Supreme Court Makes It Easier For Trump Administration to Detain Immigrants

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a case about immigrants that get arrested for deportation after jail time for other crimes has been completed (I think).

Apparently a bail hearing IS NOT required in some cases.

That means "indefinite" detention !!

(I think I understood it right)

It's confusing and even the Justices had "variable" opinions 😎


Supreme Court Makes It Easier For Trump Administration to Detain Immigrants

The Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that the federal government can detain immigrants awaiting deportation well after they’ve completed prison terms for criminal convictions.

With the detention being indefinite, some cases may see criminal immigrants held for years until their deportation hearings can be processed.

Additionally, they can be taken in at any time and without a bond hearing, making it unnecessary to pursue those criminals immediately after release from prison.

a reply to: xuenchen

As a lot of the commenters on that website said, it should have been a 9-0 vote.
The Libs on the SC don’t give a damn about the American people.
That being said, not all illegals coming here are breaking OTHER laws but they are breaking the law.
As far as the ones that are committing crimes other than being here illegally, they should be detained until deportation.
Not just sent back out to continue breaking laws.

a reply to: xuenchen

Damn activist judges!

I think they should not even detain them, drive them to the border and shoot rock salt in their asses to keep them moving.

As a kid in the usa in the 70's the railroad cops would shoot us up with rock salt to stay away from rail road property. WTF has changed?

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, the Supreme Court ruled, so it must be right!

I mean, they ruled on Roe v Wade, so this must be correct as well. . . . hmmm?

a reply to: xuenchen

What individual or group was attempting to stop the Federal Government from having the ability to retain illegal immigrants? It's good to know who America's enemies are.

a reply to: RazorV66

It makes you wonder if liberals love their own immediate and distant relatives, doesn't it? The entire "border security" issues makes you wonder if they're human.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Isn't it odd that the Judicial side of our three parts of government can make laws... which our Legislative side is supposed to do?

Almost like it's not Constitutional...

a reply to: Lumenari

To be fair, they are only ruling on the Constitutionality of existing laws.

But their rulings do allow for laws along certain lines to be created, so in a sense, you are right!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lumenari

To be fair, they are only ruling on the Constitutionality of existing laws.

But their rulings do allow for laws along certain lines to be created, so in a sense, you are right!

To be fair, they have allowed their power to grow for about 100 years now to where now they do make laws.

Roe v Wade isn't anything that our legislative branch passed, as a law.

The opinion of the SC made it a law anyways.

We are operating outside of the confines of the Constitution.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lumenari

To be fair, they are only ruling on the Constitutionality of existing laws.

But their rulings do allow for laws along certain lines to be created, so in a sense, you are right!

To be fair, they have allowed their power to grow for about 100 years now to where now they do make laws.

Roe v Wade isn't anything that our legislative branch passed, as a law.

The opinion of the SC made it a law anyways.

We are operating outside of the confines of the Constitution.

They ruled that it fell under the constitution thus a separate law isnt needed. That is why we have rights and laws.

a reply to: Shockerking


Haven't you heard? Everybody is apparently fragile nowadays. If you stop them from doing what they want to do, you're automatically a bigot or racist, depending on the optics.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, the Supreme Court ruled, so it must be right!

I mean, they ruled on Roe v Wade, so this must be correct as well. . . . hmmm?

Why bring that issue into this thread?

Right, or wrong is a matter of opinion, in many cases. The SC is not there to be legislators, or activists. They are there to interpret existing law, and as a check to laws as it pertains to "inalienable rights" gauranteed by the constitution.

If laws need to be changed, that is the purview of congress, NOT the SC.

First let one thing be crystal clear
if your in this county ILLEGALLY then its A CRIME.
the penalty of this no matter if first time, 5th time, you have lead a "good life", you have committed another crime (be minor or felony), or you have a child/citizen spouse/ect is DEPORTATION.

the law is very CUT AND DRY.

Second lets look at what it really means "indefinite" detention.
it isnt you will be held forever (as those for illegal immigrants would claim) but UNTIL YOUR IMMIGRATION CASE IS DETERMINED (be innocent or guilty) and if guilty until last appeal runs out or until deported or both.

this is NO DIFFERENT than being held without bond due to the nature of your crime , your past record of showing up, and/or you dont have enough for bond.

Lastly.

the cold hard truth why this is done is because in the past they did "catch and release" . In which they let you go with a promise to return to court or return for deportation.

sadly a great majority JUST REFUSED TO SHOW UP.

so they had to resort to this.

So lets go though what the REAL process is

you are accused of being an ILLEGAL ALIEN (aka here illegally). Be that you sneak across, you overstayed your visa, whatever.

You are caught by law enforcement .

The judge determines there is just cause that you are illegal.
while you fight your case you stay in detention aka jail.
how long you stay is determined by how long it takes to determine guilt or innocence.
the longer you try legal tricks , appeals, ect to stay when you are guilty (or after found guilty) the longer you stay in detention.
when you (again if guilty) decide to stop appealing your conviction and fight deportation you will be deported.
If found innocent your released.

simple as that.

Scrounger

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, the Supreme Court ruled, so it must be right!

I mean, they ruled on Roe v Wade, so this must be correct as well. . . . hmmm?

Why bring that issue into this thread?

Right, or wrong is a matter of opinion, in many cases. The SC is not there to be legislators, or activists. They are there to interpret existing law, and as a check to laws as it pertains to "inalienable rights" gauranteed by the constitution.

If laws need to be changed, that is the purview of congress, NOT the SC.

EXACTLY

that is why in the past the SC found slavery LEGAL.

It was (sad but true) legal under the constitution.

All they could do is look at the constitution, see it was legal, and rule that way.

when it was constitutionally changed then any attempt at slavery was deemed ILLEGAL.

sadly alot of the judges (like in roe v wade) didnt look at it that strictly or even spirit and determined that somehow the constitution could be "stretched" or its a "living breathing" document.

the framers make it (abit hard for a good reason) so if something didnt fall in the constitutional right (be personal, state, or feds) you could add an amendment to change that.

people did it with prohibition and when it failed had to again make an amendment to rescind it.

its called "separation of powers "

scrounger

If you are all supporters of "kicking out Immigrants"

do you support "kicking out" the original immigrants who came and genocided us Natives?

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
If you are all supporters of "kicking out Immigrants"

do you support "kicking out" the original immigrants who came and genocided us Natives?

I had to quote you to show that you try to deflect by equating ILLEGAL immigrants same as LEGAL immigrants.

do you need a link to the definition of both?

now on to the comment "genocided us natives"

you do realize that the american indians waged war for land, took slaves , killed women and children of enemy tribes and committed "genocide" right?

in fact the current tribe claiming the black hills of SD WIPED OUT (aka genocide) the tribe that claimed it before.

So as I have shown you want to deflect with emotion but fact lacking rant what is your next canned response

I believe its number 4 "call them a bigot or phobic"

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Look, you can repeat the colonist talking points, of "But the Natives did this" and it is still no excuse to come and genocide entire tribes of people, In California alone, over 90% of the Natives were genocided by colonisers, not other Natives, and that is only one territory, not counting across the entire tribes and spaces genocided

Like, it's a nice attempt that you are trying to school me on my own history, but you failed

a reply to: XAnarchistX

actually I hate to have to "school" you on american indian history

for example in CA the SPANISH were the first to "wipe out" tribes in that area.
along with what is now mexico, texas and some other parts of midwest.

Along with the french as well.

but hey why let a few facts ruin your emotional rant.

along with so its ok when indians do genocide and other crimes (notice you didnt deny that btw) to each other but when someone else does it its not ok?

wow just wow

BTW it isnt right by ANYONE but sadly its the history of ALL HUMANITY .

now notice you have not addressed your blatant ignoring FACTS by claiming ILLEGAL is same as legal.

oh before I forget

EXACTLY WHAT TRIBE you a member of again?

scrounger