A modest proposal
to accommodate the needs of those unlawfully present within the United States
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an important case, U.S. v. Texas1, concerning border security and immigration. Federal immigration laws affecting those who seek to qualify for “refugee” status and claim “asylum” in the U.S. on the basis of credible fear of persecution at home have not changed. But under the Biden administration’s “open border” plan, policies concerning the treatment of those who arrive at our southwest border with Mexico have been turned on their head.
When Biden took office, the policies under which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforces U.S. immigration law made a radical shift. Starting in January 2021, rather than detain asylum seekers (as the law requires) while their claims are investigated, or have them wait in Mexico, the policy has been to grant “parole” into the United States with an understanding that asylum seekers would appear before an immigration judge at some point down the road. Although many, if not most, “asylum seekers” now arriving at our borders are not refugees eligible for asylum, the administration has opened up the definition of “asylum” to apply to practically anyone who asks.
These changes in policy were quickly understood — throughout Latin America and eventually the world — to mean the door was open to all comers. Without the deterrent effect of an unpleasant detention period (or having to wait indefinitely across the border in Mexico) only to risk being denied “asylum” and entry to the U.S., the floodgates opened. News reports, on the basis of leaks from DHS employees and confirmation from border county sheriff’s departments, say that asylum seekers are not being screened, and are being paroled into the U.S. without identity documents and without background checks.
Another change in policy concerns the treatment of criminal aliens and aliens ordered removed, whether apprehended at the border or from within the interior of the United States. Although federal law requires removal, DHS Secretary Mayorkas’ 2021 “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law” directs Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officers to prioritize which aliens they will arrest, detain and remove. In practical effect, Secretary Mayorkas has virtually suspended nearly all deportations.
The states of Texas and Louisiana joined in a suit against the Biden administration, seeking a federal court to require DHS to change its (non-)enforcement policies and, well, enforce the law. But although the laws in question state the executive agency “shall” detain and remove, the Supreme Court decided — in an 8-1 vote — that Mayorkas’ non-deportation policy amounts to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that, on the basis of past precedent, the states did not have the right (or “standing”) to challenge.
By disposing of the case on the threshold issue of the plaintiff states’ “standing,” the court avoided having to decide the merits of the states’ legal challenge.
Sadly, the majority’s reliance on history and precedent found in dusty tomes assumes — incorrectly — that Mayorkas’ DHS is acting in good faith in its exercise of discretion. Had the eight justices stepped outside into the sunlight, touched the grass on the National Mall, and asked the newly arrived immigrants they’d inevitably encounter in The District how it was that they were granted entry into the country without entry visas or court-adjudicated legal status, the justices might have had some insight into Mayorkas’ DHS.
Had they turned off NPR and instead tuned in to, perhaps, Real America’s Voice, they would have seen the images of illegal immigrants by the score — by the busload in fact — being dropped off just outside the ports of entry or at gaps in the border wall. Had they scanned the front page of the New York Post, they might have read headlines like, “'Root causes' aren't behind migrant surge — it's open borders,” or “Face to face with cartels smuggling migrants through holes in the wall.”
But the reality is, they’re here. Since Biden took office, an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants have either been “processed” and dispatched into the country through official ports of entry, or they “gotaway” through gaps in the border, with no inspection or identity check. An unprecedented state of affairs.
Unfortunately, eight members of the Supreme Court apparently do not recognize the importance of the rule of law, and how the “thin blue line” of law enforcement protects order from succumbing to chaos. What permits human beings to live together in a civilized society is our common respect for law and order that can only come with the predictable application of the law.
The executive branch of government is responsible for executing and enforcing the law and maintaining the line. The Biden administration is failing in its responsibility, and in dismissing the states’ legal challenge without reviewing the merits, SCOTUS refuses to see.
But Justice Kavanaugh need not consider the thin blue line — he may take it for granted. It’s always there in the background, keeping him safe, and his family. In more than two centuries of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence there is simply no precedent for a cabinet secretary of an executive branch agency, entrusted with the vast responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security, to abdicate his essential duties to secure the homeland.
The unprecedented — even incomprehensible — situation in which we now find ourselves requires the court to function with sober minds that are open to reviewing the evidence of the secretary’s dereliction of duty, even possibly of treason. Who should be more cognizant of the depravities men are capable of than those who sit in judgment over other men?
How is it possible we have a Supreme Court that does not understand this, Justice Kavanaugh?
On a classic episode of the Dick Van Dyke Show, Rob invites his boss home for dinner. He really wants to impress his boss. Only he forgets to let Laura know ahead of time. When Rob and his boss show up at the Petrie house, Laura is surprised. But she wants to be sweet about it and somehow manages to serve a fancy, impressive dinner, and everyone has a great time. Such a model American couple.
Following the example of Laura Petrie, whose husband brought an extra guest to dinner without advance notice, I propose it is only reasonable that Tanya Mayorkas must graciously accept asylum seekers into her home. It’s the correct and proper thing to do. It’s the humane thing to do. It’s the American thing to do.
All seven million of them.
In my view, when someone brings an extra surprise guest to a dinner party, or even a wedding, the correct response is simply to welcome him or her and to find an extra chair. The more the merrier! Even if the guest may be dressed inappropriately for the occasion, or unable to participate in conversation due to a language barrier, or if he finds the food served is not to his liking — oh well, vive la différence!
If two extra guests, or three, or four arrive, well — how festive! We can make it an occasion to celebrate the meeting of new people and perhaps make new friends. Maybe small plates on a buffet, instead of a plated dinner?
If a dozen or so strangers arrive, and they’re already inside the house when the hostess greets them — what now? The more the merrier!!
After all, it’s not like these individuals are wanted criminals, or violent gang members, or foreign terrorists! Right?!
And if they are sick, if they need beds to sleep in and clean clothes to wear, well, hospitality demands that we still embrace them and introduce them to our children, right?
All seven million.
Anyone who has travelled internationally in the past 20 years knows that in order to board a plane one must have a valid passport, perhaps an entry visa, vaccinations and other documentation, and one’s name must not appear on a terror watch list. After all, these are the requirements set by the Department of Homeland Security — the agency founded in 2002 in direct response to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. The agency whose express mandate is to protect the United States against unlawful entry by foreign terrorists. So, obviously, the people who enter the U.S. have all been thoroughly screened and have permission to be in the country, right?
But we are also a nation of compassion. If someone, let’s say a single military-aged male, appeared at an airport boarding gate without ID — without even a paid ticket — but demanded a seat on an international flight to the United States, surely the waiting passengers would stand aside and insist that he be allowed to board. Because it’s the compassionate thing to do. We don’t know what horrors he must be fleeing, to so desperately require an immediate flight out of the country! Right?
And if an entire family without passports made the same demand — well, surely our compassion knows no bounds, especially where women and children are concerned! Just imagine the grave dangers they must be facing, perhaps from climate change in their home country — wherever that may be. We must immediately stand aside and make room for them on the next available flight to their chosen destination. Right?
If we are a nation of kindness and compassion, and if it is our custom to welcome strangers, and if we accept one, or a family, or a dozen with open arms … why should we treat seven million any differently?
Right?
Image courtesy Gilbert Maza
U.S. v. Texas, docket no. 22-58, slip op. 599 U.S. __ (Jun. 23, 2023). Available: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf