Supreme Court sides with immigrant facing deportation

[GMDino]

Weird times we live in....lol.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/17/supreme-court-immigration-law-threatening-deportattosses-out-immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/

Quote:The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law subjecting immigrants to deportation for crimes of violence is unconstitutionally vague, handing the Trump administration an early defeat.

President Trump's nominee to the high court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined the liberal majority's 5-4 opinion in deciding that the law passed by Congress failed to define what would qualify as a violent crime.

The ruling was a victory for James Garcia Dimaya, whose two burglary convictions were considered violent crimes under the statute — despite not having involved violence. It was a defeat for the Justice Department, which had defended the law under both the Trump and Obama administrations.

The case was carried over from the high court's 2016 term, when the justices presumably deadlocked 4-4 following Justice Antonin Scalia's death and before Gorsuch was confirmed 14 months later. 

But if that never-confirmed split was along ideological lines — with conservative justices backing the government and liberals siding with the immigrant facing mandatory removal -- Gorsuch's addition turned out to be counterproductive.

During oral argument on the first day of the 2017 term in October, Gorsuch wondered how the court could define a crime of violence if Congress did not.

"Even when it's going to put people in prison and deprive them of liberty and result in deportation, we shouldn't expect Congress to be able to specify those who are captured by its laws?" Gorsuch asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler.

The vagueness doctrine is meant to apply in cases where the criminal or civil penalty is severe, and during oral argument, Justice Samuel Alito wondered how to define severity. Gorsuch had a ready answer.

"Life, liberty or property," he said. "It's right out of the text of the Due Process Clause itself."

The court's ruling followed a similar one in 2015, when Scalia wrote an 8-1 decision declaring a key section of criminal law targeting armed violence unconstitutionally vague. The clause had allowed past convictions to be treated as violent felonies if they involved "conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."

[Belsnickel]

This would have been Scalia's position, as well. The vagueness of the law would typically mean going in favor of the individual, not the government. That was a Scalia trademark, as well.

[*bfine32*]

I must admit that the arguments between Justices confuses the hell out of me at times, but in reading this it appears Gorsuch states the severity is Life, liberty, or property; but burglary doesn't fit this?

[StLucieBengal]

Sad Times when we slow down deportations.

[GMDino]

(04-17-2018, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I must admit that the arguments between Justices confuses the hell out of me at times, but in reading this it appears Gorsuch states the severity is Life, liberty, or property; but burglary doesn't fit this?

(04-17-2018, 12:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This would have been Scalia's position, as well. The vagueness of the law would typically mean going in favor of the individual, not the government. That was a Scalia trademark, as well.

I took it as just the law was too vague...although I think Gorsuch's example is a bit vague/open to interpretation also.

[Griever]

(04-17-2018, 01:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sad Times when we slow down deportations.

your boy gorsuch did this, deal with it

[*michaelsean*]

Vagueness should favor the party who didn't write it, and as far as I can tell we are talking about a legal immigrant here.

[Millhouse]

(04-17-2018, 01:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I took it as just the law was too vague...although I think Gorsuch's example is a bit vague/open to interpretation also.

And not just that the law was too vague, but that immigration and justice officials can determine who gets deported without any clear lines involved, which is a violation of due process in their opinion.

He basically called Congress out for making the law as vague as it is. And I agree with him too.

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2018, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I must admit that the arguments between Justices confuses the hell out of me at times, but in reading this it appears Gorsuch states the severity is Life, liberty, or property; but burglary doesn't fit this?

My understanding is that the position of Gorsuch was that the law stated the deportations would be for violence and then they were trying to put burglary within the definition of violent crime within the application of the law. His contention was that because the penalty was severe -- liberty among the life, liberty, and property line -- there needs to be more specificity within the law for it to pass constitutional muster.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-17-2018, 06:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My understanding is that the position of Gorsuch was that the law stated the deportations would be for violence and then they were trying to put burglary within the definition of violent crime within the application of the law. His contention was that because the penalty was severe -- liberty among the life, liberty, and property line -- there needs to be more specificity within the law for it to pass constitutional muster.

