Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to propose a change in immigration cases, giving him the power to rule on them before they go to court.

by

Although the leftist media has done its best to promote the idea that Attorney General Jeff Sessions in on shaky ground, other people have said that the so-called animosity between him and President Trump is just a ruse, and that Sessions is working hard on a number of key campaign promises.

One such proposal has gotten him labeled ‘racist’ by Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel at MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

In a very shrewd plan, included in the fall semiannual regulatory agenda released by the White House, the Department of Justice posted a notice announcing its intention to change the circumstances in which the AG can rule on immigration cases.

It’s so good, in fact, that Jeffrey Chase, who served as an immigration judge and a senior legal immigration adviser at the BIA under former President Clinton, has said about Sessions, “He’s been very clever about not leaving any case in a position where it could be [directly] appealed.”

Basically, under the change, the AG could make rulings on immigration cases before they get to the Board of Immigration Appeals. By doing so, Sessions could avoid the activist judges who rule based on bias.

“It’s very disturbing,” said Saenz, adding that it would give the attorney general too much power.

“This is an attorney general that has already demonstrated when he has done this under existing rules that he is biased, inhumane and, frankly, probably influenced by some racist views,” Saenz libeled.

DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Sutton said Saenz’s opinion was “absurd and woefully ignorant.”

The Hill reported, “Sessions has already been aggressive in getting involved with BIA cases even without the proposed rule change.”

Adding, “Since taking office in February 2017, Sessions has stepped in seven times after the BIA has made a decision, and offered five rulings…”

Rulings from the AG can be extremely significant because they set precedent for immigration judges.

In June, Sessions overturned a BIA decision to grant asylum to a Salvadoran woman who said she was a victim of domestic abuse.

“The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim,” the AG wrote.

The opinion, in which many voters agree, has infuriated liberals.

In fact, the only bright side that liberals can agree on is the fact that such a move could be overturned ‘if’ a new administration takes over.

For many conservatives, that sort of feeling was known intimately during Obama’s tenure, with his penchant for writing laws through executive order like DACA, despite the constitution.

If Sessions follows though, this will be a major win for the Trump administration, regarding illegal immigration… something voters could be very happy about.