Supreme Court: Immigrants Have No Right of Habeas Corpus

[Wallenburg]

Sources:
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat ... definitely
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... d-hearings
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2018/0 ... arings.php

Court Opinion:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... 3/15-1204/

Article Text:

Immigrants can be held by U.S. immigration officials indefinitely without receiving bond hearings, even if they have permanent legal status or are seeking asylum, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 5-3 ruling Tuesday, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing, the court ruled that immigrants do not have the right to periodic bond hearings.

The ruling is a defeat for immigration advocates, who argued that immigrants should not be held for more than six months at a time without such a hearing.

The Supreme Court ruling follows a Trump administration appeal of a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year that imposed a rule requiring immigrants held in custody be given a bond hearing every six months, as long as they aren't considered a flight risk or a danger to national security.
“To impose a rigid six-month rule like the Court of Appeals did is really a mistake,” acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn said in November 2016.

In its ruling, the court affirmed the right of the government to detain immigrants while it determines whether they should be allowed in the country.

"Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Alejandro Rodriguez, is an immigrant with permanent legal status who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and joyriding. He was detained by immigration officials for three years without a bond hearing.

The ACLU took up his case, eventually winning his release and the cancellation of his deportation order. The government's appeal was begun under the Obama administration, and continued after President Trump took office last year.

So the Obama administration apparently felt that immigrants, legal or otherwise, don't have a right to habeas corpus, and with the help of the Trump administration that has now become a reality. As someone who values due process and rule of law, I think that holding someone indefinitely without hearing or trial is wrong. What say you, NSG?

[Petrasylvania]

Given the shit status of a few of the detention facilities, the ruling is tantamount to a death sentence in some cases. Not that the nativists will give a shit beyond the expense and mess of having to dispose of the corpses.

[Shofercia]

Sources:
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat ... definitely
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... d-hearings
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2018/0 ... arings.php

Article Text:

Immigrants can be held by U.S. immigration officials indefinitely without receiving bond hearings, even if they have permanent legal status or are seeking asylum, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 5-3 ruling Tuesday, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing, the court ruled that immigrants do not have the right to periodic bond hearings.

The ruling is a defeat for immigration advocates, who argued that immigrants should not be held for more than six months at a time without such a hearing.

The Supreme Court ruling follows a Trump administration appeal of a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year that imposed a rule requiring immigrants held in custody be given a bond hearing every six months, as long as they aren't considered a flight risk or a danger to national security.
“To impose a rigid six-month rule like the Court of Appeals did is really a mistake,” acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn said in November 2016.

In its ruling, the court affirmed the right of the government to detain immigrants while it determines whether they should be allowed in the country.

"Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Alejandro Rodriguez, is an immigrant with permanent legal status who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and joyriding. He was detained by immigration officials for three years without a bond hearing.

The ACLU took up his case, eventually winning his release and the cancellation of his deportation order. The government's appeal was begun under the Obama administration, and continued after President Trump took office last year.

So the Obama administration apparently felt that immigrants, legal or otherwise, don't have a right to habeas corpus, and with the help of the Trump administration that has now become a reality. As someone who values due process and rule of law, I think that holding someone indefinitely without hearing or trial is wrong. What say you, NSG?

Wow, so this applies to all immigrants, not just illegal immigrants. That's sad. Also, since corporations are now humans, apparently, can corporations that are US Citizens get bond hearing on behalf of their employees, if said employees are H1B immigrants, or have similar documents?

Given the shit status of a few of the detention facilities, the ruling is tantamount to a death sentence in some cases. Not that the nativists will give a shit beyond the expense and mess of having to dispose of the corpses.

Mexico will pay for it!

(Someone had to )

[Ethel mermania]

I don't believe for any other crime folks get periodic bond hearings, so I don't see why illegal aliens should get them.

Now that said, they should have a right to a speedy trial, I am not seeing how 3 years qualifies.

[Syfenq]

Given the shit status of a few of the detention facilities, the ruling is tantamount to a death sentence in some cases. Not that the nativists will give a shit beyond the expense and mess of having to dispose of the corpses.

Fuck the nonwhites/POC amirite

I don't believe for any other crime folks get periodic bond hearings, so I don't see why illegal aliens should get them.

Now that said, they should have a right to a speedy trial, I am not seeing how 3 years qualifies.

Agreed, but by your reasoning shouldn’t the first part also apply to legal unnaturalized immigrants too?

[Benuty]

I swear it seems like I saw this thread posted a few days ago in february...deja vu indeed.

[Risottia]

Article Text:

Immigrants can be held by U.S. immigration officials indefinitely without receiving bond hearings, even if they have permanent legal status

Land of freedum. Uh uh.

[EAST RIX]

U GUYS ARE VERY HORRID THIS IS VERY HOORRID I COMMAND U TO REDO THIS CASE

[Kernen]

So, it looks like this was decided on the basis of the 9th Circuit's interpretation of §§1225(b) and 1226(c) of Title 8, and not on a constitutional question. It looks like another case on constitutional issues could follow.

That said, the Court is right. The 9th Circuit read ambiguity into the statute and relied on a case that was materially different. You can't read something into a law that isn't there.

