Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/31/2026 3:59:59 PM PST by Kid Shelleen
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, a Bill Clinton appointee, on Saturday ordered that five-year-old Liam Conejos Ramos and his father, an illegal from Ecuador, be released from a detention center in Texas after the two were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis ---SNIP---
The truth, of course, was far different than what was being reported. It turned out that Conejo Arias had abandoned his son after agents approached a vehicle the two were in; the father took off on foot, apparently without regard for the safety and well-being of Liam. ICE agents kept Liam warm and treated him to a fast-food meal before trying to return him to family members in the area; those family members refused to open the door for law enforcement. Father and son were later reunited and sent to a family center pending a deportation hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Born November 11, 1947 (age 78)
A senile old Clinton dirtbag.
What was Alex Pretti kicking at when he was caught on camera rioting 6 days before he got himself killed?
Alex Pretti was kicking at my little Black girl's right to work, unprotected by "compassionate" Catholic Bishops on the take.
My daughter was crippled with club feet, but rode her little bike 6.5 miles to Taco Bell in Lockeford. She had to ride on Hwy 88 where giant trucks kicked up gravel in her face.
When she got there, she was supposed to get 20 hrs per week, but only got 17-1/2, while the Latina manager's undocumented brother got 80 hours per week on 3 social security cards.
My daughter's great-grandmother, born in 1899, was a child of former slaves, who didn't ask to be enslaved here; as a single mother in the Depression she built a business of 4 Log Cabin restaurants in Stockton and Lodi.
Our Black family members haven't been getting any "compassion" from Catholic Bishops who got $100s millions from Biden to bring in endless legions of undocumented migrants like the Taco Bell manager's brother to lower the wages of people who are descended from the founders and builders of our country.
Alex Pretti was kicking at the people who try to protect my daughter's right to live and work.
Don't like La Migra? Change the law.
Or you could be like my friend Mario who is a landscaping foreman; he barely speaks any English but went to all the trouble of becoming naturalized, the same as my grandparents.
We don't go kicking at officers protecting people's right to live and work, unprotected by "compassionate" Catholic Bishops.
We don't take unsafe weapons liable to go off "accidentally" in an unsafe situatuon we ourselves create.
We're here to live and work, not destroy a country millions of people still long to get into.
"Hey, I resemble that insult." --Hillary Clinton, age 78.
If the Dems were human and had a sense of shame they would regret claiming the 5 year old boy was nabbed, or grabbed or arrested and detained by ICE agent as their prey.
His father abandoned him and without help he would have wandered the freezing, dangerous streets alone.
Hundreds of thousands of children are unaccounted for from the Biden loose border policy years. Some probably picked up or deliberately sold to sex predators or pimps. Some died. Others who knows where.
“Born November 11, 1947 (age 78)
A senile old Clinton dirtbag.”
Never met the guy so I don’t know his mental but don’t hang senility on being 78.
Trumpmis 79 going on 80.
How quickly the Dems forget, Elián González. They had no problem, then, having police, bust in to the house, heavily armed, taking him from the arms of a relative, while they both hid in a closet.
They do seem to dig up these mummies for “senior judge” just in time to make royal decrees against Trump frequently.
Normal retirement age [taking senior status] for Article III judges is around 70.
Long past his use-by date.
The mother refused to open the door for the agents who were trying to return her son home. The media are sure playing games with this.
If it were up to me, I would create housing next-door to these judges, where those people they let go, who are criminals can live.
why hasnt the judge been arrested for aiding a criminal?
Do the same thing Barry did back in his day, “we believe the judge is wrong in his ruling so we are going to continue doing what we have been doing while it works its way through the courts”.
Judge Biery's Trojan Horse: How One Judicial Order Became a Weapon for Backdoor Amnesty
The Strategic Dismantling of Immigration Enforcement Through Coordinated Judicial and Legislative Warfare
On January 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery ordered the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father from ICE detention with an order so inflammatory it included biblical passages, warnings about "authoritarian kings," and accusations that the government demonstrated "perfidious lust for unbridled power" while being "bereft of human decency." But Judge Biery's rhetorical excess obscures something far more consequential than one family's release: his declaration that "administrative warrants issued by the executive branch itself do not pass muster" arrived at the precise moment Senate Democrats were demanding fundamental rewrites of immigration law under threat of government shutdown—specifically, requiring federal judicial warrants instead of immigration court orders for ICE enforcement.
This is not coincidence. This is coordination. And the stakes are nothing less than backdoor amnesty for millions of criminal aliens.
