XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.politics.nationalism.white,   
   alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: Lucas_McCain@tutanato.com   
      
   CIS Prevails in Challenge to Biden-Harris Immigration Actions   
   First-ever ruling holding DHS accountable for ignoring law requiring   
   environmental analysis   
      
   By Julie Axelrod on September 30, 2024   
      
   On Friday, in a substantial win for American citizens harmed by the   
   Biden-Harris administration’s open-borders policies, a federal judge for   
   the first time held the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)   
   accountable for violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)   
   when taking immigration actions that “unsecured the border almost   
   overnight”. The case is Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform   
   v. Department of Homeland Security.   
      
   Signed into law by President Nixon on January 1, 1970, NEPA was the   
   first of several major environmental laws passed in the 1970s. NEPA   
   declared a national policy to protect the environment, born out of a   
   concern over population growth. To implement that policy, NEPA requires   
   federal agencies to provide a detailed statement of environmental   
   impacts, subsequently referred to as an environmental impact statement   
   (EIS), for every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation   
   and other major federal action significantly affecting the quality of   
   the human environment.   
      
   Though deliberately letting millions of people into the country is an   
   environmentally significant policy, neither DHS nor any of the federal   
   agencies responsible for immigration policy, including the Department of   
   State and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agencies,   
   have ever performed NEPA compliance at any level before carrying out   
   actions that expand immigration.   
      
   Though such a failure is manifestly a violation of NEPA, over the   
   decades agencies have generally shirked their responsibilities under the   
   law unless forced into compliance by persistent (and expensive)   
   litigation. Unfortunately, the environmental movement, though extremely   
   well-funded as a whole, has simply chosen to ignore the environmental   
   effects of out-of-control immigration. The Center for Immigration   
   Studies has stepped in and has, since 2021, been litigating claims   
   against the Biden administration’s flagrant NEPA violations in the area   
   of immigration in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia on   
   behalf of a number of concerned citizens, including ranchers who live on   
   the Arizona border.   
      
   After several rounds of briefing, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden   
   determined that he would hold a bench trial to determine whether the   
   Biden-Harris administration’s actions in terminating the border wall and   
   ending Remain in Mexico had, by a preponderance of the evidence, caused   
   the border crisis that harmed the border plaintiffs, reasoning that, if   
   those policies had caused the crisis, the border plaintiffs would have   
   standing to bring the case. In the environmental context, plaintiffs   
   have standing if they can show they personally suffered environmental   
   harms because of the policy at issue. The bench trial only addressed   
   these narrow standing issues, rather than the merits. Give the   
   comprehensive nature of DHS’s failure to comply with NEPA altogether,   
   DHS focused on simply preventing the case from reaching the merits,   
   rather than putting forth a serious argument that they had complied with   
   the law.   
      
   The trial was held on July 31 and August 1. At trial, the Center called   
   as expert witnesses on causation former Acting Commissioner of Customs   
   and Border Protection Mark Morgan and former Chief of the Border Patrol   
   Rodney Scott. While DHS tried aggressively to disqualify both witnesses   
   as not credible experts on border security, the court found both to be   
   qualified. They explained how the wall and the Remain in Mexico policy   
   were critical pillars in their border security strategy, whose   
   termination indubitably caused the crisis.   
      
   DHS attempted to discredit these high-level officials’ testimony by   
   calling an economist from the University of Chicago. This economist,   
   having read 16 articles about immigration before coming to his   
   conclusions, stated that he thought Chief Scott and Commissioner Morgan   
   would have had to have used methods of social science in order to know   
   if their policies were effective or not. In his opinion released Friday,   
   Judge McFadden found the Center’s witnesses credible, holding that Chief   
   Scott had credibly determined that “Overnight, the United States ‘went   
   from having a very secure border’ back to a policy of ‘catch and   
   release’ without any ‘physical deterrent’ to illegal crossings.” The   
   judge also found that the economist DHS called as their sole expert   
   witness testified to conclusions that “meandered beyond his area of   
   expertise” and were “worthy of little value”.   
      
   Therefore, the court found that the Center had proved standing. Judge   
   McFadden concluded: “Presidential administrations enjoy significant   
   discretion in the enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws and   
   protection of our borders. But this latitude does not license violations   
   of other laws.”   
      
   The Center’s case is not over, however: The question remains what kind   
   of remedy would be appropriate in these particular circumstances. The   
   court ordered briefing to occur on appropriate remedies for these NEPA   
   violations from October 25 to December 20. Regardless of what results   
   the briefing on remedies bring, the Center is extremely pleased to have   
   vindicated the rights of American citizens under NEPA. Congress passed   
   NEPA to stop reckless and environmentally destructive policies   
   implemented without the slightest consideration of the needs of American   
   citizens. The Biden-Harris administration has engaged in just such   
   reckless policies since day one, and it is a very positive step for   
   those harmed to finally have a voice that has been heard in the courts.   
      
   https://cis.org/Axelrod/CIS-Prevails-Challenge-BidenHarris-Immigration-Actions   
   --   
   You voted for abortion. You got demographic replacement and World War 3.   
      
   "Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to   
   aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic   
   transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring   
   unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to   
   enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and   
   abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)