In 2013, for example, Kethledge sided with an illegal alien who overstayed a tourist visa and then spent the next ten years, while in the country illegally, trying to get an employment visa. Two separate employers filed paperwork that would have allowed the Indian national to remain in the United States, and both times the applications were denied when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) found the jobs to be bogus. Kethledge ruled, over a dissent by a Bill Clinton-appointed judge, that the alien himself had a right to challenge the determination that the employers did not qualify to keep foreign workers in the country, rather than just the employers themselves.So, Kethledge seems to be implying that an Illegal Alien has similar rights to a citizen here. That's a troubling scenario if true.
Even more troubling for those who prefer an America First interpretation of immigration law, Kethledge’s opinion in Patel v. USCIS expressly rejected the government’s contention that the sole purpose of those laws is to protect American workers and benefit American businesses that need foreign labor in qualifying circumstances where they cannot find Americans. “One can speculate that Congress meant to exclude certain aliens to protect American workers, and admit other, ‘qualified’ aliens to help American employers,” Kethledge wrote. “But there is no basis in the text of the statute—none—to conclude that Congress was completely indifferent to the interests of the ‘qualified immigrants’ themselves.”Here, Kethledge seems to be trying to present himself as a "Textulist", while at the same time legislating from the bench in favor of the Illegal Alien since "But there is no basis in the text of the statute—none—to conclude that Congress was completely indifferent to the interests of the ‘qualified immigrants’ themselves."
Once again, joining Ann Coulter as a liar, Breitbart lies about what Kethledge actually held. Here is Ketchledges actual decision in PATEL v UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION SERVICES
Here is what Ketledge wrote:
Patel filed suit in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the denial [of an employment petition] as arbitrary and capricious. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of prudential standing. We reverse.
IOW the district court held that Patel did not have standing to seek judicial review of an administrative decision by USCIS. Kethledge holds that Patel does have standing to seek judicial review.
As Kethledge wrote: in enacting the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress intended to “make agency action presumptively reviewable.” ... Thus, a plaintiff lacks prudential standing only if his “interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.”
...[excerpting a lot more well-written argument] Kethledge concludes:
Disembodied notions of statutory purpose cannot override what the statute actually says. What § 1153(b)(3) says is that the alien, ultimately, is the one who is entitled to the employment visa. The alien’s interest in receiving it is therefore within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statute. Patel has prudential standing to challenge the denial of his prospective employer’s petition for an employment visa.Of course the Administrative State would like for its determinations not to be judicially reviewable. But that is tyranny.
SO, in conclusion, Breitbart lied, like Coulter lied, and you are too lazy to read what Kethledge actually wrote. Good job there.