Thread: Supreme Court still divided along ideological lines on illegal immigration

1 day ago
Richard Wolf

WASHINGTON – It didn't take long for the newly reconstituted Supreme Court to find itself in familiar territory Wednesday: divided down the middle over illegal immigration.

Faced with a dispute over a federal law that calls for illegal immigrants with criminal records to be detained without bond pending deportation, the justices split along ideological lines.

The court's liberal justices said the 1996 law required that any such detention begin immediately after the immigrants are released from jail or prison. In some cases, they noted, immigration officials pick them up years later, when they don't pose any danger or flight risk.

But the conservative justices said it was impractical to expect the government to be able to detain every immigrant immediately, particularly when money and manpower are limited, and state and local governments may be opposed.

By the end of an hour's debate, it appeared the court might seek a compromise between requiring immediate detention and allowing years-long delays.

"If reasonable amount of time ... were part of a ruling, what do you think is a reasonable amount of time?" the court's newest member, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, asked the government's lawyer, Zachary Tripp.

Kavanaugh's addition to the court following a bitter confirmation battle that he blamed on Democrats and "left-wing opposition groups" has focused unwelcome attention on the justices, who prefer to be seen as nonpartisan. For that reason, they are likely to seek out compromises whenever possible.

But immigration is an issue that frequently divides them. In February, they ruled 5-3 that detained non-citizens lack the right to periodic bond hearings. In April, they ruled 5-4 that a law subjecting non-citizens to deportation for crimes of violence was unconstitutionally vague, with Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch joining a liberal majority.

And in June, the conservative majority in a 5-4 ruling upheld President Donald Trump's ban on travel from five predominantly Muslim countries.

With that recent history of division, it was not surprising Wednesday when the court''s liberals and conservatives appeared to take opposite sides.

The class action case was brought by two lawful permanent residents who were taken into custody years after their release from prison. Both eventually received bond hearings and were allowed to stay in the country.

The Trump administration appealed lower court rulings in favor of the immigrants, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last spring, before Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy retired and was replaced by Kavanaugh.

During oral argument, American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Cecillia Wang said the law requires the government to detain immigrants on the same day their prison terms are completed. Several conservative justices said that was impossible.

"It's not reasonable if they don't have enough people to do it," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "I don't know what's reasonable in this situation. A month?"

Kavanaugh said Congress sought "harshness" in 1996 to crack down on illegal immigration and would not have wanted the ability to detain ex-cons limited by the clock. It was the first Republican majority in Congress in 40 years.

"Congress, wisely or not, thought that this class of aliens was dangerous, and they should not be trusted," Associate Justice Samuel Alito said.

But the court's four liberal justices said the government shouldn't be allowed to pick up undocumented immigrants years or even decades after they have reintegrated into their communities, particularly without a bond hearing.

"There's a constitutional problem in a country which gives every triple ax murderer a bail hearing, but these people don't," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said.

And Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the number of illegal immigrants who are recidivists pales compared to a "huge class of people who are being held, where no one would consider them dangerous."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...ion/ar-BBOcNEV

What is the core root cause of all of this? The complete failure of the US Department of Justice to promptly and swiftly issue deportation orders to a "class" of non-citizens who are in our country illegally. We don't want them out on bond or even detained, we want them deported within 24 hours of their catch. We don't want to pay to detain them for years, or allow them to wander and roam our nation for years waiting for a deportation hearing. We also don't want to violate their civil rights to a speedy process. We don't want to pay BP or ICE or "Judges" to waste their time and our money listening to con artist sob stories scripted and crafted by open borders lawyers. We want them out of our country, swiftly and properly.

Process and deport them! Give them a case number and hear the case via Skype from their home country!

They are here illegally, should not be working, should not be driving on our roads! Then what about healthcare, food, housing? WE foot the bill for that!

The quicker they are returned the better for the US citizens.