Supreme Court OKs government's quick removal of immigrants who cross border illegally

In a photo taken from the Mexican side of the border in Tijuana, immigrants on U.S. soil try to jump over a second wall before the border police arrived and arrested them on December 2, 2018.
The Supreme Court confirmed Thursday the government's power to arrest, interview and remove immigrants caught illegally crossing the border.
In a victory for the Trump administration, the judges dismissed the claim that immigrants seeking asylum have the right to a full federal court review by a habeas corpus, even if their claims are not believed to be credible.
The 7-2 decision was made in the case of an Sri Lankan immigrant late at night 25 meters north of the Mexico border near San Ysidro, California. He was interviewed by an asylum officer who concluded that he was not "credible" about fear of persecution "that would trigger another hearing. A supervisor and immigration judge agreed that his allegation did not warrant further investigation.
Last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appealed in its case a comprehensive ruling that the federal law, which permits the "accelerated removal" of cross-border commuters, was unconstitutional in cases like his.
Lawyers from Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, the Sri Lankan man, said that the asylum officer had not heard his full story because of "communication problems" due to "communication problems". This included being arrested and beaten by army officers for supporting a Tamil political candidate. The 9th court ruled that it would violate the Constitution's right to habeas corpus and proper procedures to refuse a federal court review in such cases.
The Justice Department filed an appeal, arguing that the ruling could disrupt the 1996 "accelerated removal" process and result in a "flood" of lengthy appeals.
The Supreme Court approved and reversed the 9th circuit. He ruled that neither Habeas Corpus nor a due process of law give those who cross the border illegally the right to fully review their claims before the federal courts.
"While foreigners who have made connections in this country have reasonable procedural rights in deportation procedures, the court long ago found that Congress has the right to lay down the conditions for a foreigner's lawful entry into that country, resulting in that a foreigner on The First Entry Threshold cannot claim greater rights "than those set out in the 1996 Act," said Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. of the Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, referring to the right to one Being interviewed by asylum officials and on a review by an immigration judge.
In the past five years, it has been found that 77% of people interviewed by an asylum officer have a credible claim, he said. As a result, the "accelerated deportation" procedure is limited to one in four people who apply for asylum.
Alito said Habeas Corpus has "traditionally been a means of ensuring release from unlawful detention." In the case of the Sri Lankan man, "the government is happy to release him, provided that he is released in the cabin of an airplane to Sri Lanka," he said. But instead of applying for his release, the migrant's goal is to "get permission to stay in this country".
The 9th Circle had cited the Supreme Court rulings extending Habeas Corpus rights to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but Alito said these prisoners wanted to be released and go home, not permission, in the United States States to live.
The judges Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the result, but did not agree with Alito's opinion.
The judges Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed. "Today's decision handcuffs the judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional duty to preserve individual liberty and removes a critical component of the separation of powers. It will leave the executive's considerable discretionary powers uncontrolled [and] increasing the risk of incorrect immigration decisions who violate applicable laws. " and contracts, "Sotomayor wrote.
ACLU lawyer Lee Learned, who argued the case, said he was disappointed.
“This decision is not in line with the basic principle of the Constitution that deprived people have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers. This decision means that some people who are faced with incorrect deportation orders can be forcibly removed without judicial supervision, which puts their lives at great risk, "he said.

You should check here to buy the best price guaranteed products.

Last News

Ziaire Williams with a 2-pointer vs the San Antonio Spurs

I grew up in a kibbutz in Israel, and I only got to see my parents a few hours a day. I wish they understood how much I needed them around.

Martha Stewart says Ina Garten's advice to drink 'more large cosmos' during the pandemic is 'not charming'

U.S. responds to Russian demands amid military buildup

Nikola Jokic with a dunk vs the Brooklyn Nets

Ayo Dosunmu with an assist vs the Toronto Raptors