Supreme Court Backs Trump Power To Detain Migrants Who Commit Crimes

[Swordsmyth]

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Tuesday in a dispute over the federal government’s power to arrest certain noncitizens who commit crimes and hold them in immigration jails before a deportation proceeding.
The five to four decision was met with a vigorous dissent from the Court’s liberal bloc led by Justice Stephen Breyer, who said the majority was enabling the detention and possible deportation of foreign nationals for minor crimes they committed in the distant past.
Tuesday’s case arose when green card holders Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury were arrested by federal immigration authorities years after they served criminal sentences for drug convictions. Preap and Khoury were detained without bail pending deportation.
A five-justice majority said aliens facing deportation may be held in immigration jails without bond hearings in February 2018.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU and ruled for the plaintiffs. The Court’s conservative majority reversed that decision in Tuesday’s ruling, finding federal law requires the detention of certain classes of aliens before removal.
“As we have held time and again, an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

The majority connected Tuesday’s case to the ongoing dispute over sanctuary jurisdictions, which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Alito said it is difficult for federal officials to discover when noncitizens will be released from prison, since certain states and localities will not provide that information.
“Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that Congress made the secretary’s mandatory-detention authority vanish at the stroke of midnight after an alien’s release,” the opinion reads.
Alito elsewhere said the “when…released” language simply establishes when the federal government’s detention duty is triggered while “exhorting the secretary to act quickly.”
The decision was limited in one respect — Alito cautioned that certain noncitizens who are detained long after serving their jail sentences may bring “as applied” constitutional challenges to their arrest by immigration authorities.

More at: https://truepundit.com/supreme-court...commit-crimes/

[timosman]

They flipped Roberts? Only Clinton and Obama judges were against.

BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN,JJ., joined.

[Swordsmyth]

They flipped Roberts? Only Clinton and Obama judges were against.

I'm not sure what to think but I still don't trust Roberts.

[unknown]

Werent indefinite detentions signed into law under Obama's NDAA?

This is what our government does to its own citizens, WTF would they care about the supposed rights of illegals.

[Zippyjuan]

Unlimited detention even after prison sentences are completed and no right to a hearing on the matter. Sounds like Liberty. Coming soon to citizens as well.

[Zippyjuan]

Amazed libertarians are not upset about the government being able to hold people as long as they want to without even charging them with a crime.

[Stratovarious]

Unlimited detention even after prison sentences are completed and no right to a hearing on the matter. Sounds like Liberty. Coming soon to citizens as well.

No libertarian here is for 'Unlimited' detention, how on earth do you dream up this garbage........

[shakey1]

No libertarian here is for 'Unlimited' detention, how on earth do you dream up this garbage........

[nikcers]

Are you not entertained?

[Stratovarious]

Are you not entertained?

I thin' he's explaining jiffy's (zippy) brain function, or whatever
chip his handlers implanted.

[Stratovarious]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shakey1 again.

[shakey1]

Are you not entertained?

maybe easily entertained... strato gets it.

[enhanced_deficit]

This should clear up any doubts that MAGA picked judges were not conservative enough as nay sayers suggested (because one of them was CFR member and other was mildly pro abortion leaning). This can also help negate narrative by likes of Coulter alleging MAGA was 'scamming' his base.

Next big battle at courts would be over Emergecy Declaration over Wall funding (though outcome not looking very promising at this point) and other tough issues. From this verdict chances are MAGA may get at least some more victories in courts on related issues like these.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ca-deal-tweets

[Superfluous Man]

Amazed libertarians are not upset about the government being able to hold people as long as they want to without even charging them with a crime.

When you say "libertarians," whom do you mean?

[Brian4Liberty]

Foreign entry and staying in the US without an appropriate visa is illegal. That is the essential law in question.

The left will twist logic into pretzels to try to deny that basic fact. They don’t like the law, and even judges are disrespecting the rule of law because they don’t like it. It’s judicial nullifcation of the law in question.

It makes no sense to release a person who is awaiting their (due process) hearing to continue to break the law. It is as ludicrous as allowing a car thief to continue driving the car they stole before being caught. Or allowing a trespasser to continue to trespass until their court date.

Now if someone who is caught does not want to fight their deportation, then they should be free to be deported immediately. Or they should have the option to be sent back across the border, and then they can return for their hearing at the border. Anything else is allowing them to continue breaking the law of which they are accused.

[Superfluous Man]

Foreign entry and staying in the US without an appropriate visa is illegal. That is the essential law in question.

The left will twist logic into pretzels to try to deny that basic fact. They don’t like the law, and even judges are disrespecting the rule of law because they don’t like it. It’s judicial nullifcation of the law in question.

