Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Supreme Court Loophole Is De Facto Amnesty For Criminal Aliens
Once upon a time, the British thought they would sail on over (again) and confiscate Louisiana.
Thirty minutes into the fray, the Brits started to think that invading America wasn't such a good idea. It was probably around the time the 2000th British soldier was shot down, but this is of course conjecture.
As we conclude today's 9th grade history lesson, how should society today look upon this historical knowledge?
With our heads bowed in shame—that's how.
This is why.
Today, we face an even bigger invasion.
Last week, on April 14, 2005, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary conducted a hearing titled Strengthening Interior Enforcement: Deportation and Related Issues.
Jonathan Cohn, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice offered testimony on the state of illegal immigration and crime, of all things.
In 2001 (and again last year), the Supreme Court ruled that criminal aliens could not be held for more than six months if their home country refuses repatriation.
So what do we do with these murderers, rapists and child molesters if their home country won't take them back?
We turn them loose, of course!
Oh yes! We place child molesting illegal aliens back into American neighborhoods.
According to AG Cohn:
"Among the aliens who will benefit are criminals who have murdered their wives, molested young children, and brutally raped several women." US: Illegal Alien Criminals Released After Supreme Court Rulings, Voice of America, [Listen]
Cohn also testified that among the countries that will not repatriate their criminal nationals are Cuba, Somalia and Vietnam. (Yeah, there's a shock. Then again, with this criminal loophole in place why should they?)
The Supreme Court's rationale:
"[T]he Government proffers no sufficiently strong justification…The first justification—preventing flight—is weak or nonexistent where removal seems a remote possibility. Preventive detention based on the second justification—protecting the community—has been upheld only when limited to specially dangerous individuals and subject to strong procedural protections." ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS et al.
Mere sexual predators etc. are not, apparently, "specially dangerous."
"This is at bottom a claimed right of release into this country by an individual who concededly has no legal right to be here. There is no such constitutional right."
According to ABC news,
"Among those being freed are over 700 people who came to the United States from Cuba in 1980 as part of the so-called Mariel boatlift. By mid-February, 150 have already been released because Cuba will not accept them back."
The AG informed the Senate committee of 920 illegal alien criminals scheduled to be released into America.
The Homeland Security Department testified that 84,000 criminal aliens were expelled from the United States in 2004.
But 400,000 (that's FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND) are still at-large.
Victor Cerda with DHS testified that 30 percent of illegal aliens apprehended and released do not appear before an immigration judge for their hearing, which makes them fugitives:
"Of those that do appear for hearings, the other point of critical concern is that of those ordered removed, 80 to 85 percent fail to appear and comply with removal orders."
Cerda described a litany of crimes committed by some of the expelled aliens.
"Under Operation Predator, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has arrested more than 5,100 sexual predators since the program was launched in 2003. ICE has already removed over 2,100 of these predators from the United States."
Side note: I intentionally found a job which requires no math, but… If ICE has arrested 5,100 sexual predators and has only removed 2,100…where are the remaining 3000? [VDare.com note: Ask the EOIR!]
The AG and the DHS urged the Judiciary Committee to close the loophole created by the Supreme Court's ruling with new legislation. Additionally, they urged the Senate to limit access to federal courts.
What did our Senators have to say about this horrifying problem and serious threat to national security?
- Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said the interior enforcement system was "over-lawyered and under-equipped."
But he didn't commit himself to fixing it.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) attacked the Minuteman Project and cited the growing threat of vigilantes. He also cautioned the panel and committee about the legal rights to which immigrants are entitled.
- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) cited a failure to enforce immigration laws. (You think?) He also disagreed with President Bush's faux pas in labeling the Minute Men "vigilantes."
"He doesn't get it," Coburn said of the president.
Not surprisingly, while there was ample finger-pointing and pontificating, no solutions were proposed.
My final question: After the criminal aliens are released back into America, can law enforcement re-arrest them for illegal entry? (Yes, they are still illegal aliens.)
What all this means is that the U.S. Supreme Court has essentially authorized criminal illegals to be here—a de facto legal status.
Ouch—if this goes unchallenged, we could actually encourage foreign nationals to commit heinous crimes in America.
Yep, back in the day we would have handled this foreign invasion quite differently…that is to say, we would have handled it.
Where is Andy Jackson when we need him?
Bryanna Bevens [email her] is a political consultant and former chief of staff for a member of the California State Assembly.