I literally just attended an LEO training on street and prison gangs today.  One of the major topics was the proliferation of knock knock burglaries.  One of the main reasons they are so prolific, aside from the money made doing them, is that burglary is a non-violent crime, thus the sentencing for committing them, especially in CA is light.  All it takes is for one person to be home and you have a life threatening situation on your hands, possibly escalating to a home invasion.  One law that needs to be amended in a huge way is categorizing burglaries as a violent crime due to the inherent risks in committing them.


As to the topic, good for the SCOTUS, vague and ill defined laws are useless and ripe for abuse.  Write clear legislation with input from those that will actually have to enforce the law and prosecute violators.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-17-2018, 09:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally just attended an LEO training on street and prison gangs today.  One of the major topics was the proliferation of knock knock burglaries.  One of the main reasons they are so prolific, aside from the money made doing them, is that burglary is a non-violent crime, thus the sentencing for committing them, especially in CA is light.  All it takes is for one person to be home and you have a life threatening situation on your hands, possibly escalating to a home invasion.  One law that needs to be amended in a huge way is categorizing burglaries as a violent crime due to the inherent risks in committing them.


As to the topic, good for the SCOTUS, vague and ill defined laws are useless and ripe for abuse.  Write clear legislation with input from those that will actually have to enforce the law and prosecute violators.

I always assumed most competent burglars would knock first and make up some reason to be there if someone answered.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-17-2018, 02:35 PM)Griever Wrote: your boy gorsuch did this, deal with it

I know.

Would be nice if McConnell would grow a pair and use the nuclear optio. On some real immigration policy changes.

[*Nately120*]

(04-17-2018, 09:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I always assumed most competent burglars would knock first and make up some reason to be there if someone answered.

I knew my extreme mistrust in "Jehovah's Witnesses" was well founded!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-17-2018, 09:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I always assumed most competent burglars would knock first and make up some reason to be there if someone answered.

You're completely underestimating how organized and pre-planned these are.  They case possible targets for a few days, they have an accomplice rent a nice car for them to travel in to reduce suspicion.  This isn't random knocking on doors and then burglarizing the place when they get no answer.  None of which detracts from my point that burglaries carry an inherent risk of violent encounter.  Nor does it detract from my point that these are so freely engaged in as the perpetrators know they face minimal detention time if caught.

[fredtoast]

"Burglary" is nothing more than an "entering" with intent to commit another crime (usually theft). There is nothing violent about it.

In every state I know of a burglary of a home or occupied residence is an "aggravated burglary" and much more serious than an auto burglary or a burglary of a storage shed or empty business.

Obviously there are times when burglaries involve violence, and these should be treated as violent crimes. But a burglary by itself is not violent.

[Au165]

(04-18-2018, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Burglary" is nothing more than an "entering" with intent to commit another crime (usually theft).  There is nothing violent about it.

In every state I know of a burglary of a home or occupied residence is an "aggravated burglary" and much more serious than an auto burglary or a burglary of a storage shed or empty business.

Obviously there are times when burglaries involve violence, and these should be treated as violent crimes.  But a burglary by itself is not violent.

This. 

Because a situation has potential to be violent doesn't mean we automatically escalate it to it's worst possible outcome. That isn't how we make laws in this country, we offer varying degrees of malice to allow for appropriate punishments. Trying to sweep everything into a big over reaching category is something we have done many times, and it has been proven to be a failure many times.

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2018, 09:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally just attended an LEO training on street and prison gangs today.  One of the major topics was the proliferation of knock knock burglaries.  One of the main reasons they are so prolific, aside from the money made doing them, is that burglary is a non-violent crime, thus the sentencing for committing them, especially in CA is light.  All it takes is for one person to be home and you have a life threatening situation on your hands, possibly escalating to a home invasion.  One law that needs to be amended in a huge way is categorizing burglaries as a violent crime due to the inherent risks in committing them.


