North Dakota and 17 States Rebel Against Biden’s Open-Border Policies: A Game-Changing Lawsuit

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

North Dakota recently joined 17 other states in opposing loopy Democrat Joe Biden’s open-border policies that have damaged the country and harmed American citizens.

The states combined sued the Biden Administration over a bizarre new asylum policy that would allow certain qualifying non-citizens who cross the U.S. borders to stay in the country with something called the “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” rule.

After millions of people have been given free access to the country, this laughable attempt to look serious about the border comes three years into Biden’s presidency.

The leftist administration’s new immigration rule was released May 11, 2023, by 63-year-old Democrat Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas a former Cuban refugee who appears to be Hell bent on allowing the entire third world into the United States without any restrictions on travel or usurpations of our nation.

According to the fact sheet on his utopian dreams for America, Mayorkas made some rules. Then they declared that anyone who is an ‘ unaccompanied minor” is exempt, making it pretty simple for military-aged men to claim they are minors and bypass the immigration rule.

Remember that Real America’s Voice Ben Bergquam often reports on how illegal aliens dump their IDs at the border so that we will know nothing at all about the people who are being allowed free access to our country.

Check it out this brazen attempt to cover up their very lax attitude about immigration:

Fact Sheet: Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule

As part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s work to prepare for the end of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Title 42 public health Order, which will expire after May 11, 2023, and to return to processing all noncitizens under Title 8, immigration authorities, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice have issued a final rule to incentivize the use of lawful pathways.

The final rule is designed to address the current and anticipated surge in migration throughout the hemisphere and further discourage irregular migration by: encouraging migrants to use lawful, safe, and orderly processes for entering the United States and other partner nations; imposing conditions on asylum eligibility for those who fail to do so; and supporting the swift return of migrants who do not have valid protection claims.

As a complement to this final rule, DHS has taken significant steps to expand safe and orderly pathways for migrants to lawfully enter the United States.

This includes: establishing country-specific and other available processes to seek parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit; expanding opportunities to enter for seasonal employment; putting in place a mechanism for migrants to schedule a time and place to arrive in a safe, orderly, and lawful manner at ports of entry via use of the CBP One mobile app; and expanding refugee processing in the Western Hemisphere.


Under the final rule, noncitizens who cross the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders without authorization after traveling through another country, and without having (1) availed themselves of an existing lawful process, (2) presented at a port of entry at a pre-scheduled time using the CBP One app, or (3) been denied asylum in a third country through which they traveled, are presumed ineligible for asylum unless they meet certain limited exceptions.

Noncitizens can rebut this presumption based on exceptionally compelling circumstances detailed below. Noncitizens in expedited removal who are subject to and do not rebut the rebuttable presumption would be screened for whether there is a reasonable possibility they will face persecution or torture in the designated country of removal.

The rebuttable presumption may apply to migrants of any nationality who enter the United States at the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders without authorization after traveling through at least one other country, but would not apply to unaccompanied minors.

The rebuttable presumption is also time-limited, to address the urgent need to respond to and prevent the influx of migrants expected following the lifting of the Title 42 public health Order in the absence of a such a rule. It would apply only to those who enter the United States during the 24 month period after the rule’s effective date.


Noncitizens who cross the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders of the United States without authorization after traveling through a third country will be presumed ineligible for asylum unless they, or a member of their family with whom they are traveling, meet one of three exceptions:

They were provided authorization to travel to the United States pursuant to a DHS-approved parole process; They used the CBP One app to schedule a time and place to present at a port of entry, or they presented at a port of entry without using the CBP One app and established that it was not possible to access or use the CBP One app due to a language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other ongoing and serious obstacle; or, they applied for and were denied asylum in a third country en route to the United States,” according to the DHS fact sheet.


“Unaccompanied children are exempted from the rebuttable presumption.”

Wayne Dupree reported more details about the lawsuit saying:

“The Department of Homeland Security states that the new rule has been created to manage the expected surge in migration across the hemisphere. The goal is to dissuade migrants from undertaking unsafe and disorderly ways of entering the United States and other partner nations. The policy includes imposing specific conditions on asylum eligibility for migrants who do not use lawful and secure procedures for immigration. It also supports the swift return of migrants whose protection claims lack validity.

Republican attorney generals have opposed a new rule that redefines border crossings as lawful pathways, stating it will worsen existing immigration problems.”

The outlet went on:

According to AG Drew Wrigley (R-ND), the Biden administration is encouraging illegal aliens to enter via a phone app, which leads to their dispersal around the country without any meaningful oversight. The lawsuit accuses Biden of neglecting his constitutional duties as president, allowing illegal migrants free entry and keeping them benefits despite their illegal status.

A lawsuit spanning 55 pages, argues that illegal immigrants would receive work authorization upon crossing the border, along with immediate access to public benefits, leaving the states to bear the cost of their stay.

Biden calls for change in immigration policies, but Missouri, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming are taking him to court— compelling him to fulfill his job responsibilities.

The Center Sq reported on the lawsuit saying, “Indiana has about 207,000 illegal immigrants that cost the state about $9.2 million annually.”

“In a truly Orwellian twist, the federal government has depicted this latest measure as a tool for reducing illegal immigration,” said Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita. “As a matter of fact, this new rule would make it even easier to illegally immigrate into the United States — and everyday Hoosiers right here in Indiana would pay the price.”

The attorneys general said the rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which determines how federal agencies can propose regulations. They are asking the court to declare the rule unlawful under the APA and stop the Biden administration from enacting certain portions.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend