Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Supreme Court: Trump Wins, The 9Th Circus And Unworthy Immigrants Lose, Yet Again


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:43 PM

Supreme Court upholds government’s authority to detain and deport immigrants for past crimes

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Trump administration’s power to arrest and hold legal immigrants indefinitely if they had past crimes on their records that could trigger deportation, even if they served their time years ago or were convicted of minor drug offenses.

 

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., speaking for the court’s conservatives, said Congress believed it would be “too risky” to allow dangerous criminals and terrorists to remain free on bail while their deportations were pending.

 

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, speaking for the four liberals, read his dissent in the courtroom. “The greater importance of the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government."

 

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union had brought a class-action suit in California on behalf of lawful immigrants who faced mandatory detention long after they had been released for relatively minor crimes.

 

Eduardo Padilla, one of the named plaintiffs, came to the United States in 1966 as an infant and became a lawful permanent resident in the Sacramento area....In 2013, federal agents arrested him for those past crimes and held him for deportation. But he went free after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the “mandatory detention” provision did not apply to immigrants such as Padilla.

 

[In another case] early last year, the high court broadly upheld the government’s power to detain immigrants in jail for months or years as they fight deportation. In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled federal law gave these detainees no right to a bail hearing and a chance to go free. The decision, in Jennings vs. Rodriguez, did not resolve whether this indefinite-detention rule was constitutional.

 

The case decided Tuesday was a follow-up to last year’s ruling and was more limited in its scope. It involved only detained immigrants who had been earlier released from custody

 

.

 

https://www.latimes....0319-story.html

 

Why was this ever a question in the first place, I wonder?  If some immigrant doesn't like being detained, he can simply agree to a voluntary deportation.  If he wants to further clog up our system by appealing, then let him wait.  The fact that we're years behind in handling all these frivolous cases aint our fault.


Edited by Moronium, 19 March 2019 - 12:56 PM.


#2 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 01:17 PM

 Justice Stephen G. Breyer, speaking for the four liberals, read his dissent in the courtroom. “The greater importance of the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government." 

 

 

Tough luck, Breyer.  "The majority's interpretation" grants no power to the government.  The constitution does.

 

It has long been acknowledged that the constitution grants exclusive authority over immigration to congress (which it may delegate to the executive branch).  The courts have no role to play in it.  But don't ever try telling that to left wing activist judges in the nutty ninth circus or on the supreme court, eh?

 

 

Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

 

n 1952’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists.  Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. “One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court.”

 

 

https://slate.com/ne...nal-rights.html

 

Congress needs to repeal the law it passed giving immigrants the right to appeal deportation in the first place.  And it needs to repeal a bunch of other stupid immigration laws, too, especially as they pertain to illegal aliens.  We don't owe them jack-****.


Edited by Moronium, 19 March 2019 - 01:45 PM.


#3 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 10:09 AM

As Americans allow themselves to be led deeper and deeper into Trump's depravity, with no regard in the least for ethics or morality. The US is destroying itself from within and that's the reason why I say 4 more years for Trump.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Trump administration’s power to arrest and hold legal immigrants indefinitely if they had past crimes on their records that could trigger deportation, even if they served their time years ago or were convicted of minor drug offenses.

 

Excellent!

 

About what would be expected of an extreme right kangaroo court! No need for the US to pretend it's not extreme right racist anymore.


Edited by montgomery, 20 March 2019 - 10:12 AM.


#4 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 10:30 AM

Heh.  What there's no reason for is the absurd claim that illegal aliens, who are citizens of, and owe allegiance to, foreign countries, can just bust into our country and then claim they have the right to walk around free, demand welfare, commit crimes, attempt to undermine our sovereignty. etc,  and claim that they have the rights of a U.S. citizen.

 

Nice try, foreign law-breaker.

 

 

Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens

 

 

The same is true in every other rational country on the planet. 


Edited by Moronium, 20 March 2019 - 10:39 AM.


#5 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 10:42 AM

In the case, the Nutty Ninth Circus, ignoring contrary decisions in 4 other U.S. circuits, claimed that if a criminal alien was released from custody after serving his sentence, and could avoid apprehension by ICE authorities for even a day, then they were entitled to bail.

 

As always, the Supreme Court over-ruled their ridiculous interpretation of the law.


Edited by Moronium, 20 March 2019 - 10:43 AM.


#6 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:12 AM



Heh.  What there's no reason for is the absurd claim that illegal aliens, who are citizens of, and owe allegiance to, foreign countries, can just bust into our country and then claim they have the right to walk around free, demand welfare, commit crimes, attempt to undermine our sovereignty. etc,  and claim that they have the rights of a U.S. citizen.

 

Nice try, foreign law-breaker.

 

 

 

The same is true in every other rational country on the planet. 

I'm pretty well o.k. with that Moronium. It's showing that you've pulled in your horns a lot from your original promotions of criminal and immoral behaviour. Even though you still err in not being able to understand that legal immigrants are the equivaltent of US citizens.

You're at least now getting it half right! 



#7 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:20 AM

In the case, the Nutty Ninth Circus, ignoring contrary decisions in 4 other U.S. circuits, claimed that if a criminal alien was released from custody after serving his sentence, and could avoid apprehension by ICE authorities for even a day, then they were entitled to bail.

 

As always, the Supreme Court over-ruled their ridiculous interpretation of the law.

It appears that there are still courts in the US that are willing to uphold legal standards the rest of the civilized world continues to maintain. 

 

The American system has allowed Trump to take possession of the Scotus. But the system has so far withstood the attack on the US congress with Trump's adversaries taking back the House of reps. Will Trump's enemies take back the other side too and then leave Trump a powerless lame duck? And if Trump is left standing, will he still have the power to bring about a kind of war that is the unimaginable? 

 

I'm quite convinced that 4 more years of Trump would be the best for the rest of the world. It's more than China could ever hope for at this time of China's ascending to world power! 


Edited by montgomery, 20 March 2019 - 11:21 AM.


#8 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:24 AM

 Even though you still err in not being able to understand that legal immigrants are the equivaltent of US citizens.

 

 

No they are not.  Read the Supreme Court decisions I've already cited.  Or, for that matter, the case at hand here.

 

Immigrants are here at our pleasure and indulgence.  They are still citizens of foreign powers, unless they become naturalized--which few do.


Edited by Moronium, 20 March 2019 - 11:26 AM.


#9 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:32 AM

When the U.S played Mexico for the world soccer cup in Pasadena, California, the whole stadium was filled with Mexican flags carried by immigrants, both legal and illegal.  The US team was soundly booed by this alien crowd throughout the game. They were even booed and insulted when they took the podium when being awarded medals for second place (Mexico won).

 

Every last one of those miserable bastards should have been deported.  Go back to Mexico if that's where your allegiance lays.  We don't need any more subversive traitors in this country.

 

F*CK YOUR LAWS!  I HATE THIS F*CKING COUNTRY!

 

 

Typical of a foreign lefty, eh?  They steal your crap and demand that YOU be punished for it.  How arrogant can ya get?


Edited by Moronium, 20 March 2019 - 11:54 AM.


#10 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:33 AM

No they are not.  Read the Supreme Court decisions I've already cited.  Or, for that matter, the case at hand here.

 

Immigrants are here at our pleasure and indulgence.  They are still citizens of foreign powers, unless they become naturalized--which few do.

I can't consider the decisions of the Scotus as valid legal decisions. Their decisions are almost exclusively based on politics as opposed to modern standards being set by law in the rest of the world's modern first world countries. Sorry but the clock can't be turned back so easily.

 

Granted, there may be a decision or two out of the last dozen that has maintained legal standards taking precedence over politics, but they're few and far between.



#11 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:40 AM

When the U.S played Mexico for the world soccer cup in Pasadena, California, the whole stadium was filled with Mexican flags carried by immigrants, both legal and illegal.  The US team was soundly booed by this alien crowd throughout the game.  Even when they took the podium when being awarded medals for second place (Mexico won).

 

Every last one of those miserable bastards should have been deported.  Go back to Mexico if that's where your allegiance lays.  We don't need anymore subversive traitors in this county.