[The Parkus Empire]

This doesn't suspend habeas corpus

[Ethel mermania]

Given the shit status of a few of the detention facilities, the ruling is tantamount to a death sentence in some cases. Not that the nativists will give a shit beyond the expense and mess of having to dispose of the corpses.

Fuck the nonwhites/POC amirite

I don't believe for any other crime folks get periodic bond hearings, so I don't see why illegal aliens should get them.

Now that said, they should have a right to a speedy trial, I am not seeing how 3 years qualifies.

Agreed, but by your reasoning shouldn’t the first part also apply to legal unnaturalized immigrants too?

There is only one bond hearing for any case, so it applies all, citizens and non citizens.

[The United Providences of Perland]

They aren’t citizens of the US and are here illegally, therefore they shouldn’t have certain US Rights. I sympathize with a lot of the reasons but at the same time many immigrants struggle very hard to become citizens and earn their rights.

[Aubigny]

They aren’t citizens of the US and are here illegally, therefore they shouldn’t have certain US Rights. I sympathize with a lot of the reasons but at the same time many immigrants struggle very hard to become citizens and earn their rights.

"Immigrants can be held by U.S. immigration officials indefinitely without receiving bond hearings, even if they have permanent legal status or are seeking asylum, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday."

Correct me if I am wrong. But you cannot have legal permanent status and be illegally in the country. If that was the case, it wouldn't be legal permanent status. This means, legal immigrants can be held indefinitely by immigration officials.

[The United Providences of Perland]

Correct me if I am wrong. But you cannot have legal permanent status and be illegally in the country. If that was the case, it wouldn't be legal permanent status. This means, legal immigrants can be held indefinitely by immigration officials.

Ooo, that’s a part I missed. I suppose that would be crossing the line a bit. But at the same time, I’m not a judge I suppose.

[Ifreann]

Eww, holding people indefinitely.

[Cill Airne]

Legal, illegal, or otherwise holding people indefinitely is never a good thing.

[Farnhamia]

They aren’t citizens of the US and are here illegally, therefore they shouldn’t have certain US Rights. I sympathize with a lot of the reasons but at the same time many immigrants struggle very hard to become citizens and earn their rights.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) the Supreme Court said that non-citizens were still entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Said so unanimously, too. That was before the brilliant conservative minds we have on the Court now, I guess.

[Ifreann]

They aren’t citizens of the US and are here illegally, therefore they shouldn’t have certain US Rights. I sympathize with a lot of the reasons but at the same time many immigrants struggle very hard to become citizens and earn their rights.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) the Supreme Court said that non-citizens were still entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Said so unanimously, too. That was before the brilliant conservative minds we have on the Court now, I guess.

Yick Wo? Sounds like a made up name to me. Fake precedent. *nods*

[Des-Bal]

So the problem when talking about the supreme court is that this wasn't a question of liking or not liking immigrants it was how much shit you could make up on behalf of the legislature before it became a problem.

[Ethel mermania]

They aren’t citizens of the US and are here illegally, therefore they shouldn’t have certain US Rights. I sympathize with a lot of the reasons but at the same time many immigrants struggle very hard to become citizens and earn their rights.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) the Supreme Court said that non-citizens were still entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Said so unanimously, too. That was before the brilliant conservative minds we have on the Court now, I guess.

No crime or violation gets multiple bond hearings. They get only one. Again I do think the amount of time that has lapsed is troubling, but a bond hearing every six months for this one situation? No.

[Fartsniffage]

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) the Supreme Court said that non-citizens were still entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Said so unanimously, too. That was before the brilliant conservative minds we have on the Court now, I guess.

No crime or violation gets multiple bond hearings. They get only one. Again I do think the amount of time that has lapsed is troubling, but a bond hearing every six months for this one situation? No.

Unless a person has crossed the US border are a point other than an official one then they've committed no crime.

[Des-Bal]

I don't believe for any other crime folks get periodic bond hearings, so I don't see why illegal aliens should get them.

Now that said, they should have a right to a speedy trial, I am not seeing how 3 years qualifies.

This is not necessarily a good situation but the law just does not say you get a hearing every six months.

[Telconi]

They aren’t citizens of the US and are here illegally, therefore they shouldn’t have certain US Rights. I sympathize with a lot of the reasons but at the same time many immigrants struggle very hard to become citizens and earn their rights.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) the Supreme Court said that non-citizens were still entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Said so unanimously, too. That was before the brilliant conservative minds we have on the Court now, I guess.

But they aren't being denied equal protection, everyone gets a single bond hearing.

As for the time schedule, they absolutely need to speed this shit up, there's no way it should take three years of detention.

I think there's more merit here under a challenge to the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

[Telconi]

No crime or violation gets multiple bond hearings. They get only one. Again I do think the amount of time that has lapsed is troubling, but a bond hearing every six months for this one situation? No.

Unless a person has crossed the US border are a point other than an official one then they've committed no crime.

Possession of a controlled substance and joyriding are crimes.

[Fartsniffage]

Unless a person has crossed the US border are a point other than an official one then they've committed no crime.

Possession of a controlled substance and joyriding are crimes.

Okay. And?