SCOTUS reinforces Gov't's right to detain illegals.

[SunsetBengal]

Looks like a step toward reeling in those "sanctuary" areas that wish to not comply with Federal Immigration law, to me.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/19/supreme-court-illegal-immigrants-criminal-records-deport-trump/2505543002/

Enjoy some coffee, and discuss!

[*michaelsean*]

I’m sure people will go to the extreme to argue this, but 24 hours is a little ridiculous and Alito made it clear that someone grabbed years later would have recourse.

[*bfine32*]

I miss the days of my innocence when I thought The Supreme Court of the United States was beyond personal bias. As to the ruling: I have 0 idea why anyone; especially 4 folks that have advanced to the highest court in the land, would put a 24 hr statue of limitations on crimes worthy of deportation.

[SunsetBengal]

Personally, I'm shocked to read that members of the highest court in the land, feel like sneaking into our Country illegally is a 'small crime", as Justice Breyer stated.

[Belsnickel]

(03-20-2019, 08:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Looks like a step toward reeling in those "sanctuary" areas that wish to not comply with Federal Immigration law, to me.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/19/supreme-court-illegal-immigrants-criminal-records-deport-trump/2505543002/

Enjoy some coffee, and discuss!

This will have no impact on sanctuary cities. They still don't have to do the job of ICE or notify them.

(03-20-2019, 09:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Personally, I'm shocked to read that members of the highest court in the land, feel like sneaking into our Country illegally is a 'small crime", as Justice Breyer stated.

Well, it's a class B misdemeanor under federal law. So...I'd call that a "small crime" as well.

[Belsnickel]

(03-20-2019, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I miss the days of my innocence when I thought The Supreme Court of the United States was beyond personal bias. As to the ruling: I have 0 idea why anyone; especially 4 folks that have advanced to the highest court in the land, would put a 24 hr statue of limitations on crimes worthy of deportation.

Yeah, on its face I don't get this ideological split. It doesn't make sense to me to put a time limit on it like that. I say this without having read any of the documents pertaining to this case, though, so my opinion is just rooted on a surface level gut reaction.

[*michaelsean*]

I don’t know what Breyer is talking about being a minor crime. These are people convicted of another crime that makes them subject to deportation. This has nothing to do with being here illegally although they would be subject as well I imagine.

[BmorePat87]

(03-20-2019, 09:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, on its face I don't get this ideological split. It doesn't make sense to me to put a time limit on it like that. I say this without having read any of the documents pertaining to this case, though, so my opinion is just rooted on a surface level gut reaction.

(03-20-2019, 09:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t know what Breyer is talking about being a minor crime. These are people convicted of another crime that makes them subject to deportation.  This has nothing to do with being here illegally although they would be subject as well I imagine.

Just a clarification: this was about any immigrant, legal or illegal.

The liberal justices are concerned about a legal immigrant who committed a minor crime being detained without bail years later because of that crime after years of lawful behavior.

Conservative justices are concerned with putting a 24 hour limit on being able to address this. 


Seems like the two sides should have tried to put a specific window in place, especially since Alito suggested that doing this to someone years after could be unconstitutional, though he suggested that individual would then have to address that in court themselves. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-21-2019, 10:58 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just a clarification: this was about any immigrant, legal or illegal.

The liberal justices are concerned about a legal immigrant who committed a minor crime being detained without bail years later because of that crime after years of lawful behavior.

Conservative justices are concerned with putting a 24 hour limit on being able to address this. 


Seems like the two sides should have tried to put a specific window in place, especially since Alito suggested that doing this to someone years after could be unconstitutional, though he suggested that individual would then have to address that in court themselves. 

I got that although I may have said it poorly.

It has to be a crime that would make you eligible for deportation.  Do misdemeanors qualify?

[CJD]

Yea, this is a case of the Supreme Court passing a ruling that prevents a scenario they're worried will happen (not being able to detain an immigrant after they've been released for 24 hours) while promising not to use it as a basis for a scenario that liberals are worried will happen (a person being detained years after they've been released, despite leading lawful lives since).

How you feel about this issue most likely depends on how much faith you have in ICE being lawful, fair and unbiased.

If you think ICE will "hunt down" immigrants in an attempt to detain them and make their lives difficult out of disdain, you won't be happy this passed.

If you think ICE, generally, have the best interests of the country at heart and only wish to remove dangerous and felonious immigrants in a humane and lawful way, then you'll think this is a good law.

The worst case scenario is seen differently depending on your view point:
Conservative worst case scenario: An immigrant is released, goes into hiding for 24 hours, is now immune to being detained and potentially deported.

Liberal worst case scenario: An immigrant was arrested for something in 2006, was released in 2007, has led a perfectly lawful life for the last 12 years. ICE knocks on their door, detains them and forbids them from being released to bail for several months, if not years, while they decide what they want to do with this immigrant.

I can't say if either worst case scenario is more likely than the other, or if either is likely at all.

But it's definitely a victory for people who are not fans of immigrants, legal or illegal.

[CJD]

(03-21-2019, 11:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I got that although I may have said it poorly.  

It has to be a crime that would make you eligible for deportation.  Do misdemeanors qualify?

Immigration law doesn't follow the same levels of crime that most of us are familiar with. Some misdemeanors may be enough for deportation while some felonies may not necessarily be grounds for deportation (I'm not sure on that one, but it could technically be possible).

The general idea is captured here:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-that-will-make-immigrant-deportable.html

Quote:"Crimes of moral turpitude" (or "CMTs") are not well defined in U.S. immigration law. However, courts have weighed in on the matter, and the Department of State's guidance notes that the most common elements of a moral turpitude crime will include "fraud, larceny, and intent to harm persons or things." (9 FAM 302.3-2(B)(2)(U).)

Crimes involving dishonesty and theft will almost always be considered crimes of moral turpitude. Other examples would be assault with the intent to rob or kill, spousal abuse, and aggravated driving under the influence ("DUI" or "DWI").
As there are too many examples of crimes that have been found to involve moral turpitude to list here, it's safest to take a certified disposition of your offense (obtained from the clerk of the court where your case was heard) to an immigration attorney in order to learn whether your particular type of conviction has been found to be one.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-21-2019, 11:35 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, this is a case of the Supreme Court passing a ruling that prevents a scenario they're worried will happen (not being able to detain an immigrant after they've been released for 24 hours) while promising not to use it as a basis for a scenario that liberals are worried will happen (a person being detained years after they've been released, despite leading lawful lives since).

How you feel about this issue most likely depends on how much faith you have in ICE being lawful, fair and unbiased.

If you think ICE will "hunt down" immigrants in an attempt to detain them and make their lives difficult out of disdain, you won't be happy this passed.

If you think ICE, generally, have the best interests of the country at heart and only wish to remove dangerous and felonious immigrants in a humane and lawful way, then you'll think this is a good law.

The worst case scenario is seen differently depending on your view point:
Conservative worst case scenario: An immigrant is released, goes into hiding for 24 hours, is now immune to being deported.
Liberal worst case scenario: An immigrant was arrested for something in 2006, was released in 2007, has led a perfectly lawful life for the last 12 years. ICE knocks on their door, detains them and forbids them from being released to bail for several months, if not years, while they decide what they want to do with this immigrant.

I can't say if either worst case scenario is more likely than the other, or if either is likely at all.

But it's definitely a victory for people who are not fans of immigrants, legal or illegal.

I don't believe they are immune to being deported.  It seems this is about whether they can be held indefinitely without a bail hearing while their deportation case goes through the system.  I hope nobody was arguing you should be immune from deportation after 24 hours.

[CJD]

(03-21-2019, 11:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't believe they are immune to being deported.  It seems this is about whether they can be held indefinitely without a bail hearing while their deportation case goes through the system.  I hope nobody was arguing you should be immune from deportation after 24 hours.

Well, I think that's the worst case scenario. I.e. the fear of what may be argued in that case. I'm not saying either worst case scenario is necessarily realistic. But I'll edit it to clarify.

[*michaelsean*]

I'm a little confused about this though. It seems they are talking about merely having a bail hearing. I don't care if someone gets a bail hearing, but on the other hand, the ACLU seems OK with you not getting a bail hearing as long as you are taken into custody within 24 hours of being released. Why would that be OK to them? I must be missing something really important here.

[Belsnickel]

(03-21-2019, 11:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm a little confused about this though. It seems they are talking about merely having a bail hearing. I don't care if someone gets a bail hearing, but on the other hand, the ACLU seems OK with you not getting a bail hearing as long as you are taken into custody within 24 hours of being released. Why would that be OK to them? I must be missing something really important here.

So I have read the decision(s), for the most part. The argument is that the law itself (8 USC § 1226) was written in such a way as to say that aliens would be eligible to be detained "when...released." So the plaintiffs in the case are arguing that because of that specific wording, their detention is not covered by the statute which allows for detention without bond because it did not happen when they were released. So the argument occurring is not based on the constitutionality of whether or not detention without bond under the statute is constitutional or not, but whether the law as written applies to the plaintiffs. They are arguing for a narrow interpretation of "when" and the court rules in a broader sense.

Unfortunately, as Alito pointed out at the end of his decision, the plaintiffs did not raise an argument against the constitutionality but only the statutory interpretation. As such, it was not within the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS to look at the constitutionality. Had this been a question of constitutionality from the start (SCOTUS can only decide on the arguments presented in lower courts) then they may have won.

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2019, 09:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Personally, I'm shocked to read that members of the highest court in the land, feel like sneaking into our Country illegally is a 'small crime", as Justice Breyer stated.

Democraticly elected representatives declared it to be a low level misdemeanor.

I am NOT shocked that many people on the right do not know this.

[BmorePat87]

(03-21-2019, 11:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I got that although I may have said it poorly.  

It has to be a crime that would make you eligible for deportation.  Do misdemeanors qualify?

They do IF you were sentenced to more than 1 year in prison for that misdemeanor. Under the immigration law IIRIRA (1996), a term called "aggravated felony" was created to describe crimes that would require deportation and bans on immigrants, legal or illegal. The courts decided that misdemeanors with punishments longer than a year would become "aggravated felonies" and prompt deportation and future bans on return to the US. 

So there's a concern over someone being detained without bail and for an indefinite period of time over a misdemeanor (now called aggravated felony) committed years ago after they have been living in the US for years without violating the law. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-20-2019, 09:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Personally, I'm shocked to read that members of the highest court in the land, feel like sneaking into our Country illegally is a 'small crime", as Justice Breyer stated.

In his dissenting opinion, he refers to "minor drug offenses, illegally downloading music, possessing a stolen bus transfer" as "minor crimes".

I think you were given bad information. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-21-2019, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Democratically elected representtives declared it to be a low level misdemeanor.

I am NOT shocked that many people on the right do not know this.

There you go, assuming again.

I am very well aware of it.
If you Enter illegally then it should be a deportable crime and ban ranges depending on number of offenses in and out of country.
Entering legally and overstaying should be a fine with a possible ban (dependent upon length of overstay).