The Trojan Horse: "Judicial Warrants" as Jurisdictional Trap
Senate Democrats blocked DHS appropriations on January 29, 2026, demanding what Senator Chuck Schumer characterized as "common sense reforms": requiring ICE agents to obtain judicial warrants before arrests, ending "roving patrols," and mandating body cameras and identification. Media coverage portrayed this as accountability—making "lawless ICE agents" follow "the same rules that your local police department does," as Minnesota Senator Tina Smith put it. But beneath this rhetoric of oversight lies a jurisdictional trap that would functionally immunize the vast majority of deportable criminal aliens from federal immigration enforcement.
Here's the mechanism: Most deportable aliens with serious criminal convictions—rape, murder, child molestation, armed robbery, aggravated assault—were convicted in state courts for violations of state criminal law. When Democrats demand that ICE must obtain federal judicial warrants rather than relying on immigration court removal orders and administrative warrants, they are exploiting a critical jurisdictional boundary. Federal courts issue warrants based on federal crimes. Federal judges have no authority to issue arrest warrants for state law violations prosecuted in state courts.
The result: ICE could only obtain federal judicial warrants for aliens convicted of federal crimes—a tiny fraction of the deportable population. Aliens who raped children under state law, murdered victims prosecuted by district attorneys in state courts, or committed any of thousands of state offenses would be categorically beyond ICE's reach. Their state convictions, final removal orders from immigration courts, and administrative warrants would all be deemed insufficient "administrative" actions lacking federal judicial imprimatur. They would remain in state prisons, complete their sentences, and be released back into American communities—because ICE could never obtain the federal judicial warrants Democrats demand.
This is not a bug in the Democratic proposal. This is the feature.
The Legislative Battlefield: Shutdowns, Funding, and Constitutional Sabotage
The timing is exquisitely calculated. In spring 2025, Congress passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" providing DHS with $170 billion over four years, including approximately $75 billion directly to ICE. This multi-year appropriation means ICE has substantial funding through 2029 regardless of current budget battles. When Democrats blocked the January 2026 DHS appropriations bill—which included $20 million for body cameras and independent detention oversight—they weren't cutting off ICE's operational funding. They were manufacturing a crisis to force statutory changes to immigration enforcement authority itself.
The House-passed bill that Democrats killed would have funded body cameras, enhanced training, and independent oversight—exactly what Democrats claimed to want. But the bill "only requires the funds to be allocated and does not mandate the actual use of cameras," as NPR reported, and critically, it didn't restrict ICE to judicial warrants for enforcement. So Democrats blocked it, triggering partial government shutdown and forcing negotiations where they could demand fundamental rewrites to immigration law as the price of funding.
Senator Lindsey Graham acknowledged that "some of the Democratic proposals make sense, such as better training and body cameras," but warned that if Democrats try to change the funding bill, he would insist on language "preventing local governments from resisting the Trump administration's immigration policies." This reveals the real battle: Democrats want to entrench sanctuary city policies and restrict federal enforcement through statutory mandates, while Republicans want to override state and local obstruction. The budget is merely the battlefield; the war is over who controls immigration enforcement.
Immigration Courts as "Administrative": Delegitimizing Decades of Settled Law
Judge Biery's declaration that administrative warrants are unconstitutional "fox guarding the henhouse" arrangements represents judicial actualization of the Democratic legislative strategy. Immigration courts have operated under statutory authority since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, with administrative warrant authority codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this framework, recognizing that immigration proceedings are civil administrative matters, not criminal prosecutions requiring Article III judicial process. Administrative warrants issued pursuant to final removal orders from immigration judges have been the backbone of immigration enforcement for seventy years.
By declaring these warrants constitutionally insufficient, Judge Biery provides judicial cover for the Democratic position that only Article III federal judges can authorize immigration arrests. His opinion dismisses immigration courts—staffed by administrative law judges within the Executive Office for Immigration Review—as illegitimate "executive branch" actors whose determinations lack constitutional authority. Never mind that Congress specifically created this system, that millions of cases have been processed through it, or that the Supreme Court has never required Article III judicial warrants for civil immigration enforcement.
Judge Biery's rhetoric is particularly telling: he frames administrative warrants as inherently suspect because they're issued by the same executive branch conducting enforcement. But this describes every administrative agency: the EPA issues its own compliance orders, OSHA conducts its own workplace inspections, the SEC investigates and charges securities violations. Administrative law depends on executive agencies having enforcement authority subject to Article III judicial review on appeal—not requiring Article III approval before every enforcement action. Judge Biery's logic, taken seriously, would dismantle the entire administrative state.
