Critical race theory takes aim at immigration law

Forget drugs or fraud. Most cases filed by government prosecutors are against illegal immigrants who tried to re-enter the country after being deported – and all of the defendants are Hispanic. .

Now federal courts are wrestling with whether inequality means the law itself discriminates.

A Nevada court has already ruled in favor of that. Justice Miranda Du, who nominated President Obama, said part of the law that made her a criminal offender for spying for the United States has been racist since the 1920s.

Although the law has been updated since then, Congress has not dealt with the “racist, ideological basis” of the law, the judge ruled. He said, with strong Hispanic strongholds to prosecute, let the law be unbelievable.

More than a court case against Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez.

The Biden government has appealed and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the case, which has been declared lawful and is being investigated as an important test of the criminal justice system.

“If we are trying to eliminate racism in the system, it means that we must understand why the original law was implemented, and then we can clearly decide whether we want to change or we want to move forward.” Ahilan Arulanantham. , co. – director of the Center for Law and Law at UCLA School of Law and one of the leading educators on the history of illegal repatriation, told the Washington Times in an interview earlier this year.

In November. However, across the U.S. capital, the results of some Republicans on election day, as well as the final results – including the Georgia election – suggest that Democrats will accept leadership of the decision-making body.

How did that happen? With the help of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, Democrats were able to decide on a plan that would greatly strengthen their Senate by establishing a legislature and other agreements between the parties. manage your business.

Traditionally, decisions have been made on a regular basis and approved by consensus agreement. But by 2021, Republicans will be able to hold the Senate seat for Democrats until they receive assurances from Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Cinema of Arizona that they will not repeal. first get a large majority of 60 votes.

Republicans have received a lot of support from Mr. Manchin. It’s amazing. On the second day of President Biden’s inauguration, Mr. Manchin became the most powerful man in the United States and even defeated the new president. Mr Manchin – a moderate Democrat from the city who voted for former President Donald Trump twice – did not suffer easily. And the liberal idiot in Parliament for Mr. Manchin has many opportunities to register the limits of what he will drink.

Mr. Manchin is not independent. He is a moderate politician who views West Virginia natives who share his views with the Social Democrats who want to turn the United States into something unplanned, or what most voters do. do you want. Mr. Manchin is more ambitious than former Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan than former President Barack Obama and Mr. Biden.

After all, West Virginia veterans love Kennedy and Reagan. Since Mr. Manchin entered politics in 1982, his state has nominated seven Republican presidential candidates, three times the Democrats. And since 2000, only Republicans have won there. Mr. Manchin knows history, having been elected governor of West Virginia from 2005 to 2010.

Mr. Manchin is very popular in West Virginia. Despite their recent choice to place Republicans in the White House and Republican Shelley Moore Capito on one of their two congressional committees, West Virginiaers continue to hold their main seats, though. when Mr. Manchin challenged politicians. democracy in 2012 and 2018. This shows that while West Virginiaans are not interested in changing their Conservative views, they are open to changing their votes.

From the beginning of its rule, the Biden government said that the border crisis was caused because they inherited a corrupt system. I heard Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Alejandro Mayorkas all make this confession. They added that it was due to climate change, violence and poverty. Many of these recommendations can be clarified by comparing the current situation with the border service in the Trump years.

Where is the climate change as crime rates drop to almost 40 years under President Donald J. Trump? Where is the violence and poverty? Unfortunately, they are all there, but the Trump administration has shown that it can still have a secure border in spite of these things. It is also important to remember that climate change, violence and poverty are not legal grounds for seeking asylum or claiming reasonable fear as federal law defines asylum. . At least not until Biden’s power changes.

They are not talking about the legacy of morality. The fact is that the Biden government has inherited the limit of security in my work. Information on the seizure of asylum rights indicates this.

If someone comes up with a bad plan, Biden is in control. As he changed the style of his most successful border security policy, he lied to the American people and blamed his failures on his predecessors.

In the first few days of his rise to power, Biden abolished the Immigration Protection Act (MPP), better known as Kuku in the Mexican system. It ended despite the fact that it was the most successful border security system ever invented and resulted in a significant reduction in illicit activities. Even after administration officials from the Trump administration, including me, have consulted with his conservative parties on several occasions, about the risks involved in ending the MPP with evidence that he is a reformer It’s a game, Biden released it.

Harry Reid has died at the age of 82
It also concludes an agreement signed by the Trump administration with the Third Amendment to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, home to a large number of illegal immigrants entering the United States is unfair to the United States and contributing to prevent thousands of fraudulent asylum claims. The move has prompted migrants who say they have fled fear and persecution from their home country to seek refuge in their first country of origin.

Manage Biden and then drive out the immigration system by making delays in every flight. To end the result for the illegal only adds to the illegal behavior. Evidence can be seen in the migration and rapid migration since the Biden ascent.

With so many Americans focused on the title that won the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be easy to miss an important case that went under the radar: Shinn v. Jones and Ramirez. Despite its lack of prestige, the Courts have the power to reform the criminal justice system in such a way that it undermines the fundamental understanding of conservatives – the protection of life, liberty, and the rights of the vulnerable.

The law is based on what the United States has – the right to a lawyer and the right to a fair trial. Under the 10-year-old legal system, the Sixth Amendment gives citizens the right to “effective legal assistance,” but not all lawyers are created equal. There are numerous reports of defense lawyers who report as far as the bar, sleeping during the trial or face-to-face with evidence of their elimination. Thanks to the Sixth Amendment, if the assistance of a lawyer is not sufficient to affect the outcome of the case, then the court may order a review.

To receive such assistance, the plaintiffs must follow the appeal process, but if the state appeals courts reject them, they can seek help in federal court through the written habeas corpus. This process takes an incredible amount of time. In fact, the time between trial and execution in extreme cases can be more than 20 years.

In the short term, new evidence of weakness may arise, which leads us to Shinn v. Jones and Ramirez, and higher prices – too. Both Barry Jones and David Ramirez are facing death sentences in separate Arizona trials, but the prosecuting attorneys presented evidence in federal court, challenging the verdict and the verdict.

In 1995, despite his innocence, Mr Jones was convicted of aggravated child molestation – although there is evidence that he was not convicted. Medical evidence available at the time led to holes in the plaintiffs’ case against Mr Jones, according to court documents, but his lawyer failed to disclose this. While I cannot say for sure whether Mr Jones was innocent, it seems the judges have upheld their convictions on the basis of incomplete evidence.

Mr Ramirez, meanwhile, has not been charged with felony criminal mischief. He was convicted in 1990 of two counts of aggravated assault. However, there is reason to believe that Mr. Ramirez suffers from dementia, brain damage, and severe childhood dementia. However, his lawyers were initially unable to provide any evidence. Why is this important? Because such evidence may have convinced him that he had been sentenced to death.

Mr. Jones and Mr. Ramirez’s new lawyers presented the aforementioned facts before the federal court. They say the best solution is to be able to easily raise all of these evidence during the initial test, and as a result, their clients deserve a review. It is not uncommon for lawyers to make such 11-hour recommendations in an unexpected offer to save their clients, but they are doing a good job. How nice is it? Federal courts overturned Mr Jones’ sentence and ordered a retrial for Mr Ramirez.