeping authority (and preemption) over immigration.
That has left many in Congress or the states with few meaningful ways to compel enforcement of the law. This includes provisions written as mandatory “shall” obligations, which have been effectively ignored by the federal government.
The result is that many now see impeachment as the only viable option to force change. However, given Biden’s support for his actions, it is difficult to see how Mayorkas’s removal would alter policies or practices in any respect.
While Turley was correct about kicking Mayorkas to the curb, as long as Biden and his handlers remain in power, I believe if Mayorkas were gone, Team Biden would find another trained monkey to do its bidding.
This was my favorite part of Turley's analysis (emphasis, mine):
This crisis is the result of decades of court rulings expanding executive powers while limiting the ability to challenge those policies. The court’s decisions narrowing standing have been deleterious, limiting those who can challenge unlawful or unconstitutional acts by the federal government.
States such as Texas are absolutely correct that this is a breach of the original understanding with the federal government. The combination of the sweeping preemption by the courts and diminishing enforcement by the agencies has left states as mere observers to their own destruction. It is like watching your house burn down as the fire department works primarily to prevent anyone else from putting it out.
The Biden fire department is claiming that, just as it has the authority to put out fires, it has the authority to let them burn.
And burn it does — in blazing defiance of existing immigration laws, the growing threat to America, and this president's authority to stop it in its tracks, which Joe Biden continues to insist he doesn't have.
SEE MORE:
Mitch McConnell Urges GOP Senators to Vote Against the Border Security Bill
Crime and Punishment, Illegal Immigrant Edition: Who Counts the Cost?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member