The State Prison Trap: How Jurisdictional Boundaries Create Enforcement Dead Zones
The full implications become clear when examining how ICE currently detains criminal aliens. When a foreign national is arrested by state or local police, charged under state law, convicted in state court, and sentenced to state prison, immigration authorities typically issue an ICE detainer—a request that state or local facilities notify ICE before release and hold the individual for 48 hours to allow ICE to assume custody. These detainers are accompanied by administrative warrants based on final removal orders from immigration courts finding the individual deportable.
Sanctuary jurisdictions have increasingly refused to honor ICE detainers, arguing they're "not mandatory" and risk Fourth Amendment liability for extended detention without judicial warrants. Federal courts in jurisdictions like Illinois have struck down detainers as exceeding ICE's warrantless arrest authority. This is the same legal theory Judge Biery advances: administrative warrants from immigration courts are insufficient; Article III judicial warrants are required.
But here's the trap: A federal district judge can issue a warrant for violations of federal criminal law within their jurisdiction. They cannot issue warrants for state law violations prosecuted by state authorities in state courts. If Congress or courts mandate that ICE must have federal judicial warrants to detain aliens—even those with final removal orders based on state criminal convictions—ICE would be unable to obtain such warrants for the vast majority of criminal aliens.
Consider a concrete example: An illegal alien in California is convicted of child molestation under California Penal Code § 288. He's sentenced to state prison. Immigration court issues a final order of removal based on his conviction for an aggravated felony. ICE issues an administrative warrant and detainer requesting California notify ICE before his release. California refuses, citing state sanctuary policies. ICE would need a federal warrant to take him into custody upon release. But a federal judge has no jurisdiction to issue a warrant for his arrest—he violated state law, was prosecuted in state court, and has no federal criminal charges. His immigration removal order is "merely administrative." Result: He completes his sentence and walks free into American communities. ICE is powerless.
This isn't a theoretical edge case—this describes tens of thousands of deportable criminal aliens annually. According to ICE data, the overwhelming majority of criminal alien arrests involve state convictions, not federal ones. Murders, rapes, assaults, drug trafficking, DUIs, domestic violence—these are predominantly state crimes prosecuted in state courts. A federal judicial warrant requirement would immunize nearly all of them from immigration enforcement.
The Biery Order as Cause Célèbre: Manufacturing Constitutional Crisis
Judge Biery's Liam Ramos order must be understood in this strategic context. The case presented disputed facts requiring evidentiary hearing: ICE agents claimed the father fled on foot abandoning his child, then mother refused custody multiple times despite assurances she wouldn't be arrested. School officials claimed agents used the child as "bait" to trap the mother. These directly contradictory accounts demanded witness testimony under oath, cross-examination, credibility assessments, and explicit findings of fact.
Judge Biery held no hearing. He made no findings. He simply adopted the school officials' narrative, declared administrative warrants unconstitutional, and ordered release with inflammatory rhetoric and a viral photograph of the child in his blue bunny hat. The order was procedurally deficient, legally erroneous, and calculated to generate maximum media attention.
It also arrived on January 31, 2026—two days after Democrats blocked DHS funding demanding judicial warrant requirements, and precisely when Senate negotiations were beginning over immigration enforcement restrictions. The timing transforms Judge Biery's order from mere judicial activism into political ammunition. Democratic senators could point to a federal judge's constitutional holding that administrative warrants are insufficient, validating their demand for judicial warrants as constitutional necessity rather than political preference.
This is the "cause célèbre" Democrats needed: a sympathetic five-year-old in a bunny hat, a federal judge declaring ICE's constitutional authority invalid, and a viral image to generate public outrage against Trump enforcement. Never mind that the family's own decisions created the custody crisis. Never mind that ICE agents had statutory authority for their actions. Never mind that Judge Biery's constitutional analysis contradicts seventy years of settled law. The order provides judicial validation for legislative demands that would functionally dismantle immigration enforcement.
The Factual Record: What Holmesian Deduction Reveals
Applying rigorous logical analysis to the undisputed facts reveals that Judge Biery's narrative inverts cause and effect. The physical evidence establishes: Father and child were together when ICE arrived. Child became separated and ended up with agents. Agents brought child to door where mother watched from inside. Father was shouting "Don't open the door!" Mother did not open door. Both father and child were detained together.
The father's own wife confirmed in a Telemundo interview that he "pleaded with me not to go outside because he feared I would be arrested," that agents "brought him to the front door, urging her to open it," and that her son was "calling out 'Mom, open the door.'" She acknowledged she did not open it because "my husband insisted I stay inside." This corroborates ICE's account: agents tried to return the child to the mother, the mother refused following her husband's orders, and agents had no alternative but to detain both together per the father's stated preference.
The "used as bait" theory collapses under scrutiny: Why would ICE need "bait" to access the house when they already had their target in custody, had no warrant for interior search, and no legal basis to arrest the mother? If agents wanted to keep the child, why bring him to the door at all? The logical explanation is that agents faced a custody crisis created by the father's evasive conduct and the mother's refusal to take custody, and attempted to solve it by reunifying the family. When the family refused, detention with the father was the only remaining option.
Judge Biery made zero findings addressing these logical inferences. He simply declared that the case reflected government's "perfidious lust for unbridled power" and "imposition of cruelty," adopted the advocacy narrative without scrutiny, and ordered release. This isn't adjudication—it's predetermined outcome in service of political narrative.
Separation of Powers and the Administrative State Under Siege
The deeper threat Judge Biery's order represents is the delegitimization of administrative enforcement authority. When courts declare that executive agencies cannot enforce their own determinations without Article III judicial approval at every step, they make administration of law impossible. Immigration courts process hundreds of thousands of cases annually. If every final removal order requires subsequent federal judicial warrant before ICE can execute it, the system collapses. Federal district judges would become bottlenecks for all immigration enforcement, creating de facto amnesty through procedural impossibility.
This is exactly what Democrats want. Unable to pass amnesty legislation democratically, they pursue it through procedural warfare: sanctuary cities refuse ICE cooperation, states prohibit local law enforcement from honoring detainers, courts strike down administrative warrants as insufficient, and Congress conditions appropriations on warrant requirements that are jurisdictionally impossible to satisfy for most deportable aliens. The result is the same as legislative amnesty—millions of deportable aliens, including serious criminals, remain in the United States beyond the reach of enforcement—but achieved through institutional capture rather than democratic process.
Compare Judge Biery's constitutional recklessness with Judge Sara Ellis's careful approach in Chicago. When confronted with claims about ICE's "Operation Midway Blitz," Judge Ellis ordered body cameras for agents—but explicitly limited her mandate to agents already equipped, avoiding any requirement that Congress appropriate funds for equipment. She recognized the separation of powers constraint that judges cannot compel legislative appropriations or rewrite statutory enforcement schemes. Judge Biery, by contrast, declared entire statutory frameworks unconstitutional, ordered maximum relief without factual basis, and used his judicial platform for political manifesto complete with biblical citations and protest imagery.
Conclusion: Accountability or Amnesty?
The Democratic demand for "accountability" through judicial warrants is fundamentally dishonest. Real accountability would embrace the body camera funding and independent oversight Republicans included in the House bill. Real accountability would support robust immigration courts with adequate staffing and appeals. Real accountability would demand transparency and training while respecting Congress's constitutional authority to structure immigration enforcement.
Instead, Democrats pursue jurisdictional traps that would make enforcement impossible, legislative riders that would entrench sanctuary obstruction, and judicial activism that declares seventy years of statutory authority unconstitutional. This isn't accountability—it's abolition by procedural sabotage.
Judge Fred Biery's inflammatory order releasing Liam Ramos is a small piece of this larger strategy, but a revealing one. His failure to hold evidentiary hearings, resolve disputed facts, or explain his legal reasoning demonstrates that the order's purpose was never sound adjudication. It was to provide judicial validation for a political narrative at the exact moment that narrative served legislative objectives. Whether through intentional coordination or ideological synchronicity, Judge Biery weaponized his judicial office to advance Democratic policy goals that could not survive democratic process.
The order should be immediately stayed, reversed on appeal for abuse of discretion and legal error, and cited as evidence that structural reforms are desperately needed. Lifetime-appointed judges who skip evidentiary hearings, adopt advocacy narratives, issue orders as political manifestos, and face no accountability for systematic violations of judicial duty represent a constitutional crisis as serious as any immigration policy dispute.
When courts become mere extensions of partisan political strategy—providing cover for legislative maneuvers designed to create backdoor amnesty through jurisdictional impossibility—the rule of law itself is under siege. Judge Biery's Trojan horse must be rejected, his legal errors corrected, and the broader strategy of immigration enforcement abolition through institutional capture must be exposed and defeated. The American people deserve immigration policy made through democratic process, not judicial and bureaucratic warfare designed to nullify democratically-enacted law.
⁂
-PJ
Elian Gonzales.
I remember.
Another a-hole, corrupt judge who doesn’t understand the legal facets of the immigration enforcement system.
I would not make ASSumptions about age-that judge would be a clueless idiot at any age. Many here at FR are older than that judge-I doubt they would like you calling them senile. Pres Trump is 79 and smarter than most of the population that is far younger. I’m over 70 I run a business that requires physical labor as well as customer service and maintaining a professional license-most of my neighbors who own/run businesses are over 70-but none of us are liberals-maybe that is the difference...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