As to the topic, good for the SCOTUS, vague and ill defined laws are useless and ripe for abuse.  Write clear legislation with input from those that will actually have to enforce the law and prosecute violators.

"Knock Knock Burglars" are actively trying to avoid violence  That makes it a non-violent crime.

If they choose to escalate it into a home invasion then they are committing a very serious crime and will get punished much more harshly, but yiu can't make a non-violent crime a violent crime base on what might happen.  One of the lowest level crimes is "disorderly conduct" which cover stuff like yelling in public.  It can lead to fights and arguments, but that does not mean we should elevate "disorderly conduct" to the level of "violent crime".  Same for things like "trespassing".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-18-2018, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Burglary" is nothing more than an "entering" with intent to commit another crime (usually theft).  There is nothing violent about it.

In every state I know of a burglary of a home or occupied residence is an "aggravated burglary" and much more serious than an auto burglary or a burglary of a storage shed or empty business.

Obviously there are times when burglaries involve violence, and these should be treated as violent crimes.  But a burglary by itself is not violent.

Thank you for stating exactly what I already said.

(04-18-2018, 01:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: This. 

Because a situation has potential to be violent doesn't mean we automatically escalate it to it's worst possible outcome. That isn't how we make laws in this country, we offer varying degrees of malice to allow for appropriate punishments. Trying to sweep everything into a big over reaching category is something we have done many times, and it has been proven to be a failure many times.

Sure, in the past I'd 100% agree with you.  However, some states have made sentencing for non-violent crimes so light that these guys are out pulling 5-6 burglaries a day.  They don't care about being on camera and they shatter the lives of the people they burglarize.  I'd be absolutely amenable to upping the sentencing for burglaries, but the way the laws are currently written these guys are literally stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars and getting two years of which they serve one. 

(04-18-2018, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Knock Knock Burglars" are actively trying to avoid violence  That makes it a non-violent crime.

If they choose to escalate it into a home invasion then they are committing a very serious crime and will get punished much more harshly, but yiu can't make a non-violent crime a violent crime base on what might happen.  One of the lowest level crimes is "disorderly conduct" which cover stuff like yelling in public.  It can lead to fights and arguments, but that does not mean we should elevate "disorderly conduct" to the level of "violent crime".  Same for things like "trespassing".

An insipid analogy by your own admission.  I'd much rather remove people from the streets for a significant period of time when they are destroying the lives of five to six families a day.  I've said it before on this board; I'd rather have a gun put in my face and my wallet stolen than come home to a burglarized home.  At least I can avoid the area I was robbed, or be more careful about the time of day I visit it.  I can't avoid my home.  You're also ignoring that the main targets of these burglars are cash, guns and jewelry.  Where do you think those guns end up and what are they used for?  If you're on board with dramatically increasing the sentencing limits for burglaries then we're both on the same page without changing the crimes classification.  Win win for all.

[Au165]

(04-18-2018, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, in the past I'd 100% agree with you.  However, some states have made sentencing for non-violent crimes so light that these guys are out pulling 5-6 burglaries a day.  They don't care about being on camera and they shatter the lives of the people they burglarize.  I'd be absolutely amenable to upping the sentencing for burglaries, but the way the laws are currently written these guys are literally stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars and getting two years of which they serve one. 

That is not how our system works. People who take stuff don't get punished like people who physically hurt people. It's like saying that people speed and do it every day even with speed cameras with no regard for the law, so we should charge all speeders with vehicular assault to make sure they stop doing it.

[*PhilHos*]

I gotta admit, I'm kinda in favor of deportation for committing any serious crime. Basically if the punishment of a crime is jail time, then it should be automatic deportation (not right away, give the convicted a chance to appeal and pursue legal avenues). I mean, why come to another country only to break its laws?