Catch and Release is over - Its catch and wait in Mexico now

[Montrovant]

Stunning this even had to go to the SCOTUS. Which part of "ILLEGAL" do Democrats not get?

Did you read the article, or any other article on this case? The men were legal immigrants.

From the OP article: "At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents."

Here's another article in which it states that one of the men actually won his deportation case after being detained: "One of the lead plaintiffs involved in the California case, Mony Preap, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1981 and has two convictions for possession of marijuana. He was released from prison in 2006 but was not taken into immigration custody until 2013. Preap has since won his deportation case, allowing him to remain in the country."
Supreme Court rules against immigrants in detention case

This was not a simple illegal alien case.

From the article




The issue in the case before the justices had to do with the detention of noncitizens who have committed a broad range of crimes that make them deportable. Immigration law tells the government it must arrest those people when they are released from custody and then hold them while an immigration court decides whether they should be deported.

Noncitizens does not mean illegals. Being held until an immigration court can decide if someone should be deported does not mean illegal. One of the men from this case won his deportation hearing and is still legally in the country.

 

[jc456]

Stunning this even had to go to the SCOTUS. Which part of "ILLEGAL" do Democrats not get?

Did you read the article, or any other article on this case? The men were legal immigrants.

From the OP article: "At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents."

Here's another article in which it states that one of the men actually won his deportation case after being detained: "One of the lead plaintiffs involved in the California case, Mony Preap, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1981 and has two convictions for possession of marijuana. He was released from prison in 2006 but was not taken into immigration custody until 2013. Preap has since won his deportation case, allowing him to remain in the country."
Supreme Court rules against immigrants in detention case

This was not a simple illegal alien case.

From the article




The issue in the case before the justices had to do with the detention of noncitizens who have committed a broad range of crimes that make them deportable. Immigration law tells the government it must arrest those people when they are released from custody and then hold them while an immigration court decides whether they should be deported.

Exactly. They've committed crimes. Which means they are illegally here.

Actually, it does not. As I pointed out, one of the men won his deportation hearing and is still in the country legally.

I'm no immigration expert, so if you can point to the relevant law/rulings which indicate that any legal immigrant who is convicted of any crime is automatically denied the right to remain a legal resident, I'd be happy to read it. Based on the deportation hearing ruling against one of the men in this case, the judicial system seems to disagree with your statement, though.

why aren't you just asking the SCOTUS?

 

[Montrovant]

Stunning this even had to go to the SCOTUS. Which part of "ILLEGAL" do Democrats not get?

Did you read the article, or any other article on this case? The men were legal immigrants.

From the OP article: "At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents."

Here's another article in which it states that one of the men actually won his deportation case after being detained: "One of the lead plaintiffs involved in the California case, Mony Preap, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1981 and has two convictions for possession of marijuana. He was released from prison in 2006 but was not taken into immigration custody until 2013. Preap has since won his deportation case, allowing him to remain in the country."
Supreme Court rules against immigrants in detention case

This was not a simple illegal alien case.

From the article




The issue in the case before the justices had to do with the detention of noncitizens who have committed a broad range of crimes that make them deportable. Immigration law tells the government it must arrest those people when they are released from custody and then hold them while an immigration court decides whether they should be deported.

Exactly. They've committed crimes. Which means they are illegally here.

Actually, it does not. As I pointed out, one of the men won his deportation hearing and is still in the country legally.

I'm no immigration expert, so if you can point to the relevant law/rulings which indicate that any legal immigrant who is convicted of any crime is automatically denied the right to remain a legal resident, I'd be happy to read it. Based on the deportation hearing ruling against one of the men in this case, the judicial system seems to disagree with your statement, though.

why aren't you just asking the SCOTUS?

The SCOTUS didn't rule that the men were in the country illegally. It ruled that they could be detained well after serving their sentences for deportation hearings. That happened, and one of the men won his hearing, and remains in the country legally.

 

[jc456]

Did you read the article, or any other article on this case? The men were legal immigrants.

