Biden’s Department of Justice was lambasted by a federal appeals court judge for allegedly colluding with the ACLU and other immigrant rights advocates to surrender a major new get-tough policy, according to The Washington Times.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke accused the Biden team of attempting to derail the case to avoid a Supreme Court hearing that could undo years of migrant-friendly rulings out of the infamously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A federal appeals court judge berated the Biden administration on Wednesday for seemingly underhanded legal tactics in a key immigration case, accusing the Justice Department of "colluding" with the ACLU and other immigrant rights advocates to… https://t.co/g6u8FaFgTy
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) February 22, 2024
The case concerns an asylum policy put in place last year that tightens the rules on who can claim protection based on whether asylum seekers had a chance to make a claim in another country before crossing into the U.S.
A refugee fleeing government persecution could claim asylum in the first country he comes to. The hordes of immigrants who don’t claim asylum on the way are more likely to be traditional migrants than asylum seekers.
Immigrant rights groups were incensed by the rule and sued to stop it.
At first, the Biden administration fiercely opposed the immigration activists by claiming the border would be overwhelmed if the asylum rule were overturned.
Months later, the administration has now buddied up with the activists, which includes the notoriously liberal American Civil Liberties Union, and asked that the case be stalled while it negotiates a settlement.
The administration wants it both ways. Duplicitous actions are the hallmark of the Biden presidency.
The court agreed with Biden and the activists in a 2-1 decision. Trump appointee VanDyke dissented, saying the court was allowing the administration to game the system.
VanDyke said the administration could be trying to thwart a politically embarrassing loss or be collaborating with the activists in an attempt to undermine a future president interested in stiff enforcement of immigration laws.
“At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year,” VanDyke wrote.
“Either it previously lied to this court by exaggerating the threat posed by vacating the rule, or it is now hiding the real reason it wants to hold this case in abeyance,” he continued.
For VanDyke the affair smelled like the shady deal-making that takes place between liberal administrations and like-minded activists. Activists sue and the administration puts up either a weak defense or no defense.
The next step is for the parties to agree to a settlement that binds the government to actions or policies that both sides were after all along. In this case, both sides are after greenlighting illegal immigration.
In December, Sen. Marco Rubio (R – FL) called out the Biden administration in a video outlining the disastrous border policies. For Rubio, the border is open because of Joe Biden, and it’s not a pretty picture.
It looks to VanDyke like the Biden administration could be after a double whammy in this case: colluding with activists on “policy that resonates with its base” while at the same shifting the blame to the courts when problems arise.
“It could take credit for creating an important rule and defending it with one hand,” VanDyke wrote, “and then, by colluding with the plaintiffs, it can set the policy it actually wants with the other, all while publicly blaming the result — cloaked as it is in the language of a judicial ‘settlement’ — on the courts.”
According to Van Dyke, the administration looked like it had a solid argument to keep the more stringent asylum policy in place. The decision to seek settlement seemed odd because “it is clear enough that the government is destined to prevail before the Supreme Court.”
“Given all of this,” VanDyke continued, “it’s hard to avoid any impression other than that the administration is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — purposely avoiding an ultimate win that would eventually come later this year, whether from this court or from the Supreme Court.”
Another way of putting it is the Biden administration is robbing Peter to pay Paul, a dirty game where the people who end up paying the debt are law-abiding American citizens.
A win-win for the Biden administration is a loser for the American people.
