Hopefully some conservative legal scholar will explain more about the meaning of a recent Supreme Court decision. The most interesting point to my non-lawyer mind was a sentence near the end of the article below: “Justice Breyer said the majority decision appeared to eat into a key 2001 Supreme Court precedent, the Zadvydas ruling, which established a six-month maximum on detentions in cases in which the government is trying to deport immigrants but their home country won’t take them back.”
Some terrible crimes have been committed by illegal aliens released into America when their home countries wouldn’t accept their deportation. Following is a small sample.Below, Binh Thai Luc killed five people in San Francisco in 2012 after a failed deportation attempt in 2006 when Vietnam refused to take him. He was convicted of the crimes in 2017.Ka Pasasouk, shown below, similarly remained in America when Laos would not take the repeat criminal back. He later killed four in a Northridge California boarding house and received the death penalty in August of last year.Laos wouldn’t accept Thong Vang’s deportation either, a man who went on to shoot two deputies in Fresno.Below, Shafiqul Islam had been convicted of child sex abuse in 2008 and was supposed to be deported but was eventually released instead because Bangladesh refused to accept him. Mr. Islam later strangled 73-year-old grandmother Lois Decker in her home and stole her car.
Congressman Ted Poe has worked for years to hammer deadbeat countries into taking their criminal deportees
, so it will be interesting to see his reaction to this Supreme Court decision.
Illegal immigrants have no automatic right to freedom, Supreme Court rules, Washington Times, February 27, 2018Immigrants being held for deportation don’t have an automatic right under the law to post bond and be set free, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a decision that could give the Trump administration more freedom to pursue stiff detention policies for illegal immigrants who show up at the border claiming asylum.In the 5-3 ruling, the justices also took a dim view of the kinds of class-action lawsuits on behalf of immigrants that have become a key tool for anti-Trump immigrant rights activists, leaving the activists worried about the fates of other cases winding their way through the lower courts challenging President Trump on issues such as illegal immigrant Dreamers and Iraqi deportees.The ruling was also a rebuke by the high court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had its decision overturned.Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. chided the 9th Circuit for ignoring the text of immigration laws and creating a legal standard for bail hearings “out of thin air” by requiring that immigrants be given periodic bail hearings.“Spotting a constitutional issue does not give a court the authority to rewrite a statute as it pleases,” Justice Alito wrote for the majority.The complex case has been percolating through the courts for years, based on a challenge first brought by Alejandro Rodriguez, a Mexican national who has been in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident since 1987.The government tried to deport him in 2004 after several criminal convictions. Mr. Rodriguez fought deportation, but the government detained him during that time. He sued, arguing that under the detention law he was entitled to a bond hearing that could result in his release.The lower courts established a class action for Mr. Rodriguez and other immigrants being similarly detained, and ruled that they were entitled to bond hearings after six months and periodically after that. The lower courts said the law could be unconstitutional otherwise, based on a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that mandated release of immigrants whose home countries refused to take them back.Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Neil Gorsuch — and to an extent, Clarence Thomas — said that amounted to a wholesale “rewrite” of the law.[. . .]Justice Breyer said the majority decision appeared to eat into a key 2001 Supreme Court precedent, the Zadvydas ruling, which established a six-month maximum on detentions in cases in which the government is trying to deport immigrants but their home country won’t take them back.(Continues)