Gorsuch sides with Liberals as SCOTUS rules against "violent" crime deportation

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

With the four other conservative justices in dissent, it was the vote of the Trump appointee that was decisive in striking down the provision at issue. Gorsuch did not join all of Kagan's opinion, but he agreed with her that the law could not be left in place. Gorsuch wrote that "no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it."

*rushes over to Twitter*

Nope, no calls for his impeachment by Trump yet.

Tuesday's decision involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him. The government argued among other things that he could be removed from the country because his convictions qualified as crimes of violence that allowed his removal under immigration law.

Immigration officials relied on a section of immigration law that lists crimes that make people eligible for deportation. The category in which Dimaya's convictions fell is a crime "that, by its very nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force...may be used in the course of committing the offense."

...

The decision does not interfere with the government's ability to deport people who are convicted of clearly violent crimes, including murder and rape, as well as drug trafficking and other serious offenses. The ruling is limited to a category of crimes that carry a prison term of more than a year, but do not otherwise comfortably fit in a long list of "aggravated felonies" that can lead to deportation.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The law must distinguish better between the good immigrants and the bad ones.

link

With the four other conservative justices in dissent, it was the vote of the Trump appointee that was decisive in striking down the provision at issue. Gorsuch did not join all of Kagan's opinion, but he agreed with her that the law could not be left in place. Gorsuch wrote that "no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it."

*rushes over to Twitter*

Nope, no calls for his impeachment by Trump yet.

Tuesday's decision involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him. The government argued among other things that he could be removed from the country because his convictions qualified as crimes of violence that allowed his removal under immigration law.

Immigration officials relied on a section of immigration law that lists crimes that make people eligible for deportation. The category in which Dimaya's convictions fell is a crime "that, by its very nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force...may be used in the course of committing the offense."

...

The decision does not interfere with the government's ability to deport people who are convicted of clearly violent crimes, including murder and rape, as well as drug trafficking and other serious offenses. The ruling is limited to a category of crimes that carry a prison term of more than a year, but do not otherwise comfortably fit in a long list of "aggravated felonies" that can lead to deportation.

Something went wrong here.


Here's what the rule should be:


good immigrants

Any illegal alien who is working and has committed no felony crime should be granted legal status automatically.

Or any illegal alien who has been in the country 5 (10) years and has committed no felony crime should be granted legal status automatically.


bad immigrants

Any illegal alien who has committed a felony crime should be provided a summary trial using grand juries or citizen tribunal panels (no judges/lawyers/professionals required) and subjected to severe penalties and much lower standards for due process, and the death penalty should be one possible punishment, especially if it is a repeat offender who returned after being deported earlier.

The reason the death penalty should be an option is that deportation only allows the offender to return later to commit more crimes.

Even flogging should be considered an option in serious cases, followed by deportation.

This approach would send out the message to all potential illegal immigrants that they will be protected if their intentions are non-criminal, but that they are risking their lives coming here if they intend to commit a felony crime.

The law struck down in this case should have been worded differently, to say that ALL felony criminals (whose crime was not due to their non-citizen status, such as stealing a SS card # only to qualify for employment) will be deported, regardless of the possibility of violence, or even executed if the tribunal thinks the criminal is unusually dangerous.

This kind of policy would deter bad immigrants and still allow the productive ones to keep coming, thus promoting the economic benefits we gain from the immigrant labor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He was/is a legal immigrant.

 

[funinspace]

He was/is a legal immigrant.

Sure, but what does reality have to do with the clear fact that it fails the 2nd Lumpian worldview test?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He was/is a legal immigrant.

Sure, but what does reality have to do with the clear fact that it fails the 2nd Lumpian worldview test?

Sorry for the derail.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm sure Trump and his goons would rather just march him out into the forest and put a bullet into his head Vilnius style.

Damn the liberals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm sure Trump and his goons would rather just march him out into the forest and put a bullet into his head Vilnius style.

Damn the liberals.

Oh, you mean "Go hunting with Dick Cheney".