From the OP article: "At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents."

Here's another article in which it states that one of the men actually won his deportation case after being detained: "One of the lead plaintiffs involved in the California case, Mony Preap, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1981 and has two convictions for possession of marijuana. He was released from prison in 2006 but was not taken into immigration custody until 2013. Preap has since won his deportation case, allowing him to remain in the country."
Supreme Court rules against immigrants in detention case

This was not a simple illegal alien case.

From the article




The issue in the case before the justices had to do with the detention of noncitizens who have committed a broad range of crimes that make them deportable. Immigration law tells the government it must arrest those people when they are released from custody and then hold them while an immigration court decides whether they should be deported.

Exactly. They've committed crimes. Which means they are illegally here.

Actually, it does not. As I pointed out, one of the men won his deportation hearing and is still in the country legally.

I'm no immigration expert, so if you can point to the relevant law/rulings which indicate that any legal immigrant who is convicted of any crime is automatically denied the right to remain a legal resident, I'd be happy to read it. Based on the deportation hearing ruling against one of the men in this case, the judicial system seems to disagree with your statement, though.

why aren't you just asking the SCOTUS?

The SCOTUS didn't rule that the men were in the country illegally. It ruled that they could be detained well after serving their sentences for deportation hearings. That happened, and one of the men won his hearing, and remains in the country legally.

ok.

 

[Montrovant]

Stunning this even had to go to the SCOTUS. Which part of "ILLEGAL" do Democrats not get?

How about the federal law under which they executed the detention had an "immediacy" requirement between release from criminal custody, and being taken into detention.

It's like a cop seeing an armed gunman, and letting him go, only to shoot him six months later when he was no longer armed.

No, it's like arresting him 6 months later if he got away.

Getting away absolves someone of a crime?

And please point out the part of the law that had an immediacy requirement.

The immediacy requirement, as I understand it, was based on the wording that immigration enforcement could detain convicted immigrants when they are released. I think the argument would be that saying they can be detained when released does not mean they can be detained at any time after being released. I haven't read the law, just what was quoted in the article, so I don't know how strong an argument that is.

Based on what's in the article, however, the argument does seem to have some merit. If someone told me they were going to meet me somewhere when they got off of work, for example, I wouldn't expect them to show up the next day, simply because it's still a time after they got off of work. I'd expect them to meet me immediately after they got off of work.

The ACLU is supposedly going to ask for the law to be clarified.

 

[martybegan]

Stunning this even had to go to the SCOTUS. Which part of "ILLEGAL" do Democrats not get?

How about the federal law under which they executed the detention had an "immediacy" requirement between release from criminal custody, and being taken into detention.

It's like a cop seeing an armed gunman, and letting him go, only to shoot him six months later when he was no longer armed.

No, it's like arresting him 6 months later if he got away.

Getting away absolves someone of a crime?

And please point out the part of the law that had an immediacy requirement.

The immediacy requirement, as I understand it, was based on the wording that immigration enforcement could detain convicted immigrants when they are released. I think the argument would be that saying they can be detained when released does not mean they can be detained at any time after being released. I haven't read the law, just what was quoted in the article, so I don't know how strong an argument that is.

Based on what's in the article, however, the argument does seem to have some merit. If someone told me they were going to meet me somewhere when they got off of work, for example, I wouldn't expect them to show up the next day, simply because it's still a time after they got off of work. I'd expect them to meet me immediately after they got off of work.

The ACLU is supposedly going to ask for the law to be clarified.

When released could also just mean the local jurisdiction has first dibs at them, preventing the feds from taking the person into federal custody prior to the local charges being sorted out.

 

[bullwinkle]

Make America Safe Again

4 Leftards voted to make America Lawless.

Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

Hey, Weather! I see you take this decision as a personal victory. While I have no problem with deporting felons upon release from custody, there appears to me to be a hitch or two. Legal immigrants deported years after release?

"At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents. Both were convicted of crimes and served their sentences but were not detained by immigration authorities for removal proceedings until years after they were released from criminal custody."

I smell a game change!

"The Trump administration argued that the government has the authority to detain immigrants as they await deportation, even if they are arrested by immigration authorities years after serving their sentences. The Supreme Court agreed."

"Reading his dissent from the bench, Breyer warned the "greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority's interpretation grants to the government."

Another baby step towards granting a Presidential power you will one day regret.

"It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail," he wrote."

Weather, I genuinely believe this court will sink us as a Democratic Republic. Sooner or later it will get around to striking out at you. I hope you remember this day!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Make America Safe Again

4 Leftards voted to make America Lawless.

Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

Hey, Weather! I see you take this decision as a personal victory. While I have no problem with deporting felons upon release from custody, there appears to me to be a hitch or two. Legal immigrants deported years after release?

"At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents. Both were convicted of crimes and served their sentences but were not detained by immigration authorities for removal proceedings until years after they were released from criminal custody."

I smell a game change!

"The Trump administration argued that the government has the authority to detain immigrants as they await deportation, even if they are arrested by immigration authorities years after serving their sentences. The Supreme Court agreed."

"Reading his dissent from the bench, Breyer warned the "greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority's interpretation grants to the government."

Another baby step towards granting a Presidential power you will one day regret.

"It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail," he wrote."

Weather, I genuinely believe this court will sink us as a Democratic Republic. Sooner or later it will get around to striking out at you. I hope you remember this day!

America does not need to import criminals. Our doors are open to people who want to succeed personally on their own without stealing from innocents.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Winning!

 

[Montrovant]

Stunning this even had to go to the SCOTUS. Which part of "ILLEGAL" do Democrats not get?

How about the federal law under which they executed the detention had an "immediacy" requirement between release from criminal custody, and being taken into detention.

It's like a cop seeing an armed gunman, and letting him go, only to shoot him six months later when he was no longer armed.

No, it's like arresting him 6 months later if he got away.

Getting away absolves someone of a crime?

And please point out the part of the law that had an immediacy requirement.

The immediacy requirement, as I understand it, was based on the wording that immigration enforcement could detain convicted immigrants when they are released. I think the argument would be that saying they can be detained when released does not mean they can be detained at any time after being released. I haven't read the law, just what was quoted in the article, so I don't know how strong an argument that is.

Based on what's in the article, however, the argument does seem to have some merit. If someone told me they were going to meet me somewhere when they got off of work, for example, I wouldn't expect them to show up the next day, simply because it's still a time after they got off of work. I'd expect them to meet me immediately after they got off of work.

The ACLU is supposedly going to ask for the law to be clarified.

When released could also just mean the local jurisdiction has first dibs at them, preventing the feds from taking the person into federal custody prior to the local charges being sorted out.

Could be. As I said, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if the argument actually holds water. I also haven't tried to find any articles about when it was passed to see if there is any indication of the intent. I was just trying to give an explanation of why I think the immediacy argument was made.

It seemed to be alluded to in the dissent, so at least some of the justices may have considered the wording to be indicating a degree of immediacy.

 

[Montrovant]

Make America Safe Again

4 Leftards voted to make America Lawless.

Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

Hey, Weather! I see you take this decision as a personal victory. While I have no problem with deporting felons upon release from custody, there appears to me to be a hitch or two. Legal immigrants deported years after release?

"At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents. Both were convicted of crimes and served their sentences but were not detained by immigration authorities for removal proceedings until years after they were released from criminal custody."

I smell a game change!

"The Trump administration argued that the government has the authority to detain immigrants as they await deportation, even if they are arrested by immigration authorities years after serving their sentences. The Supreme Court agreed."

"Reading his dissent from the bench, Breyer warned the "greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority's interpretation grants to the government."

Another baby step towards granting a Presidential power you will one day regret.

"It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail," he wrote."

Weather, I genuinely believe this court will sink us as a Democratic Republic. Sooner or later it will get around to striking out at you. I hope you remember this day!

