Posted on 4/25/2011 as a comment to Angelo Paparelli’s “Demystifying Immigration Myths.” http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/general-immigration/demystifying-immigration-myths/#comments)
Thank you Angelo for saying (for some time now) what an affront to common sense and our constitution this BrandX/Chevron deference has inflicted upon them. The progeny of regulations that have the force of statutory law has made Congress powerless to address the issue of immigration without having the Judiciary and Executive organs overruling its enactments every which way from sun up to sundown. BrandX/Chevron have made Article 3 judges obsolete in all matters immigration to the point where we now see what is becoming a proliferation of retractions of precedential decision from those once respectable courts to make way for the asinine and ever so changing interpretation of the various agencies having jurisdiction over immigration laws.
These agencies enact new immigration laws by the mere power of their interpretations of the Congressional intent behind otherwise straightforward statutes. These interpretations afforded by Brandx/Chevron change often and are not necessarily uniform in all jurisdictions. You would think that Congress’ edicts apply equally to all jurisdictions, but leave it to these agencies to dispel this common knowledge. We have now come to the point in immigration law (as in criminal law during the Rodney King days, not to dig up old skeletons) where what you see is not actually what you see. The damage to our system of laws, stare decisis (et non quieta movere) in particular is unknowable but certainly great in proportion since settled matters are constantly being unsettled by new interpretations. Often these new takes are offered by nonlawyers practicing law under the federal banner making it so difficult for those of us trained in laws to reconcile the principles of stare decisis with whatever new verbiage that doubles as new law being handed down by the almighty federal agencies. When lawyers can no longer rely on stare decisis to guide their clients or when a co-equal branch of government abdicates a power granted it by the constitution to another branch not so privileged, I say nothing good can come from a system that permits this imbalance to occur.
After all, no one branch is permitted to unilaterally change the constitution last time I looked.It seems elementary to me that Article 1 judges should not be telling Article 3 judges how to interpret statutes enacted by Congress. Call me a stickler . . . but that’s just me.
Aime M. Katambwe, Esq. 7/1/2011
Like us on www.facebook.com/worldesquire