Timothy Benton | Sep 17, 2018 | 0
California Supreme Court Defies Constitution, Rules Right To dictate issuance of Visas
In a move that should not surprise us, the California Supreme Court has ruled on an immigration matter, something they have no jurisdiction over. In the ruling, they stated that children brought here illegally, then abandoned or abused by their parents must be granted a Visa, something they have no right to rule on.
While I do sympathize with the sentiment, emotions have little place in applying the law, although it can with sentencing. The problem with this is the emotions of the whole supreme court ignored the rule of law, the separation of powers between the state and federal government, and now the California Supreme Court feels it is within their legal right to dictate to the federal government how to run their immigration, more specifically what laws they feel should be applied on the federal level, that is a gross misuse of their power, trying to legislate federal law from a state court.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in court documents that the case had implications for a “substantial portion” of the thousands of children who have fled to the U.S. from Central America and Mexico and settled in California. Kristen Jackson, an attorney for the plaintiff in the case, estimated the ruling would affect thousands of children.
The decision came in the case of a girl, identified in court documents only as Bianka M., who fled Honduras as a 10-year-old and arrived in the U.S. alone in 2013. Bianka’s mother was in the U.S., and the girl sought a state court order granting her mother sole custody. She also asked a state court judge to declare that she could not reunite with her father because he abandoned her and that returning to Honduras was not in her best interest.
She sought a special visa that could lead to a green card. A Los Angeles County court, however, said it needed to determine that the man Bianka claimed as her father was, in fact, her father. The court also raised concerns that awarding custody to Bianka’s mother without his involvement could violate his right to determine how she is raised and expose him to child support requirements.
Bianka’s mother testified that the man left her when she was pregnant with Bianka and said he would rather see Bianka dead than have to support her, according to court documents. Bianka’s attorneys noted that California courts could not establish authority over an “unwilling foreign resident,” so she would have to convince the man to attest that he was her father.
“In her case and a lot of other cases, California family courts were putting up insurmountable barriers to these children,” Jackson, an attorney with the law firm Public Counsel, said. “We’re thrilled that the California Supreme Court made sure that vulnerable immigrant children in California are able to access the protection they need and which both federal and state law mandate.”
Part of the problem is of California’s own doing if a parent flees and leaves a child here, and they know where the parent is, ship the kid back to their parents, they are minors. The other problem is the state court has no legal authority over the issuance of a visa, that is only the responsibility of the federal government, the state has no legal authority to compel the federal immigration officials to give anything out.
This is not a victory for the courts, once more we see with California Supreme Court ignorance of the law and where public liberal sentiment seems to give this Attorney General and the California Supreme Court a feeling that this supersedes federal law and the constitutional separation of State and Federal powers.
While I empathize with the children, I don’t with the California Supreme Court, this is once more a overstep by the courts, it needs to stop, it sets up a very dangerous precedence.