From the AP article I posted earlier, apparently the Obama administration made the same argument about being able to detain well after release. I wonder why a case didn't make it to the USSC then?

Of course, seemingly all presidents try to gain more power for themselves, which leads to more power for the office.

 

[DGS49]

The disturbing part is the four "No" votes. How the fuck can anyone take the position that the Federal Government CANNOT incarcerate a known felon because they didn't do it quickly enough?

We are not talking about a board game here. This is real life.

Fucking Leftist scum.

 

[Care4all]

See why the Lord would not allow Hillary into the White House?

Probably because the time was right, for the antichrist to be put in power...?

 

[jc456]

Stunning this even had to go to the SCOTUS. Which part of "ILLEGAL" do Democrats not get?

How about the federal law under which they executed the detention had an "immediacy" requirement between release from criminal custody, and being taken into detention.

It's like a cop seeing an armed gunman, and letting him go, only to shoot him six months later when he was no longer armed.

No, it's like arresting him 6 months later if he got away.

Getting away absolves someone of a crime?

And please point out the part of the law that had an immediacy requirement.

The immediacy requirement, as I understand it, was based on the wording that immigration enforcement could detain convicted immigrants when they are released. I think the argument would be that saying they can be detained when released does not mean they can be detained at any time after being released. I haven't read the law, just what was quoted in the article, so I don't know how strong an argument that is.

Based on what's in the article, however, the argument does seem to have some merit. If someone told me they were going to meet me somewhere when they got off of work, for example, I wouldn't expect them to show up the next day, simply because it's still a time after they got off of work. I'd expect them to meet me immediately after they got off of work.

The ACLU is supposedly going to ask for the law to be clarified.

When released could also just mean the local jurisdiction has first dibs at them, preventing the feds from taking the person into federal custody prior to the local charges being sorted out.

Could be. As I said, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if the argument actually holds water. I also haven't tried to find any articles about when it was passed to see if there is any indication of the intent. I was just trying to give an explanation of why I think the immediacy argument was made.

It seemed to be alluded to in the dissent, so at least some of the justices may have considered the wording to be indicating a degree of immediacy.

well you should speak to the SCOTUS about your issue with them.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think I'm gonna throw up again but:

"The dispute focused on a federal law that says the Department of Homeland Security can detain immigrants convicted of certain crimes “when the alien is released” from criminal custody."

I think the 9th is wrong. "When" is not limited to the immediate moment of release. Who determines the amount of time they have before they are safe from arrest? How is that even determined? I think "when" of course is the starting point and there is no end point (I don't think, never read the entire law, have you?). I mean, you can't very well detain someone while they are incarcerated, right?

 

[Montrovant]

How about the federal law under which they executed the detention had an "immediacy" requirement between release from criminal custody, and being taken into detention.

It's like a cop seeing an armed gunman, and letting him go, only to shoot him six months later when he was no longer armed.

No, it's like arresting him 6 months later if he got away.

Getting away absolves someone of a crime?

And please point out the part of the law that had an immediacy requirement.

The immediacy requirement, as I understand it, was based on the wording that immigration enforcement could detain convicted immigrants when they are released. I think the argument would be that saying they can be detained when released does not mean they can be detained at any time after being released. I haven't read the law, just what was quoted in the article, so I don't know how strong an argument that is.

Based on what's in the article, however, the argument does seem to have some merit. If someone told me they were going to meet me somewhere when they got off of work, for example, I wouldn't expect them to show up the next day, simply because it's still a time after they got off of work. I'd expect them to meet me immediately after they got off of work.

The ACLU is supposedly going to ask for the law to be clarified.

When released could also just mean the local jurisdiction has first dibs at them, preventing the feds from taking the person into federal custody prior to the local charges being sorted out.

Could be. As I said, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if the argument actually holds water. I also haven't tried to find any articles about when it was passed to see if there is any indication of the intent. I was just trying to give an explanation of why I think the immediacy argument was made.

It seemed to be alluded to in the dissent, so at least some of the justices may have considered the wording to be indicating a degree of immediacy.

well you should speak to the SCOTUS about your issue with them.

