Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
SCOTUS Backs Trump on Immigration Issue
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal officials can detain immigrants at any time for possible deportation after they have served their time in the US for other crimes. The 5-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said officials have to detain these immigrants immediately or they are exempt from ever being detained.
This ruling had the classic conservative-liberal split, with Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas siding with Trump in the majority. Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.
At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents. Both were convicted of crimes and served their sentences but were not detained by immigration authorities for removal proceedings until years after they were released from criminal custody.
The dispute focused on a federal law that says the Department of Homeland Security can detain immigrants convicted of certain crimes “when the alien is released” from criminal custody.
Lawyers for Preap and Khoury, as well as other immigrants in similar circumstances, argued they are exempt from mandatory detention because of the gap in their custody, as the statute applies only if the immigrant is taken into custody immediately upon release.
Do you think SCOTUS decided this case rightly?
Published in Immigration, Law
Damn Right!
Can I agree more than 100%? If so, I’m in, and will just add: Hallelujah!
A little light in the midst of a sea of sheer madness!
The minority argued that it is unfair to be a non-citizen convicted of crime knowing that the crime could be the basis for deportation at any time so as to create an uncertain state under the the whim of the federal government. But their overwrought interpretation of “when” means that if ICE is not at the prison gates on the day of release then the crime can never be the basis for detainment and deportation.
A non-citizen is always here at the whim of the federal government. Inventing a form of amnesty based on a failure to effect an instant arrest is silly.
Dear @oldbathos: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Why do citizens have to have every of seemingly millions of laws applied to them but non-citizens are apparently exempt from many laws applied to citizens.
Of course, sanctuary cities and counties operate outside the scope of the law. So for me that is a huge concern..
Recently a woman was killed in San Jose Calif by a illegal immigrant who I believe had several outstanding warrants for serious offenses, including assault. The URL to one story about this crime is here:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Arrest-Made-in-Connection-to-Womans-Death-in-San-Jose-507013631.html
But the media has seized on the strategy of painting all immigrants as deserving of “do overs,” no matter what they have done today or yesterday, or in the past.
Zarate, the guy who killed Kate Stenle, ended up with a slap on the wrist, as after all, he was a victim of the poverty and misery he had grown up with in Mexico. Never mind that at the time of his shooting his gun on a crowded San Francisco pier and tourist destination, he was already in his forties.
The liberals rallied around this man, and he received so much in the way of monetary contributions that he hired the best lawyers out there. So justice for Kate Stenle was not to be had.
Meanwhile born in the US hispanics, African Americans, and poor whites rot in jail, because even though there is DNA evidence that might prove their innocence, they lack the 5 to 12K in funding needed to have that evidence forensically examined.
Yes I believe SCOTUS decided this case correctly. Our systems are overwhelmed, I believe intentionally, by the multitudes of illegal immigrants in this country already, not to mention the hundreds of thousands more entering annually. Our law enforcement cannot be entangled in obstacle after obstacle thrown in their path and still be expected to uphold the law. This should be the first of many decisions reversing the 9th and other circuits in immigration decisions.
My gut says yes, but my brain says I’m no more a constitutional scholar than Obama was.
I nominate this for wisest Ricochet comment of the day.
Yes. Anyone who is not a citizen who has commited a crime should be deported, no matter what punishment they receive and serve out. Because they are not citizens, they should be permanently removed from this country, never to return.
And if they do return?
Arrest them, put them on trial, and if convicted, put them back in prison. Once time is served, deport them again.
So simple . . .
The Ninth Circuit needs this to continue to hold the title of most reversed.
Do they have specific judges who are even more reversed? Because this could be good vote-xir-off-the-island streaming content.
These are usually panels of judges, so the ones who are getting the bad rap are the dissenters. Assuming that there are any.
Every time a Dem candidate says he will pack the Supreme Court, Trump should tweet “I’m going to pack the ninth circuit.”
He maybe doesn’t need to pack it, he needs to unpack it. Break it up.
Better idea . . . hey Congress – get to work! Oh wait, the House . . .
Another item the Republican House didn’t around to.
The interesting part is that Ginsburg showed up at work.
I think that they decided it correctly. It was a narrow and technical issue of statutory interpretation.
The statutory text provided that:”The [Secretary] shall take into custody [aliens in certain categories] when the alien is released . . ..” The consequence of this particular section was that the alien would be detained without bond, pending deportation.
There is a superficially plausible argument that the “when the alien is released” language was intended to require immediate detention after release from prior incarceration. This was the position of the 9th Circuit and the dissent.
I think that the better interpretation of the “when the alien is released” provision was an exhortation to the Secretary to take prompt action (within the limits of resources). This was the majority’s position.
There was also an extremely exciting jurisdictional argument under three separate statutes, plus a mootness argument. (I always thing of Treebeard when I see a mootness argument.) I love arguing jurisdiction and mootness. Not to mention standing and ripeness. (I get pretty ripe myself if I stand around too long like Treebeard did.)
I was disappointed about one thing. I think that the District Court had seriously overreached by granting class-based injunctive relief applicable to all aliens in California who were not immediately taken into custody upon release from prior custody (for another offense). I’ve been very troubled by the use of nationwide or other broad injunctions, and I would have liked to see SCOTUS establish some strict limits on this practice.
In fairness, part of the reason that SCOTUS has not established strict limits on broad injunctive relief is that it is difficult to craft an appropriate rule in this area. But at a minimum, a nice scolding directed at the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, that they should generally decide cases for the litigants before them and not broadly interfere with executive actions, would have been satisfying.
I will continue to claim that the national emergency declaration regarding the border will present the best case for decision on broad injunctions, where a 9th Circuit court asserts such and a 5th Circuit court says “EXCUUUUSE ME!” [In its best Steve Martin voice.]