The Fifth Circuit cracks down on the asylum excuse factory
Filing an asylum claim doesn’t legalize sneaking in, a three-judge panel ruled last week. Now what will the Supreme Court say?
For nearly three decades, Washington has insisted that America’s immigration chaos stems from outdated laws, insufficient authority, or humanitarian necessity.
Last week, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shattered that narrative.
For the first time in decades, a federal court treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion.
In Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, a divided panel did something radical by modern standards: It enforced immigration law as Congress wrote it. The result ranks as one of the most consequential immigration rulings in a generation — and a direct rebuke to the legal fiction that has shielded millions of illegal aliens from mandatory detention for decades.
What the court actually said
The case turned on a simple question with enormous consequences: Do illegal aliens who entered the United States unlawfully — often years ago, without inspection or lawful admission — get discretionary bond hearings while in removal proceedings?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment