Supreme Court: Immigrants Have No Right of Habeas Corpus

[Internationalist Bastard]

Tengri the amount of fucking hatred I have for our legal system

It does need some work, I'll grant you. "Speedy trial" should be just that.

Shouldn't you be fussing over flower arrangements or something?

Have I ever seemed the girl for flower arrangements Farn?

[Farnhamia]

It does need some work, I'll grant you. "Speedy trial" should be just that.

Shouldn't you be fussing over flower arrangements or something?

Have I ever seemed the girl for flower arrangements Farn?

It was the first thing that came to mind. Contraband cake?

[Gallia-]

So the Obama administration apparently felt that immigrants, legal or otherwise, don't have a right to habeas corpus,

Why do you think immigrants should get special treatment that makes them "more equal" than anyone else?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Have I ever seemed the girl for flower arrangements Farn?

It was the first thing that came to mind. Contraband cake?

That sounds more right

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If they aren't citizens, then not only do they lack rights, but SCOTUS has ruled that citizens have the right to kill them unless the government explicitly declares them to be "legal persons" and criminalizes it as a murder.

This is well-precedented. If you don't like it, then maybe you should've voted for someone who used abortion as a litmus test in Senate elections--because the same principle applied to a person who is not naturalized when you have a right to kill people who are not "born or naturalized".

I’m pretty sure there’s no Supreme Court ruling that has allowed people to kill immigrants and legally get away with it. Unless it’s in self-defense, killing anyone, immigrant or not, is going to earn you a murder charge and a room in the pokey.

[Farnhamia]

If they aren't citizens, then not only do they lack rights, but SCOTUS has ruled that citizens have the right to kill them unless the government explicitly declares them to be "legal persons" and criminalizes it as a murder.

This is well-precedented. If you don't like it, then maybe you should've voted for someone who used abortion as a litmus test in Senate elections--because the same principle applied to a person who is not naturalized when you have a right to kill people who are not "born or naturalized".

I’m pretty sure there’s no Supreme Court ruling that has allowed people to kill immigrants and legally get away with it. Unless it’s in self-defense, killing anyone, immigrant or not, is going to earn you a murder charge and a room in the pokey.

He's saying that if abortions are allowed, as they are by Roe v. Wade, you can also kill non-citizens because they aren't "naturalized," like fetuses, either.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I’m pretty sure there’s no Supreme Court ruling that has allowed people to kill immigrants and legally get away with it. Unless it’s in self-defense, killing anyone, immigrant or not, is going to earn you a murder charge and a room in the pokey.

He's saying that if abortions are allowed, as they are by Roe v. Wade, you can also kill non-citizens because they aren't "naturalized," like fetuses, either.

Killing Wei got so much easier

[Wallenburg]

It’s the holding indefinitely part. Nobody should be held indefinitely, and this case seems to single out all immigrants as fair grounds for it

The article is exaggerating. They can be held until the trial, whenever that is. It's not the same as indefinitely.

It just kind of feels that way with how bad the courts are backed up.

Being held for years before you even see trial, with no trial in sight, is pretty much the definition of indefinite imprisonment.

So the Obama administration apparently felt that immigrants, legal or otherwise, don't have a right to habeas corpus,

Why do you think immigrants should get special treatment that makes them "more equal" than anyone else?

I don't. Holding citizens indefinitely without trial is at least just as inexcusable.

[Farnhamia]

The article is exaggerating. They can be held until the trial, whenever that is. It's not the same as indefinitely.

It just kind of feels that way with how bad the courts are backed up.

Being held for years before you even see trial, with no trial in sight, is pretty much the definition of indefinite imprisonment.

Why do you think immigrants should get special treatment that makes them "more equal" than anyone else?

I don't. Holding citizens indefinitely without trial is at least just as inexcusable.

Yes, it is, but the case as brought was ill-considered. He sued to have hearings on a regular basis. No one gets that. He should have sued on the basis of being denied a speedy trial.

[Ethel mermania]

Even if they have permanent legal status?
Why? Why the fuck is not being born here suddenly an excuse to strip ones rights away?

What right is being stripped away?

[Wallenburg]

Being held for years before you even see trial, with no trial in sight, is pretty much the definition of indefinite imprisonment.

I don't. Holding citizens indefinitely without trial is at least just as inexcusable.

Yes, it is, but the case as brought was ill-considered. He sued to have hearings on a regular basis. No one gets that. He should have sued on the basis of being denied a speedy trial.

True. I'm not sure what kind of representation he was working with that thought this was his best option.

[Moneybuck]

Funny, cause nothing sounds more American than traveling to a new land to work hard and build a new life no matter the rules and regulations. One of the most important driving forces behind the revolution was the fact that England was trying to stamp out smuggling after all.

[Kramanica]

Don't see why immigrants should get more than one bond hearing when that doesn't even happen with citizens.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes, it is, but the case as brought was ill-considered. He sued to have hearings on a regular basis. No one gets that. He should have sued on the basis of being denied a speedy trial.

True. I'm not sure what kind of representation he was working with that thought this was his best option.

tbf to the attorney, the 9th circuit bought it. which i see as a problem, but that is a topic for another thread.

[Aclion]

I have two questions I don't see addressed in the articles. First; What happened if a person detained in this way announces they not longer wish to enter the US and requests they be returned to their country of origin? Second what's the story with the guys first bond hearing that he's suing for more?

[Farnhamia]

I have two questions I don't see addressed in the articles. First; What happened if a person detained in this way announces they not longer wish to enter the US and requests they be returned to their country of origin? Second what's the story with the guys first bond hearing that he's sueing for more?

Don't know and he's been in detention for three years.

[Ethel mermania]

I have two questions I don't see addressed in the articles. First; What happened if a person detained in this way announces they not longer wish to enter the US and requests they be returned to their country of origin? Second what's the story with the guys first bond hearing that he's sueing for more?

1. if the fellow stops the process they would simply be deported,
2. three years is an awful long time to be held before a final deportation. he is trying to get out of confinement while the case has not been heard.

[Aclion]

I have two questions I don't see addressed in the articles. First; What happened if a person detained in this way announces they not longer wish to enter the US and requests they be returned to their country of origin? Second what's the story with the guys first bond hearing that he's sueing for more?

Don't know and he's been in detention for three years.

Seems like he should have sued for speedy trial then liek you said then. Unless he doesn't want it to go to trial.

1. if the fellow stops the process they would simply be deported,
2. three years is an awful long time to be held before a final deportation. he is trying to get out of confinement while the case has not been heard.

Thought so. He's not trying to be released, so much as trying to gain entry into the US.

[Dahon]

I keep reading that and I keep reading that and Jesus bloody Christ all immigrants? Wow -- getting on with Know-Nothing Redux, eh, Supremes?

[Oil exporting People]

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.

[CITATION NEEDED]

[Militant Costco]

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.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Wow. Can you really not use a search engine and type a few words?

Here, I did it for you. But don't expect everyone as being so generous and kind as me.
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-immigratio ... 65874.html

[Kernen]

The article is exaggerating. They can be held until the trial, whenever that is. It's not the same as indefinitely.

It just kind of feels that way with how bad the courts are backed up.

Being held for years before you even see trial, with no trial in sight, is pretty much the definition of indefinite imprisonment.

Why do you think immigrants should get special treatment that makes them "more equal" than anyone else?

I don't. Holding citizens indefinitely without trial is at least just as inexcusable.

Not according to the Court.

Its indefinite insofar as there might not be a predetermined time-frame in which detention ends, but it is only until trial. 13 months is about as speedy as you can expect from a system as overburdened as this, and three years to get to SCOTUS is a speedy trial indeed. There are basically two solutions:

1. Expand the court system dramatically to accommodate for the workload; or
2. Reduce the amount of due process necessary for a deportation action to streamline the process.

[Benuty]

The article is exaggerating. They can be held until the trial, whenever that is. It's not the same as indefinitely.

It just kind of feels that way with how bad the courts are backed up.

I dunno
I’ve just seen the courts fuck up so much so often this just feels typical

Give it another century for correction to be implemented.

[Sucrati]

I’m pretty sure there’s no Supreme Court ruling that has allowed people to kill immigrants and legally get away with it. Unless it’s in self-defense, killing anyone, immigrant or not, is going to earn you a murder charge and a room in the pokey.

He's saying that if abortions are allowed, as they are by Roe v. Wade, you can also kill non-citizens because they aren't "naturalized," like fetuses, either.

Roe V Wade actually denied the right to abortion if the fetus could be deemed viable outside the womb, so killing a non-citizen or immigrant who is clearly viable outside their mother's womb wouldn't be allowed :/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_via ... efinitions

Back to the actual subject.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, it is, but the case as brought was ill-considered. He sued to have hearings on a regular basis. No one gets that. He should have sued on the basis of being denied a speedy trial.

Utterly hopeless. If you read the opinion you'll note that neither the majority nor the dissent address the speedy trial issue. If it's something anybody would think of then it's definitely the kind of thing the court would bring up sua sponte. As people love to point out, being in the country illegally is not a criminal issue. As a matter of established law an immigration detainer doesn't trigger the right to a speedy trial.