Two Recent District Court Cases

Two recent United States district court cases provide a case study on globalism and relativism run amok in the courts of the United States.  These offer another example of the disintegration of the West.  I expect criticism for even addressing this issue, which dovetails with the actual issue itself.  Globalism and relativism are biblical content to which scripture provides guidance.  It is not out of my apparent area of expertise.

For the first example, the Trump White House invoked the Alien Enemies Act for removing alleged members of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members to an El Salvadoran prison.  Washington DC district judge James Boasberg, Obama appointee, ordered the deportation planes turned around in order to give these illegal immigrants their due process rights.  Legal experts call these injunctions.  Courts have issued thirty of these injunctions so far, which is more than they issued against the first forty-two presidents of the United States combined.

In the second example, the U. S. government detained in New Jersey with the purpose of deporting the immigrant Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student activist, before it moved him to an immigration facility in Jena, Louisiana.  Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan, a district judge of the Southern District of New York issued a court order blocking Khalil’s deportation pending a ruling on his petition.

Immigration, National Defense, and the Executive Branch

Immigration Policy

The defendants in the two cases have in common that neither the alleged gang members nor the Hamas supporting Khalil are citizens of the United States.  ABC News reports concerning the Khalil case:

The government has claimed that Palestinian protester Mahmoud Khalil intentionally misrepresented information on his green card application and therefore is inadmissible to the United States.

According to recent court filings, President Donald Trump’s administration said Khalil failed to disclose when applying for his green card last year that his employment by the Syria Office at the British Embassy in Beirut went “beyond 2022” and that he was a “political affairs officer” for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees from June to November 2023.

The executive branch of the United States enforces its immigration laws.  Immigration policies directly impact national security by regulating who enters the country. Effective immigration control helps prevent individuals who may pose security risks for the United States.

National Defense

The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003 was a significant restructuring of the United States federal government aimed at consolidating various agencies and functions related to national security, particularly in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  Following the events of 9/11, it became clear that there were gaps in communication and coordination among various federal agencies responsible for national security, immigration enforcement, and emergency management.

The United States Constitution assigns the power of the President for national defense.  A Department under the President, the Department of Defense (DoD) is primarily focused on military operations and defense against external threats.  However, its role in homeland security became increasingly relevant post-9/11.   A key goal in forming the DHS was improving information sharing between agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and DoD regarding potential national security threats.

Rights of Citizens

Immigrants in the United States, who are even here legally, do not have the same rights of due process as American citizens.  They have certain rights provided by the fifth amendment of the Constitution based on the precedent of decisions of the Supreme Court.  No decisions of the Supreme Court have excluded the executive branch from deporting immigrants that are in the United States illegally and especially a threat to the United States.

A Supreme Court case in 1896, Wong Wing et al. v. United States made the simple ruling that protected aliens in the United States from cruel punishment.  Another one in 1886, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, etc. and Wo Lee v. Same, said that the United States could not discriminate against aliens in law enforcement because they merely are here as immigrants.  Most of you reading know that we should not treat non-citizens exactly the same as citizens.

The Viewpoints of Activist Judges Run Amok

From where or what does the viewpoint come, which would believe that aliens and even illegal ones have the same rights in the United States as its actual legal citizens?  These two activist judges abdicate the authority given by the United States Constitution to the executive branch.  You can see this occurring at an increased rate and only by a certain category of judges with a particular worldview.  Two beliefs or concepts that undergird the injunctions or court actions of these activist judges.

Globalism

One, the above activist judges reveal their globalism versus and superior to nationalism.  Globalism refers to an ideology that advocates for the interconnectedness of nations, economies, and cultures, prioritizing international cooperation over national sovereignty. In the context of judicial actions, a globalist agenda manifests when judges interpret laws or make rulings that align more with international norms than with domestic constitutional principles. This can lead to decisions that undermine the traditional separation of powers established by a nation’s constitution.

Nationalism asserts national boundaries, the United States versus other nations.  For the United States to keep its national identity, it must protect itself against the intrusion of the rest of the world.  The United States operates under its own unique standards and norms.  Globalists, on the other hand, make decisions that eliminate national distinctions, opting instead for a broader, more inclusive culture.  This also dovetails with multiculturalism, which deems every culture equal with the other, a political form of multiculturalism.

Outside Constitutional Framework

Judges operating outside the constitutional framework interpret laws in ways that extend beyond their original intent. They adopt expansive interpretations of laws that align with global standards or human rights conventions, even if such interpretations conflict with national statutes.  They also reference international law or foreign legal precedents as authoritative sources, which can dilute the application of domestic law.  When judges prioritize globalist perspectives, it leads to erosion of national sovereignty.

International norms then take precedence over national laws.  Based on global standards, courts assume roles traditionally reserved for either the executive or legislative branches.  The separation of powers is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. When judges operate under a globalist agenda, they create policy rather than simply interpreting existing laws.  Judicial decisions influenced by globalism challenge executive actions, especially those related to immigration and foreign relations, thereby disrupting the balance intended by the separation of powers.

Moral Relativism

Two, the above activist judges embrace some form of moral relativism.  They are unwilling to distinguish between Venezuelan criminal gangs and a Hamas supporter.  Without objective truth, a judge cannot judge between lies and truth.  Truth, goodness, and beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder.  These judges make these issues about power.  Something is true, good, or beautiful because the powerful say it is and make it to be so.  They must use their own levers of power to reconstruct their own opinions or feelings.

Enforcing the borders violates globalism and moral relativism.  A government that stops someone’s admission into its country is asserting its national distinction.  This offends a globalist view.  It also says it can judge something to be better than something else.  One culture is worse than another one.  But truth and goodness are a construct of power, not absolute and objective.  If these judges can continue to act in this way to irrationally stop the rightful function of the nation, this will disintegrate the nation further into chaos.