Whining Mayor Whines Again

New York City Mayor Eric “Squeaky” Adams (D) is crying now that his sanctuary city, a status of which he claims to be proud, is nearing its breaking point and there is no more room in New York. All because the city of 8.8 million has had an “influx” of 41,000 illegal aliens over the last nine or so months.

41,000. The Del Rio sector of the US-Mexico border, of which Eagle Pass, TX—population 28 thousand—is the primary border-crossing region, had more than 51,000 illegal aliens entering in December 2022 alone.

Adams needs to stop his cry-baby act; he’s embarrassing New Yorkers, if not himself. If he doesn’t want to handle his trickle of illegal aliens, his first step should be to end the city’s sanctuary status.

It’s Global?

HHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the crowd at a DC conclave of city mayors that “global migration” is a…global…thing.

The challenge of migration is not unique to the United States nor to the border communities that confront it every day….
Around the world, there are more displaced people than at any time since World War II. Mass migration has gripped our hemisphere.

So, just suck up and deal. Tell that to the Progressive-Democratic mayors of Chicago and New York City, Lori Lightfoot and Eric Adams, though.

And, no. Migration may be global, but the hugely broad illegal alien flow into our nation is a national problem. Hiding behind global-ness is either dishonest or cowardly. Or both.

Sounds Like a Personal Problem

New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) is having a crying jag over the influx of illegal aliens arriving in his city.

We are at our breaking point. Based off our projections, we anticipate being unable to continue sheltering arriving asylum seekers on our own….

That overwhelming inflow? “More than” 3,100 “asylum seekers” in the past week, with 835 “last Thursday alone.” By his own estimate, his sanctuary city has received around 40,000 asylum seekers since the spring of 2022.

New York City is proudly a sanctuary city, and Mayor Adams is just as proud of his city’s status as a sanctuary city. Yet he both beefs about being taken at his word with illegal aliens sent—with the illegals’ prior written permission—to his city for the promised sanctuary, and he has chosen to do nothing since his accession to the Mayor’s Mansion (notice that: his mansion) to prepare his sanctuary city to receive sanctuary seekers.

Meanwhile, the cities and towns along our southern border, from western Arizona to Texas’ Gulf Coast, are inundated with millions of illegal aliens per year and nearly 48,000 just in the first three weeks of this year, not in the 10 or so months since the spring of 2022. These cities and towns truly are overwhelmed.

For Adams and his staffers that works out—if my third-grade arithmetic serves me well—to nearly 16,000 illegal aliens per week so far just this month. Again, for the benefit of Adams and his staffers, and again if my third-grade arithmetic serves me, that’s nearly five times the inflow that New York City has been experiencing. And not for just the few months that Adams’ team has been facing, but for the last two-plus years.

Adams has a personal problem, centered on his virtue-signaling hypocrisy and his squalling about being held to his word. Us average Americans are getting fed up with his whiny attitude.

What He Said

When President Joe Biden (D) pretended to visit our southern border by going to El Paso and no closer, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott (R) hand delivered a letter to him laying out the situation—both regarding his visit to El Paso and the conditions resulting from his border policies. (Right click|Open Link in New Tab for a larger image.)

The Letter speaks for itself. And for us Texans, and for all of us average Americans.

The Supreme Court and Title 42

Much is being made of the Supreme Court’s decision requiring Title 42 restrictions on illegal aliens to remain in effect until the Court hears the underlying case (sometime in February). That underlying case, as put by the Court in granting certiorari, is this:

Applicants suggested this Court treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari; doing so, the petition is granted. The parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the State applicants may intervene to challenge the District Court’s summary judgment order.

That’s an outcome, however temporary, that is very welcome.

There’s an additional aspect to this ruling that’s also interesting to me, though. A dissent to the grant of certiorari was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and it was joined by the activist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Gorsuch wrote,

The States contend that they face an immigration crisis at the border and policymakers have failed to agree on adequate measures to address it. … And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.

This is the activist Justice Jackson agreeing that it’s not a role of an American court to make policy, only to apply law. Whether she honors that position in future cases remains to be seen, but it is, perhaps, a start.

The other two activist Justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, ducked the question altogether, choosing only to vote without comment against certiorari.