User Controls
Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of indefinite detention of non-citizens
-
2019-03-20 at 7:43 PM UTChttps://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26873868/supreme-court-immigrants-indefinite-detention/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/16-1363_a86c.pdf
This is tremendously fucked and unconstitutional. Note that this includes illegal immigrants, green card holders, and tourists alike. If you are not a full American citizen, you are liable to being imprisoned indefinitely and without trial if you come here, according to the Supreme Court.
I don't care if you're against illegal immigration, everybody should have right to fair trial and fair punishment. Arrest the illegals, detain them, send them to trial, deport. That is the American way. It's the fourteenth amendment. Anybody within the jurisdiction of the US is supposed to have right to due process of law. The Patriot Act was already bad enough, and now this shit.
Note that the plantiffs in this case included two LEGAL immigrants who I believe had green cards (one Cambodian and one Palestinian) who were accused of drug possession/manufacturing respectively. So yes, this does apply to legal immigrants. And if you are not a full citizen of the United States, it applies to you too. So be careful if you come here and intend on committing any crimes, because they could just lock you up forever. -
2019-03-20 at 7:57 PM UTCAnother Trump win, loser.
-
2019-03-20 at 8:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Bologna Nacho Another Trump win, loser.
If Trump is against right to fair trial and punishment, then sure. He won. Congratulations.
But you can bet your ass that your rights are next. Justice does not die quickly. It bleeds out long and slow so that the common man does not recognize it is dying. -
2019-03-20 at 8:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by GGG Note that the plantiffs in this case included two LEGAL immigrants
Criminal immigrants who can be legally deported. I'm not sure you can really call them legal immigrants if they don't have a right to be in the country anymore.
I haven't really read too much about the case but I think you're being just a little dramatic. The law in question, which the supreme court held the validity of, pertains to specific classes of immigrants who are "deportable", defined here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227#a_2
And the indefinite part of the detention doesn't seem to be the case from what I see in Demore v. Kim cited by the supreme court's finding:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1491.ZS.htmlthe record shows that 1226© detention not only has a definite termination point, but lasts, in the majority of cases, for less than the 90 days
-
2019-03-20 at 8:14 PM UTCWe're looking at the inevitable end of the Democrat party's 2020 race. Without their 5 million illegal votes, they're toast.
-
2019-03-20 at 8:24 PM UTC
-
2019-03-20 at 8:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Criminal immigrants who can be legally deported. I'm not sure you can really call them legal immigrants if they don't have a right to be in the country anymore.
I haven't really read too much about the case but I think you're being just a little dramatic. The law in question, which the supreme court held the validity of, pertains to specific classes of immigrants who are "deportable", defined here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227#a_2
And the indefinite part of the detention doesn't seem to be the case from what I see in Demore v. Kim cited by the supreme court's finding:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1491.ZS.html
Deportation is fine. That's the law. They were still entitled to all the rights that anybody else on US territory has under the 14th amendment. But they're not any more.
You are citing something completely different with that last link. This is the juicy text in question, which I linked in the OP:Stat. 3009–585, 8 U. S. C. §1226©, these aliens must be
arrested “when [they are] released” from custody on criminal charges and (with one narrow exception not involved
in these cases) must be detained without a bond hearing
until the question of their removal is resolved.
In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention
requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by
immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail.
In this very case there are people who were imprisoned for months AFTER their release from jail.8 U. S. C. §1226. “Apprehension and detention of aliens
“(a) Arrest, detention, and release
“On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien
may be arrested and detained pending a decision on
whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.
Except as provided in subsection © and pending such
decision, the Attorney General—
“(1) may continue to detain the arrested alien; and
“(2) may release the alien on—
“(A) bond of at least $1,500 with security approved by,
and containing conditions prescribed by, the Attorney
General; or
“(B) conditional parole;
. . . . .
“© Detention of criminal aliens
“(1) Custody
“The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien
who—
“(A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed any
offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this title,
“(B) is deportable by reason of having committed any
offense covered in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C),
or (D) of this title,
“(C) is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this
title on the basis of an offense for which the alien has been
sentence[d] to a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year, or
“(D) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this
title or deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title,
“when the alien is released, without regard to whether the
alien is released on parole, supervised release, or probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be
arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense.
BREYER, J., dissenting
Cite as: 586 U. S. ____ (2019) 19
Appendix A to the opinion of BREYER, J.
“(2) Release
“The Attorney General may release an alien described in
paragraph (1) only if the Attorney General decides pursuant to section 3521 of title 18 that release of the alien from
custody is necessary to provide protection to a witness, a
potential witness, a person cooperating with an investigation into major criminal activity, or an immediate family
member or close associate of a witness, potential witness,
or person cooperating with such an investigation, and the
alien satisfies the Attorney General that the alien will not
pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property
and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding. A
decision relating to such release shall take place in accordance with a procedure that considers the severity of
the offense committed by the alien.” (Emphasis added.) -
2019-03-20 at 8:31 PM UTCI'm not saying they WILL hold people indefinitely. I'm just saying they CAN hold people indefinitely by imprisoning them again, after their sentence, for the same crime. Eventually those people would probably be deported, in reality, but it doesn't make it any less fucked up that anybody in this country can be arrested again without committing another crime.
