“Baez-Sanchez applied for a special visa allowing him to remain in the U.S. if he was also a victim of a crime. An immigration judge twice granted Baez-Sanchez a waiver.”
First of all, it’s pretty obvious what is happening here. The borders are closing on illegal immigration, so libertine lawyers are looking for new loopholes. Apparently they found a law that says that if an illegal immigrant who commits a crime is also a victim of a crime, they can apply for a deportation waver, and the libertines are running a test on weaponising this law to circumvent Trump’s strengthening of the borders. If successful, they will judge-shop for waivers for criminal illegals, claiming they were also victims of crimes. It would be interesting to know the original intent of that statute.
"Given Trump’s record of defiance, Barr’s maneuver is predictable—but it is a shocking break with more than 200 years of constitutional and legal precedent.
“In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison established the bedrock principle that federal judges review the constitutionality of actions by the other branches of government. With few exceptions—such as Abraham Lincoln’s refusal to abide by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s decision that Lincoln’s 1861 suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional—presidents have adhered to Supreme Court rulings.”
So, it’s a break with 200 years of constitutional and legal precedent, but Abraham Lincoln did it, as well as a few unnamed others. It’s not unprecedented then, is it.
“But federal judges serve for life, and—unlike members of Congress—do not have to worry about reelection. Easterbrook’s decision suggests that when push comes to shove, even conservative judges are unlikely to abdicate their Article III prerogative and destroy what’s left of the separation of powers just because Trump tells them to.”
Seems it’s OK for Congress to push the envelope and attempt to crimp territory off the Executive’s powers, and the Judiciary to push the envelope and attempt to crimp territory off the Executive’s authority, but completely scandalous for the Executive to push back on these attempts to reduce it’s authority and subjugate the presidency to the will of libertine factions in Congress and the judiciary.
I expect this new wrestling match, like the others dealing with immigration authority, will be resolved in the Supreme Court. Who has ultimate jurisdiction over immigration? The President or a judge? I think it’s the President.