Have I said I have an issue with the Supreme Court in relation to this ruling?

Have you never indicated disagreement with a USSC ruling?

Are you just fishing for some sort of reaction?

 

[jc456]

No, it's like arresting him 6 months later if he got away.

Getting away absolves someone of a crime?

And please point out the part of the law that had an immediacy requirement.

The immediacy requirement, as I understand it, was based on the wording that immigration enforcement could detain convicted immigrants when they are released. I think the argument would be that saying they can be detained when released does not mean they can be detained at any time after being released. I haven't read the law, just what was quoted in the article, so I don't know how strong an argument that is.

Based on what's in the article, however, the argument does seem to have some merit. If someone told me they were going to meet me somewhere when they got off of work, for example, I wouldn't expect them to show up the next day, simply because it's still a time after they got off of work. I'd expect them to meet me immediately after they got off of work.

The ACLU is supposedly going to ask for the law to be clarified.

When released could also just mean the local jurisdiction has first dibs at them, preventing the feds from taking the person into federal custody prior to the local charges being sorted out.

Could be. As I said, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if the argument actually holds water. I also haven't tried to find any articles about when it was passed to see if there is any indication of the intent. I was just trying to give an explanation of why I think the immediacy argument was made.

It seemed to be alluded to in the dissent, so at least some of the justices may have considered the wording to be indicating a degree of immediacy.

well you should speak to the SCOTUS about your issue with them.

Have I said I have an issue with the Supreme Court in relation to this ruling?

Have you never indicated disagreement with a USSC ruling?

Are you just fishing for some sort of reaction?

roe vs wade?

obammycare?

 

[Montrovant]

The immediacy requirement, as I understand it, was based on the wording that immigration enforcement could detain convicted immigrants when they are released. I think the argument would be that saying they can be detained when released does not mean they can be detained at any time after being released. I haven't read the law, just what was quoted in the article, so I don't know how strong an argument that is.

Based on what's in the article, however, the argument does seem to have some merit. If someone told me they were going to meet me somewhere when they got off of work, for example, I wouldn't expect them to show up the next day, simply because it's still a time after they got off of work. I'd expect them to meet me immediately after they got off of work.

The ACLU is supposedly going to ask for the law to be clarified.

When released could also just mean the local jurisdiction has first dibs at them, preventing the feds from taking the person into federal custody prior to the local charges being sorted out.

Could be. As I said, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if the argument actually holds water. I also haven't tried to find any articles about when it was passed to see if there is any indication of the intent. I was just trying to give an explanation of why I think the immediacy argument was made.

It seemed to be alluded to in the dissent, so at least some of the justices may have considered the wording to be indicating a degree of immediacy.

well you should speak to the SCOTUS about your issue with them.

Have I said I have an issue with the Supreme Court in relation to this ruling?

Have you never indicated disagreement with a USSC ruling?

Are you just fishing for some sort of reaction?

roe vs wade?

obammycare?

And did you discuss your issue with the USSC? If not, why hold me to a different standard?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See why the Lord would not allow Hillary into the White House?

Probably because the time was right, for the antichrist to be put in power...?

Lol

 

[jc456]

When released could also just mean the local jurisdiction has first dibs at them, preventing the feds from taking the person into federal custody prior to the local charges being sorted out.

Could be. As I said, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if the argument actually holds water. I also haven't tried to find any articles about when it was passed to see if there is any indication of the intent. I was just trying to give an explanation of why I think the immediacy argument was made.

It seemed to be alluded to in the dissent, so at least some of the justices may have considered the wording to be indicating a degree of immediacy.

well you should speak to the SCOTUS about your issue with them.

Have I said I have an issue with the Supreme Court in relation to this ruling?

Have you never indicated disagreement with a USSC ruling?

Are you just fishing for some sort of reaction?

roe vs wade?

obammycare?

And did you discuss your issue with the USSC? If not, why hold me to a different standard?

I'm not asking anyone to explain it to me.