Maybe you've read it all wrong Moronium? Mexico was and is the superior side in world soccer and would naturally be favoured by the fans. And it's only sports Moronium, even though it's indicative of the dislike of the US side in soccer. 

 

Do you think it was an indication of something more than just the game? Could you be thinking that it's blowback against Trump and his racist treatment of Hispanics? Whatever it is, I'm not surprised at the way you've told it! 

 

White supremacy gathers enemies in sports too Moronium! You should rise above it.



#12 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:56 AM

Their decisions are almost exclusively based on politics as opposed to modern standards being set by law in the rest of the world's modern first world countries. 

 

 

Yeah, like China, you mean, eh?  Hahahahaha.


Edited by Moronium, 20 March 2019 - 11:58 AM.


#13 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 12:13 PM



Yeah, like China, you mean, eh?  Hahahahaha.

There is perhaps a parallel to draw with China. It's worth a discussion in any case. China's situation calls for some different measures to be taken on how the citizenry is kept under control. For the greater good China may be compelled to keep political dissidents under strict control. This is the nature of their communist system which they are allowing to slowly evolve into a capitalist system. Destructive US influence must be guarded against vigilantly! 

 

And then, we can't very well criticize China's huge success at lifting hundreds of millions of it's people up out of poverty. We can criticize America's failures of allowing it's citizens to descend into poverty, especially considering the US's huge wealth in comparison to ascending nations.

 

Also consider that it's the US under Trump that has had to resort to dirty tricks and unfair trade practices in order to continue to be a player in global markets. 

 

China can't lose in having to play at Trump's game, and the US is very quickly coming to understand that. America won't be made great again by foul play. 

 

Are you a Trump supporter still? Can you hold to the Trump ideology for the coming year? You're going to be sorely tested Moronium! 

 

Keep coming back for me, both on your religious quackery and your politics!



#14 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 05:13 PM

Some Senegalese native just hijacked a bus in Italy with 50-some kids on it and set it on fire.

 

Why?  Because he didn't like Italy's immigration policy.  He said people in Africa were dying and that it was all Italy's fault, eh?   This was after Italy allowed him entry and let him work there for 15 years.

 

The utter gall and ingratitude of some of these immigrants, I tell ya.

 

I guess he had true empathy though, eh?


Edited by Moronium, 20 March 2019 - 05:23 PM.


#15 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 05:47 PM

Some Senegalese native just hijacked a bus in Italy with 50-some kids on it and set it on fire.

 

Why?  Because he didn't like Italy's immigration policy.  He said people in Africa were dying and that it was all Italy's fault, eh?   This was after Italy allowed him entry and let him work there for 15 years.

 

The utter gall and ingratitude of some of these immigrants, I tell ya.

 

I guess he had true empathy though, eh?

Did the Senagalese gentleman have good reason to do what he did. Many people in Africa are dying and in this instance it's got a lot to do with Italy's fault. Why do you always side with the establishment. Americans in particular should be working to elevate the anti-establishment to change their country.

 

Try to get it through your head that immigrants don't owe Italy or the US or any other country anything. Countries that have the ability to rescue immigrants deserve to be taken in by wealthy countries that have the ability. How did you ever lose track of that fact?

 

All people on the face of the earth deserve a piece of the pie Moronium, regardless of whether they have white skin or not. Ask your church for the official explanation of why that's true. Then start practicing that which Christians pretend is their priorities.


Edited by montgomery, 20 March 2019 - 05:52 PM.


#16 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2565 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 08:42 PM

Did the Senagalese gentleman have good reason to do what he did.

Did you seriously just reflex-defend someone trying to BURN CHILDREN ALIVE?



#17 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 09:00 PM

Did you seriously just reflex-defend someone trying to BURN CHILDREN ALIVE?

I asked a question. 

 

rightists much like you continue to defend the Iraq war atrocity which was committed by the US 16 years ago today. Did the US have a good reason to slaughter hundreds of thousands? Would an Iraqi father of a child victim have a good reason to kill 50 American or Canadian children in revenge?

 

Did he have a good reason? What pain would a Senagalese gentleman need to suffer that would cause him to act out that sort of revenge?


Edited by montgomery, 20 March 2019 - 09:08 PM.