Judge Rules For Unlimited Immigration, You Won’t Believe Why

It might surprise you to find out that the most usual type of case that federal prosecutors bring is not for fraud or drugs, as some think. According to the Washington Times, that award goes to cases on illegals who try to reenter the nation after being deported. And almost all them charged are Hispanic, of course.

Now, according to The Washington Times, federal courts are now coming under the ridiculous accusation that this “imbalance” in deportations means United States immigration law is… wait for it… racist.

Ridiculous? One Nevada court has ruled that it means exactly that.

Judge Miranda Du, an appointee of Obama, said the section of immigration laws that make it a felony for an illegal who was previously deported to sneak back into America “has racist antecedents going back to the 1920s.” This is crazy.

Though the law was updated since then, The Times stressed that Congress has never “dealt with the racist, nativist roots” of the law, the anti-white judge claimed. She said this fact — combined with the overwhelmingly Hispanic suspects for prosecution — makes this law unconstitutional. This is beyond crazy.

Ahilan Arulanantham, leader of the Immigration Law and Policy Center at UCLA and a noted scholar about the history of illegal-reentry laws, said during an interview previously this year:

“If we are attempting to uproot systemic racism, that means we must consciously know what motivated a law’s original meaning, and then make the choice whether we want to alter it or continue it.”

Kris Kobach, a former GOP secretary of state in the state of Kansas and prominent legal leader among groups that want stricter immigration controls says the judge’s ruling is crazy, as reported by The Times.

“The judge’s conclusions are insane. The law is neutral, and it is justified by many legitimate reasons having no connection with race.”

“It is nonsense to say that the statute should be ‘cleansed’ in some way because of an unknown number of legislators who supported a previous statute one century ago could have been racially biased.”

But Kobach is right. “Insane” doesn’t even begin to explain this latest “progressive” ruling. As I have suggested many times before and will continue to do in the future, everything Dems support, oppose, propose, or reject is connected to being anti-white and wanting to flood the country with as many third-worlders as possible.

Author: Blake Ambrose