Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    No new hearings for previously deported aliens

    http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stor ... 16968.html

    No new hearings for previously deported aliens

    10:51 PM PST on Friday, February 16, 2007

    By SHARON McNARY
    The Press-Enterprise

    Federal immigration enforcement officers in California and several western states once again have the authority to swiftly deport immigration law violators who ignore orders to leave the United States.

    For the past two years, deported people who re-entered the country and got caught had been able to demand a hearing at which an immigration judge would decide whether to reinstate the old deportation order, under a 2005 appeals court ruling.

    But immigration authorities complained that too many people skipped their hearings and became fugitives -- adding to a growing nationwide number of more than 600,000 deportation order violators.

    A nine-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit reversed that on Feb. 6 with a 5-4 vote. The court ruled that noncitizens have no right to a new deportation hearing. Instead, immigration officers may reinstate the old deportation orders.

    As a result, noncitizens who might have been held in custody or released to their homes pending their hearings under the old rules may now be sent back to their home countries immediately.

    That is already happening, said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, although information on the number of cases was not immediately available.

    "We are very pleased by the court's decision because it is an important tool for us to use to enforce immigration law," she said Friday.

    In mid-2005, the hearing requirement was "substantially hampering" immigration enforcement in Southern California, Kice said. Dozens of people who ordinarily would have been swiftly returned to Mexico or other countries were instead being released each day because of a lack of space to keep them in custody until their hearings, she said.

    The ruling comes amid a national debate over illegal immigration. Immigrant-rights advocates decry recent large-scale arrests of undocumented immigrants and workplace raids. Those who worry that illegal immigrants increase crime and the risk of terrorism say the government is not doing enough to control the borders.

    President Bush and congressional leaders have advocated passage of an immigration overhaul that would simultaneously increase border security and enforcement of workplace laws, and create a means for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants to get legal status or work permits.

    Plaintiff's Argument

    Critics of the new ruling say the policy will separate families.

    "The real harm in the decision is that there are many, many, people who are living here with U.S. citizen family members," said Bob Pauw, the Seattle immigration attorney who represents Raul Morales-Izquierdo, the plaintiff in the case on which the ruling is based.

    Such people will be deported and torn from their families without any recourse, he said.

    He is considering appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Morales-Izquierdo is a Seattle resident who was deported in 1998, four years after the deportation order was issued. He married a U.S. citizen and re-entered in 2001. When he went to the immigration service in 2003 to apply for permanent residency, he was arrested and an immigration officer tried to reinstate the old deportation order.

    A three-judge appeals court panel said in 2005 that Morales-Izquierdo had the right to a hearing in immigration court. The new decision, by a full nine-judge panel, wipes out the hearing requirement, which had not been applied outside of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit covers the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

    No Recourse

    People such as Morales-Izquierdo, whose circumstances have changed and who might have succeeded with a legal argument to overturn the deportation order, might not get the chance to go before an immigration judge under the new rules, Pauw said.

    The decision also is flawed as it relates to people who went through a process called expedited removal, because they never had an immigration judge hearing, Pauw said. People whose original deportation orders could be challenged, for example, because the order was sent to the wrong place or identified the wrong person, also will be unable to challenge the mistake, he said.

    "The decision makes it much more difficult for individuals in that situation who have a claim to be heard," Pauw said.

    But overall, the decision is a tool to make the nation safer, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan group that supports stronger enforcement of immigration laws.

    "You have no idea whether any particular person that they use (the new rule) against is a criminal or terrorist, but anything that unties the hands of immigration agents is good for security," he said.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Western Ohio
    Posts
    5,278
    This can be like any other immigration law with problems, Morales-Izquierdo is an exception to the rule and I am sure other people will be to. Change the law to may not return for ten years under no circumstance ( people like Morales-Izquierdo can take his wife to his country) or they can wait!
    As a law for immediate deportation of the rest of the soon to be dearly deported criminal aliens it should work just fine

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,855
    A nine-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit reversed that on Feb. 6 with a 5-4 vote. The court ruled that noncitizens have no right to a new deportation hearing. Instead, immigration officers may reinstate the old deportation orders
    Something is going on behind closed doors for the
    9th Circus to have made this ruling.

    They've given up something to GET SOMETHING BIGGER in return.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member Hosay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    234
    Well, it was a 9 judge panel as opposed to a 3 judge panel. I think there is a procedure to appeal the decision of the 3 judge panel to the larger panel. So it seems to be normal procedure.

    What this idiot, Morales-Izquierdo, seems to need to do is return to his own country and apply to be united with his spouse legally. These people just do not seem to understand this trvial idea about following the law. The idea that once you are deported that means you cannot just show up again.
    "We have a sacred, noble obligation in this country to defend the rule
    of law. Without rule of law, without democracy, without rule of law being
    applied without fear or favor, there is no freedom."

    Senator Chuck Schumer 6/11/2007
    <s

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •