“When it comes to immigration, Amy Coney Barrett applies the law as written,” said RJ Hauman, government relations director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “That’s really all you can ask.”
But, he warned, “over the coming weeks, Senate Democrats are almost certain to take issue with that … in their eyes, judges must ignore the rule of law and go beyond the bounds of their authority.”
A review of Coney Barrett’s ruling by FAIR
[Her] time on the appellate court has been short, and subsequently does not have a long record of immigration decisions. That said, her two rulings indicate that she supports the legality of President Trump’s public charge ruling and the independence of consular officers to reject immigration petitions without obtrusive review from activists.
The progressive, elite-liberal Vox.com
reported that she “has at times proved an obstacle to the advancement of immigrant rights during her three years on the Seventh Circuit.”
But her rulings haven’t always led to adverse outcomes for immigrants. In one case, she actually prevented the Trump administration from ending a policy that allows immigration judges to indefinitely close deportation cases in which the immigrant doesn’t appear to be a priority for enforcement, giving them a chance to live in the US without fear of deportation.
With Barrett’s mixed record — and only three years of experience on the federal bench — it’s difficult to predict how she would rule on immigration cases before the Supreme Court if she is confirmed, as expected.
For decades, left-wing judges have pushed the Supreme Court to protect and expand immigration. Perhaps most importantly, the liberal court in 1982 directed states to provide free education to the children of illegal migrants, creating a huge incentive for poor parents to smuggle their children into the United States. According to
Cornell Law School:
Plyler v. Doe is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down a Texas statute that denied funding to local school districts for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States, and which authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such children. The Court held that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people “in any ordinary sense of the term” and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections and that since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of without a “compelling state interest” it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But even when progressives are in the minority, they have often pressured GOP-nominated judges to endorse pro-migration policies. For example, in June 2020, the four liberals on the court managed to preserve President Barack Obama’s DACA amnesty by getting Chief Justice John Roberts to argue that Trump’s bureaucrats had flubbed the process of ending Obama’s policy. The court also noted — but ignored in the decision — the questionable legality of the legal claims
used by multiple presidents to justify the award of work permits to illegal aliens.