Why Did DHS Abort Its Re-Writing Of The Infamous Flores Consent Decree?

PAUL RATJE/AFP/Getty Images

Amidst our unprecedented migrant influx crisis inundating our beleaguered southern border with largely bogus asylum claims, it is easy to forget the origins of the current turmoil.

Recall that, shortly after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a "zero-tolerance policy" for illegal aliens at the border last April, much of the ensuing media firestorm seemed to focus on a rather arcane bit of legalese: The so-called "Flores consent decree," which dated back to the second term of the Clinton Administration. As the Center for Immigration Studies has explained, the consent decree — reached between the Clinton Administration and Salvadoran national Jenny Flores, and legitimized by the overseeing U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — provided, among other things, that unaccompanied alien children seeking asylum at our border would be released "without unnecessary delay." Courts subsequently interpreted this as mandating release for unaccompanied alien children seeking asylum at the border after 20 days of detention.

The Flores consent decree was likely itself illegal, insofar as it undermined the clear statutory text of 8 U.S.C. §  1225(b)(B)(iii)(IV): "Any alien subject to the [asylum interview] procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed." Note that there is no "without unnecessary delay" language in the statute — rather, the statutory text merely stipulates that aliens who seek asylum at the border "shall be detained" (emphasis added). As the statute sub-heading reads verbatim, this amounts to "mandatory detention." No room for ambiguity there!

Read the rest from Josh Hammer HERE.

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.