Category Archives: Legal

Fighting racism with antiracism discrimination

New York Post

During this unfortunate and never-ending pandemic, liberal politicians and elected officials who are mostly White have taken to podiums across the country to discuss the needs and rights of “people of color.” They hold news conferences where they announce legal measures to address racial inequality and systemic discrimination. In no other city has this pandering to Black voters been more evident than my beloved New York City.  Every few days I hear about laws, decrees, and measures directed only and solely to people of color, or “brown people.” Who are these people? The unflappable Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on March 23, 2021, the formation of the Racial Justice Commission . According to the Mayor, who sees himself as Blacker than Black, :

“The Racial Justice Commission has the power to put forth permanent, transformative ideas for our government and our city. This moment demands nothing less.” 

What does Mayor de Blasio hope the commission will accomplish?

Ibram X Kendi is a well-known Black author who has written extensively on racism in America. He is an Andrew W. Mellon Professor at Boston University and the Director of the school’s Center for Antiracist Research. His academic credentials along with is scholarly writings are impressive. I have read some of his works and find How to be an Antiracist. thought provoking. In this book, Kendi argues that racial injustice and its historic effects on Black Americans can only be remedied by discriminating against some other group (Whites) to “level the playing field.” Is this not the liberal agenda that many progressive politicians are trying to enact? Didn’t Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ban discrimination on the basis of race and color? see Facts About Race/Color Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov) . Judicial decisions at every level of jurisdiction have struck down laws that discriminate along these lines.

Presidential Biden, the quintessential liberal, championed the passage of the incredibly complex and lengthy American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The bill reached his desk only after being passed using the Budget Reconciliation Process. What most American’s do not realize is that the law is full of provisions that discriminate against one group in favor of another group based solely race or skin color. The Democrats simply ignored long standing American legal precedent to enact progressive legislation that would resonate with…Black Americans?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down the provision of the American Rescue Plan Act that gave preferential treatment to applicants seeking SBA loans based solely race. In the case of Antonio Vitolo; Jake’s Bar and Grill, LLC v. Isabella Casillas Guzman, Administrator of the Small Business Administration ,  Nos.: 21-5527/5528, Judge Thapar summed up the case’s legal issue: 

This cases is about whether the government can allocate limited coronavirus relief funds based on the race and sex of the applicants. We hold that it cannot

directly from written decision

Basically, the plaintiff, Vitolo, was a merchant whose business had suffered losses due to the pandemic. Because of the way the law was written and the SBA’s applicable rules, Vitolo was denied equal access to funding solely because he was White. Yes, as incredible as it seems to be, White liberals, are merrily discriminating against White Americans in the name of racial justice. Is there anyone that doubts this conclusion? 

Judge Thapar said the government’s stated goal of remedying past discrimination against minority business owners was too general to qualify. The government, he said, had not cited specific instances of intentional discrimination, and statistical disparities “don’t cut it.”

I suggest that you read  the actually court decision to better understand why a majority of the judges were so upset with the government’s legal arguments for antidiscrimination remedies. 

 

 

Temporary Protective Status (TPS) does not offer pathway to legal residency.

The Southern Border

The debate over immigration separates Americans into various camps of political thought. The mere mention of the word immigration can cause some people to become highly agitated. There are those who believe that everyone entering the country should be subjected to legal process. This is called lawful entry into the US or legal immigration. Even the most ardent advocates of “migrant’s rights” understand that the Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration laws and matters.  It stands to reason that the laws should be respected and enforced. This is the hallmark of our form of democracy.

At the opposite end of the political spectrum are those who believe that these laws should be relaxed to allow unfettered entry and immigration into the U.S. Members of this group believe that people who are in the U.S illegally should share the same rights as U.S. Citizens or legal residents. They even champion President Biden’s policy of allowing forced immigration at the U.S.’s southern border with Mexico. Who has not seen the news videos of hundreds of people, including unaccompanied minors, illegally entering the U.S.? The crisis along the border worsens every day.

The Council on Foreign Relations estimates that more than 11 million illegal aliens reside in the U.S. Mexicans make up the largest national group of the undocumented population. However, the uptick in illegal crossing at the Southern border is being driven by Central Americans. Most legal scholars and politicians believe that the surge of unaccompanied minors is due to the  Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2008. This law requires that an accompanied minor who is in the US be given a hearing before being returned to his home country. The law was never intended to protect children who voluntarily and illegally enter the U.S. It does not appear that Congress is going to close this loophole anytime soon. It is a law that we all accept and respect. As a nation, where do we go from here?

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in the immigration debate. The highest court in the land reminded us that we are a nation of laws and that these laws must be enforced. In the case of Sanchez v. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et el, No 20-315, June 7, 2021, the court in a unanimous decision decided to enforce the nation’s immigration law as written. Plaintiff, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the U.S. illegally in 1997. The government granted  Sanchez Temporary Protected Status in 2001. The granted legal status allowed him to remain and work in the U.S. His TPS status would terminate upon a determination that it was safe for him to return to his country. In her written decision for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan said:

“The question here is whether the conferral of TPS enables him to obtain LPR [Legal Permanent Residency] status despite his unlawful entry. We hold that it does not”

Justice Kagan expertly outlines her reasoning in the Court’s opinion . She cites the appropriate statutes and the language therein that required denial of Sanchez’s appeal. In my opinion, the decision in the case was a “no brainer.” It amazes me that some progressive politicians, immigration advocates and, Spanish-speaking T.V. journalists label the decision as “anti-immigrant. The Biden administration takes the position that TPS immigrants do not have a right to apply for green cards base on their TPS status. It should not surprise anyone that former President Trump took this position as well. It is the correct interpretation of the controlling law.

I suggest that you read the Court’s decision in its entirety to appreciate the simplicity of Kagan’s arguments.