Hanen said his court is not aware of any accepted legal principle that allows the government to complete the intended criminal mission
BROWNSVILLE, Texas – Last week, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen ordered a hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Aug. 27 to address all pending motions in a complaint brought by California Attorney Orly Taitz against President Barack Obama, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Jeh Johnson; Director of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell, and the U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Station.
In July, Taitz filed an emergency application for a stay of the transportation of illegal aliens from the Southern District of Texas to California and other areas throughout the country due to a serious threat to public health, spread of infectious diseases, national security threat, crime threat and economic damages.
Her action seeks either to immediately order the turnaround and deportation of all illegal aliens or require them to be placed in quarantine for two months in an enclosed temporary or permanent FEMA facility in order to contain the spread of infectious diseases.
She is also seeking an emergency stay of the release of illegal aliens into the general public that did not complete two months of quarantine, did not undergo proper medical screening, do not have a written medical release, do not have a clean criminal record from their country of origin and do not have a signed order from a federal judge stating such aliens are legally entitled to live in the United States.
Taitz states the nation is being flooded by hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens as a direct result of Obama and his codefendant’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions.
Noting this flood of illegal aliens have brought with them multiple infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, measles, scabies, pertussis (whooping cough), lice, swine flu, bacterial pneumonia and more, Taitz also states defendants are transporting these illegal aliens, which include gang members, drug cartel members and suspected members of terrorist organizations, all over the country allowing them, without any identification, to travel wherever they wish on commercial carriers.
Taitz, who is also a dentist, says, as a healthcare provider who comes in contact with individuals who are affected by multiple infectious diseases and, absent quarantine and proper treatment, she is in imminent danger of contracting such diseases.
While defendants are transferring thousands of illegal aliens from the Southern District of Texas to California and elsewhere across the country and dumping them on unsuspecting communities, legal immigrants, particularly those from countries known for outbreaks of infectious diseases, must undergo health checks, chest X-rays for tuberculosis and obtain a medical release.
She stated legal immigrants must also provide a criminal record from their country of origin.
Taitz calls the current practice of dumping of illegal aliens into communities a sham process, with health screenings performed by border patrol agents, who do not have medical training, while carrying out only cursory criminal background checks to determine if they previously committed crimes in the United States.
Border patrol agents have admitted they are releasing illegal aliens who were self-professed murderers in their home countries. However, since they had no criminal record in this country, they were ordered to let them go.
The illegal aliens are then released and allowed to travel to wherever they want to go with just a letter advising them to appear in court before an immigration judge.
According to Taitz, over 90 percent never show up for their deportation hearings. She said the defendants are acting as de facto human traffickers, with the federal government actually completing the smuggling cycle.
On Aug. 1, Hanen ordered the defendants to show cause why the emergency relief requested by Taitz should not be granted and ordered the government to comply by Aug. 11.
Last year, Hanen issued a scathing order chastising DHS following a child smuggling case, in which the human trafficker who brought the 10-year-old illegal alien child from El Salvador to Texas was apprehended. The smuggler was paid $6,000 by the child’s illegal alien mother to bring the child into the country and deliver her to Virginia, where the mother resides illegally.
However, after being apprehended by the border patrol, the U.S. government took over and delivered the child to her mother in Virginia.
The mother was turned down for a tourist visa in 2000 so she decided to enter the United States illegally and has lived here ever since.
In that case, Hanen stated even if the mother’s decision to smuggle her child across the border was motivated by the best of interests, it was not an excuse for the U.S. government to further the criminal conspiracy, and by doing so, encourage others to break the law and endanger additional children.
He wrote, “To put this in another context, the DHS policy is as logical as taking illegal drugs or weapons that it has seized from smugglers and delivering them to the criminals who initially solicited their illegal importation/exportation. Legally, this situation is no different. This court is not blind to the needs of a minor child, nor is it suggesting that a child should be punished for the crimes of her parent. Nevertheless, neither the Flores settlement nor a concern for common decency compels the government to not only aid, but also reward an individual for initiating a scheme to break the laws governing the border security of this country. Further, neither compels the government to aid the drug cartels who control this human trafficking.”
Hanen stated his court is aware prosecutors and law enforcement officers frequently exercise discretion to defer prosecution or arrest of individuals and it is not opposed to the concept of prosecutorial discretion, if exercised with a sense of justice and common sense.
He concluded by stating, “Nevertheless, it is not aware of any accepted legal principle, including prosecutorial discretion that not only allows the government to decline prosecution, but further allows it to actually complete the intended criminal mission. The DHS should enforce the laws of the United States – not break them.”
In ordering the Aug. 27 hearing, Hanen stated the topics that will be discussed include: 1) the standing of the plaintiff (either individually or as a class representative); 2) the ability of an individual citizen, even with standing, to question executive authority over immigration matters; 3) the defendants’ past and current efforts to secure the southern border of the United States (including the efforts to stop the influx of illegal aliens, minors and adults in 2014); 4) all aspects of the apprehension, processing and subsequent placement of the illegal minors in 2014 including specifically the recent influx from Mexico and Central America; 5) the defendants’ efforts to comply with the Flores settlement in conjunction with the recent influx of minors; 6) the application, if any, of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to this case; 7) the examination, diagnosis and treatment of any illegal alien minors with any medical conditions in 2014; and 8) the detention and/or all other means to house illegal alien minors who have entered the country in 2014.
Hanen stated, “The court will rule as quickly as it can after the hearing given the emergency nature of the motion.”