Posted on 02/19/2017 7:45:11 AM PST by Hostage
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide three cases in coming months that could help or hinder President Donald Trump's efforts to ramp up border security and accelerate deportations of those in the country illegally.
The three cases, which reached the court before Democratic President Barack Obama left office, all deal broadly with the degree to which non-citizens can assert rights under the U.S. Constitution. They come at a time when the court is one justice short and divided along ideological lines, with four conservatives and four liberals.
The justices will issue rulings before the end of June against the backdrop of high-profile litigation challenging the lawfulness of Trump's controversial travel ban on people traveling from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
The most pertinent of the three cases in terms of Republican Trump administration priorities involves whether immigrants in custody for deportation proceedings have the right to a hearing to request their release when their cases are not promptly adjudicated.
The long-running class action litigation, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of thousands of immigrants detained for more than six months, includes both immigrants apprehended at the border when seeking illegal entry into the United States and legal permanent residents in deportation proceedings because they were convicted of crimes. The case also could affect long-term U.S. residents who entered the country illegally and have subsequently been detained.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I don't even know why venues like Reuters are even allowed here any more.
At any due process hearing, the only Q&A should be whether the person is or is not in the USA illegally. All the other issues are not relevant.
“the only Q&A should be whether the person is or is not in the USA illegally”
You are absolutely correct.
However, below is how the Dept. of Justice has been egg-sucking to find a reason, any reason, to keep (as Chuckles Schumer put it) `legal illegals’ from being removed.
I’m sure Attorney General Sessions is keeping busy, among many other things, preparing to advise the 235 administrative law judges to abide by the law, to no longer think of BS reasons to keep illegals in the country in order to keep Obama & Co. happy. A new EO is coming out this week.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-at-a-glance
(Notice the date at the bottom.)
2017:
“You are here in violation of our immigration laws. You are remanded to the custody of the US Marshals for removal and return back to Mexico.”
It’s just that easy. And it’s the law.
Yeah, ditto what you said.
Wishful thinking from idiot talking heads who know nothing
I would like to see Trump issue an EO barring anyone who supports sharia law from comming into this country.
Let the courts chew on that one for a while.
Whats that? You courts now forcing the federal government to establish a religions law as well as the religion?
That would throw them into fits.
I agree unfortunately the court could very well not see it that way. I predict the argument will be as long as they are under the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. they have the same rights as U.S. citizens regarding due process. But I also think any attempt to argue that they are automatically protected against quickly being deported will be shot down. I think the decision will amount to if they are held for a certain length of time due process rights apply. If there is a hearing held and deportation levied before that length of time it will be “Get on the bus you’re going home.”
The Constitution says ALL men are created equal. I think Ben Franklin may have been thinking along these lines when he wondered if we “can keep it”. I’ve always said our freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution will destroy us. Our enemies know the Constitution.
That’s interesting. Won’t happen but interesting. Might think of provoking an outcome by encouraging ACLU or like-minded Cretans to file for protecting a Muslim right to incorporate a township or other group under Sharia law. They would likely think it legal so it could eventually be worked through the courts until it reached the USSC. That would be a fireworks case if there ever was one.
Wouldnt it though?
It would foce their hand. They’d have to either rule to establish a religion and religious law at the federal level, or rule against.
Either way, it would throw them into fits since they think that Islam is above it all. Just think, they’d be fighting the very thing they always howl about...the establishment clause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.