It makes no sense to release a person who is awaiting their (due process) hearing to continue to break the law. It is as ludicrous as allowing a car thief to continue driving the car they stole before being caught. Or allowing a trespasser to continue to trespass until their court date.

Now if someone who is caught does not want to fight their deportation, then they should be free to be deported immediately. Or they should have the option to be sent back across the border, and then they can return for their hearing at the border. Anything else is allowing them to continue breaking the law of which they are accused.

Are you saying that there's a law that they are continually breaking just by being present in the USA without an appropriate visa?

If so, can you please find that law?

[Brian4Liberty]

Are you saying that there's a law that they are continually breaking just by being present in the USA without an appropriate visa?

If so, can you please find that law?

Play dumb somewhere else.

[Brian4Liberty]

Amazed libertarians are not upset about the government being able to hold people as long as they want to without even charging them with a crime.

No libertarian here is for 'Unlimited' detention, how on earth do you dream up this garbage........

Strawman.

[Superfluous Man]

Play dumb somewhere else.

You have a tendency to say things that you just made up or heard from some other source that as unreliable as yourself and pretend to know them for a fact.

[Brian4Liberty]

You have a tendency to say things that you just made up or heard from some other source that as unreliable as yourself and pretend to know them for a fact.

Your sophistry knows no bounds.

[Superfluous Man]

Your sophistry knows no bounds.

You could just refrain from calling things facts if they aren't facts. Precision in speech is not sophistry.

[Brian4Liberty]

You could just refrain from calling things facts if they aren't facts. Precision in speech is not sophistry.

Why don’t you just admit that you don’t like or agree with US border, visa and immigration law, and you want to see it dismantled by any means necessary.

[Superfluous Man]

Your sophistry knows no bounds.

Also, if your claim were true, then your own logic would turn against you, since the people whom you say would be continuing to break the law by being released would also be continuing to break the law while they're detained.

But of course that makes no sense.

And in fact, it isn't true. Because the law that they're continually breaking just by being present in the country doesn't exist.

It is not a case like continuing to trespass or continuing to drive a stolen car (both of which are the kinds of crimes that have actual victims, incidentally). It is more like a case of continuing to exist on the other side of a street after you jaywalked to get there. They are subject to deportation under the law. I don't deny that. But simply being present here in the mean time, whether in a jail cell or out of one, isn't a continual breaking of any law as far as I know.

[Superfluous Man]

Why don’t you just admit that you don’t like or agree with US border, visa and immigration law, and you want to see it dismantled by any means necessary.

Because that's not true.

Edit: The first part is true. I line up with Ron Paul's position on those things. But I don't know where you got the "by any means necessary" part.

[Brian4Liberty]

Because that's not true.

Edit: The first part is true. I line up with Ron Paul's position on those things. But I don't know where you got the "by any means necessary" part.

OK, you agree with everything except by any means necessary. Hopefully we can assume that you won’t sacrifice 100 virgins in a volcano to have open immigration. Do you agree with the minority opinion of the Supreme Court in this case?

[Superfluous Man]

OK, you agree with everything except by any means necessary. Hopefully we can assume that you won’t sacrifice 100 virgins in a volcano to have open immigration. Do you agree with the minority opinion of the Supreme Court in this case?

I haven't read it. But based on what's in the OP, I probably do.

[timosman]

Play dumb somewhere else.

Are we going to see these morons finally repelled?

[nikcers]

Also, if your claim were true, then your own logic would turn against you, since the people whom you say would be continuing to break the law by being released would also be continuing to break the law while they're detained.

But of course that makes no sense.

And in fact, it isn't true. Because the law that they're continually breaking just by being present in the country doesn't exist.

It is not a case like continuing to trespass or continuing to drive a stolen car (both of which are the kinds of crimes that have actual victims, incidentally). It is more like a case of continuing to exist on the other side of a street after you jaywalked to get there. They are subject to deportation under the law. I don't deny that. But simply being present here in the mean time, whether in a jail cell or out of one, isn't a continual breaking of any law as far as I know.

It's more like not being detained after breaking in to someone's house with the implications of force. You see I could of knocked on your door if I didn't have a criminal intent, unless you are implying that people are tripping and falling over the border or someone is forcing people to break the law against their will. Just because there is a lack of evidence of a victim doesn't mean there isn't one. Just because people don't mean to cause harm doesn't mean it isn't possible for them to harm people. Society becomes liable for their crimes and I would argue that society is the victim.

[Swordsmyth]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shakey1 again.

Covered

[Stratovarious]

You could just refrain from calling things facts if they aren't facts. Precision in speech is not sophistry.

Time to reiterate; If you said blue was blue, and I agreed , you'd work at it, until you could
turn it into an argument.

...and in all likelihood , you'd lose.