Judges and Immigration—The Courts are Destroying Democracy and Leading to Demographic Ruin
English (American, British, Canadian etc.) and European democracies are being undermined by a pernicious enemy. These enemies have the trappings of state power—taxpayer funded staffs, cars, residences, and fat salaries—and regularly promulgate new rules that effect the everyday lives of citizens. They sign orders to prevent deportations, to regulate who can live where, and to force the state to spend billions of dollars, pounds, or euros on housing, food, and spending money for immigrants. These enemies within are not the politicians, though they are certainly a problem, but are instead the judges, both national and international, who rule over the West as an unelected class of liberal enforcers.
In Italy a series of court cases are preventing the Italian government from deporting illegal immigrants who continue to show up at the country’s shores in the hundreds of thousands. Worse yet, these judges are out to punish Italian government officials who use their democratic mandates to try to stop the replacement of Italians in their own country.
The latest examples of this national homicide via judge can be found in the last few months. In October an Italian court ruled that a deal between Italy and Albania to send illegal immigrants to Albania to be processed and deported to their home countries was unlawful [Italian Judges Again Block Detention of Migrants in Albania, US News (Reuters), November 11, 2024].
The court then referred the case to the European Union’s Court of Justice. The European court is soon to issue its ruling, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has supposedly ‘warned’ them about ruling against her, though short of leaving the European Union there is little she can do if they rule against her (more on that below).
As this piece was being written a court case against former Interior Minister Matteo Salvini was decided. Salvini was being tried for criminally kidnapping over 10 illegal aliens by ordering to be detained onboard an NGO vessel rather than allowing them into Italy.
For exercising his democratically granted powers Salvini has had to deal with this case since 2021. Thankfully the Italian courts have found him not guilty, but so sure was the New York Times of his guilt that they accidentally published a headline (still visible here) that he had been found guilty and was being sentenced to jail time!
These court rulings are not just limited to the warm beaches of Southern Europe, though. The European Court of Human Rights—a separate institution not a part of the European Union—ruled just a few years ago that the United Kingdom could not deport a migrant, and by implication other migrants, to Rwanda.
This is despite the fact that the two governments, both democratically elected, had penned a deal to facilitate the relocation of illegal immigrants from the UK to Rwanda. This deal was finally, fully, killed off by the UK’s own supreme court in November of 2023. Tony Blair’s greatest constitutional invention (Britain did without a US-style Supreme Court for over 900 years) continues to bedevil this county even decades after he left power.
Then there is the broader Rule 39 of the ECHR. This rule, invented by the court and not in the origin European Charter of Human Rights that governments drafted and ratified, is regularly used to prevent deportations and other penalties being visited upon illegal immigrants and overstayers.
If we look across the pond, we can see one of the ultimate examples of courts interfering with the democratic and policymaking process. When the US state of Texas passed Senate Bill 4 (2023) to make it a state-level crime to enter Texas illegally from Mexico the law was immediately challenged in court. Texas was sued by the Federal government. A district court judge by the name of David Alan Ezra virtually immediately ruled the law unconstitutional. This same judge had earlier ruled it unconstitutional for Texas to set up a floating border barrier in the Rio Grande River that forms part of the frontier with Mexico, his decision was later overturned by an appeals court.
Following Ezra’s ruling that the Texas illegal immigration law was unconstitutional the state took the issue to the Supreme Court which rather meekly ruled that the law could go into effect only until the proper appeals court ruled on the Ezra decision. To no one’s surprise and merely hours later the appeals court ruled that the Texas law against illegal immigration was indeed unconstitutional. Federal courts blocked a state’s ability to protect itself and its citizens against illegal aliens.
Democracy need not apply, it seems.
This episode harkens back to an even greater upset against American democracy when in 1994 the population of California voted in a referendum (ballot initiative as the Yanks call them) to establish a state-run citizenship screening system. This system would be used to prevent illegal aliens from accessing health, education, and other services paid for by the California taxpayers. This referendum, known as Proposition 187 or the SOS initiative (save our state), passed with 60% popular backing. Just three days after the law was passed a federal district court ruled it to be unconstitutional and the state gave up fighting this ruling in 1999.
Today California is a dream-land for illegal immigrants who receive driver’s licenses, free healthcare courtesy of the California taxpayer, and are welcome to shoplift until they have no more space to carry stolen goods.
On an entirely unrelated note, the state of California went from being 70% White in 1990 to just 34.7% white in 2020. Today California has more than 2.2 million illegal immigrant residents, nearly 1 million residents who are the children of illegal aliens. Thank you, federal court system.
Politicians, and by extension the native peoples of the Western world, have an inherent democratic right to determine who may or may not live in our countries, access our public welfare, and become part of our societies.
Governments, at least those serious about protecting their populations, must begin to limit judicial power and oversight of immigration related matters. The US Congress can limit judicial power of immigration through the Exceptions Clause of that country’s constitution. In the United Kingdom the ancient doctrine of parliamentary supremacy leaves an avenue open for removing judicial reach into the immigration system and in Europe countries can leave institutions such as the ECHR without risking membership to organizations such as the European Union. Though they may certainly want to reexamine membership of that organization much as we did here in Britain.
It's time to abolish immigration courts and limit opportunities for appeal on immigration decisions, otherwise no matter who comes into power in the West it will be judges in dark robes seated upon plush chairs that ensure the Great Replacement continues without interruption.
Support White Papers:
Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wppi
Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750
 | A guest post by
|
Congress can refuse to fund the federal bench and that is what should be done.
Patriots should take the Andrew Jackson approach to the Supreme Court in instances like these