-
2019-03-20 at 8:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by GGG Deportation is fine. That's the law. They were still entitled to all the rights that anybody else on US territory has under the 14th amendment. But they're not any more.
Right, which is due process. How does this detention not qualify as part of due process?You are citing something completely different with that last link. This is the juicy text in question, which I linked in the OP:
Read the text of section 1226, it repeatedly refers to section 1227 (what I linked to) in defining who this law is applicable.In this very case there are people who were imprisoned for months AFTER their release from jail.
Right, they should have been detained immediately after release per the law because after release they're deportable. They remained deportable months later.
Originally posted by GGG I'm not saying they WILL hold people indefinitely. I'm just saying they CAN hold people indefinitely by imprisoning them again, after their sentence, for the same crime. Eventually those people would probably be deported, in reality, but it doesn't make it any less fucked up that anybody in this country can be arrested again without committing another crime.
They're not detained again for the same crime, they're detained because they're subject to deportation after their release. They're detained until a decision is made to deport them or not which seems, per the other finding I quoted, to not be an indefinite span of time. If t he detainment had a timebox on it would you still have a problem with it? -
2019-03-20 at 9:16 PM UTC
-
2019-03-20 at 9:23 PM UTCNo. It's not people who are to be deported. It's those who are 'deportable'. After they are released for their crimes they're held, yes, until a decision is made on whether or not to deport them. But it's under their original warrant, so yes it's for the same crimes. And without bail.
What you quoted isn't really a definitive limit on the time they can be held. It simply states that it isn't indefinite (as in at that point, in 2003, it wasn't the case) and that in most cases its less than 90 days. There is still no limit and holding time is determined by ICE. There are records of many people being held for years. Here's just one, of a guy who was locked up for 2 years and ended up getting released.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2019/01/09/immigration-hold-iowa-nebraska-deportation-delays-hasan-salama-dibai-ghithan-ice-green-card-crime/2530391002/
And yes, even if there was a determined max time, I still think this would be unethical and against the Constitution to process people in such a way. These are not the same standards of protection that US citizens have. ICE has been holding people to be deported for incredulous amount of times already, that's why this case even came up. But now, it's definitively legal to do so. So this dude in Iowa who got released because the judge said he was being held too long? Maybe he'd still be imprisoned.
This reminds me of prisons abroad where prisoners have been waiting for years and years to even get their first hearing. These people should be deported immediately after serving their sentence. If ICE can't decide whether or not to deport by then (and they can't) then they should be free as anyone else while they await that decision. They should not have to be potentially imprisoned indefinitely because ICE simply isn't able to process them well enough.
Not to mention that the conditions in some of these places are absolutely deplorable. -
2019-03-20 at 9:23 PM UTC
-
2019-03-20 at 9:25 PM UTCAlso if you actually read the hearing, Lanny, you'll see I'm not the only one making these arguments. Everything I've said has already been said in court.
-
2019-03-20 at 9:31 PM UTC
-
2019-03-20 at 9:32 PM UTC
-
2019-03-20 at 9:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by GGG No. It's not people who are to be deported. It's those who are 'deportable'. After they are released for their crimes they're held, yes, until a decision is made on whether or not to deport them. But it's under their original warrant, so yes it's for the same crimes. And without bail.
Who is the first sentence directed at? I don't think I used the term "deportable", not "to be deported". I don't really see how it being under the original warrant or not is relevant, the reason they're being detained is because, pending a hearing, they are not legal aliens anymore even if they were before.What you quoted isn't really a definitive limit on the time they can be held. It simply states that it isn't indefinite (as in at that point, in 2003, it wasn't the case) and that in most cases its less than 90 days
Fine, and I agree that's not great on a like "this is the kind of country I want to live in" sense, but it's not a violation of 14th amendment rights as it's not indefinite. If ICE is holding people indefinitely, and I certainly don't support that, it's separate from the legal issue the supreme court is ruling on.And yes, even if there was a determined max time, I still think this would be unethical and against the Constitution to process people in such a way. These are not the same standards of protection that US citizens have.
I mean I might be willing to go in on the unethical claim (although I can certainly understand the reason for the legislation too) but it doesn't seem unconstitutional to me. "Equal protection" does not grant aliens all the rights citizens or make every law apply to every person. Section 1226 is a law targeted at aliens, the same as any immigration law is, same as something like DACA which presumable you support. The face that we have laws that pertain to aliens but not citizens isn't an equal protections issue. -
2019-03-20 at 9:57 PM UTC
-
2019-03-20 at 9:59 PM UTC
-
2019-03-20 at 10 PM UTC
-
2019-03-20 at 10:05 PM UTC
