Thread: Supreme Court upholds deportation GOOD NEWS!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/22/scotu ... index.html

Court makes it tougher on illegal residents

Thursday, June 22, 2006; Posted: 4:15 p.m. EDT (20:15 GMT)


Justice David Souter wrote the 8-1 decision upholding a deportation. RELATED
• FindLaw: Opinion (PDF)
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS

Supreme Court
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a blow to some longtime illegal residents, upholding the deportation of a Mexican man who lived in the United States for 20 years.

By an 8-1 vote, justices said that Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, who was deported several times from the 1970s to 1981, is subject to a 1996 law Congress passed to streamline the legal process for expelling aliens who have been deported at least once before and returned.

After his last deportation in 1981, Fernandez-Vargas returned to the United States, fathered a child, started a trucking company in Utah and eventually married his longtime companion, a U.S. citizen.

But by the time he applied for legal status -- after his marriage in 2001 -- Congress had passed the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which revoked the right to appeal to an immigration judge an order of removal.

Fernandez-Vargas was sent back to Mexico in 2004, and wanted to return to his family in the United States. He argued that the 1996 law should not be applied to him because he last entered America more than a decade before Congress passed the statute.

"Fernandez-Vargas continued to violate the law by remaining in this country day after day and ... the United States was entitled to bring that continuing violation to an end," Justice David Souter wrote in the decision.

It was unclear how broad of an impact the ruling would have.

Souter said that unlawful immigrants like Fernandez-Vargas should have known about the 1996 law and taken "advantage of a grace period."

Also on Thursday the court:


Made it easier for workers to show they were victims of retaliation after they accuse their employers of discrimination, ruling 9-0 in favor of a woman railroad forklift operator.


Ruled 7-2 that defendants, not prosecutors, have the burden of proving in federal trials that they committed a crime under duress. The ruling could prompt states to change their laws.


Ruled 6-3 that a California inmate had to go through a prison grievance system before bringing a suit claiming he was wrongly punished for alleged inappropriate activity with volunteer priests.


Voted 5-3 to dismiss a case involving a test for diagnosing B vitamin deficiencies. That avoided a ruling that could have affected claims over tens of thousands of older patents.

It is good news but we know with our open borders and ineffectiveness of ICE they will be right back in this country. Beyond the comprehension of mere mortals especially with what is going on regarding the most recent plot involving the Sears Tower and FBI offices. And yet our borders remain wide open. How can they say this is home grown terrorism when one of the suspects is an illegal alien from Haiti? Sounds fishy and like some serious posterior covering to me?

Souter said that unlawful immigrants like Fernandez-Vargas should have known about the 1996 law and taken "advantage of a grace period."

That's right! Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Even your marriage to an American and Anchor Baby can't keep you here!
Bye-Bye Humberto! Bye-Bye!

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Even your marriage to an American and Anchor Baby can't keep you here!
Bye-Bye Humberto! Bye-Bye!
Dixie

Dixie, what you said!

Ay Dios, what's this?! More perfect timing?! The highest court in the land has spoken in favor of America?! How'd that happen?! Que paso?!

Seven terrorists, one who is illegal - Haitian! - are arrested in FL! See, we don't care who you are, if you're here illegally, you are OUTTA HEEYA!

Ohmigawd, I have to sit down, I'm overcome with joy and relief.

Adios Beto, buh-bye!