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

[DigitalDrifter]

This is just another example of the nuclear bomb we dodged when Hillary lost. No matter what else Tump does or doesn't do, the SCOTUS picks have saved our ass so far.

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

Power begets power. You finally get it?

 

[B. Kidd]

This is just another example of the nuclear bomb we dodged when Hillary lost. No matter what else Tump does or doesn't do, the SCOTUS picks have saved our ass so far.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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

The part where the case deals with two permanent legal residents, dumbass.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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.

That's a bad analogy as well. It's not a question of getting away with a crime. He was convicted of a crime, sentence, and served it. This is really about procedural matters, which seems to be escaping people. After being released, an immigration court is supposed to assess whether the crime for which he served the sentence should result in the revocation of his permanent lawful status. This should happen immediately upon release, or soon thereafter. But in this case, it took years for the government to decide to get their act together. The immigrants basically tried to make the case that the government's failure to bring them to a timely immigration hearing was effectively a binding decision to say "we don't care about what you did, we've decided to let you stay."

I think this is a good example of a correct ruling on a bad law. The statute should be amended to require that the government initiate a hearing within a reasonable amount of time after release (one year, perhaps) and that failure to do so will have the effect of a hearing in the individual's favor.

 

[Oddball]

This is just another example of the nuclear bomb we dodged when Hillary lost. No matter what else Tump does or doesn't do, the SCOTUS picks have saved our ass so far.

Roberts is still a squish....He's the asshole that gave us Ovomitcare.

 

[2aguy]

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 would be like the cops arresting the armed gunman when they see him again....since he is still a law breaker who needs to be arrested even after 6 months.

 

[2aguy]

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.

That's a bad analogy as well. It's not a question of getting away with a crime. He was convicted of a crime, sentence, and served it. This is really about procedural matters, which seems to be escaping people. After being released, an immigration court is supposed to assess whether the crime for which he served the sentence should result in the revocation of his permanent lawful status. This should happen immediately upon release, or soon thereafter. But in this case, it took years for the government to decide to get their act together. The immigrants basically tried to make the case that the government's failure to bring them to a timely immigration hearing was effectively a binding decision to say "we don't care about what you did, we've decided to let you stay."

I think this is a good example of a correct ruling on a bad law. The statute should be amended to require that the government initiate a hearing within a reasonable amount of time after release (one year, perhaps) and that failure to do so will have the effect of a hearing in the individual's favor.

and that failure to do so will have the effect of a hearing in the individual's favor
Let me fix that for you....

And that failure to do so will have the effect of immediate detention with deportation.

there....that's better.

 

[martybegan]

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?

I think it's to stop a pissing match between jurisdictions. The feds only get a crack at the illegal when the State is done with them.

 

[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.

That's a bad analogy as well. It's not a question of getting away with a crime. He was convicted of a crime, sentence, and served it. This is really about procedural matters, which seems to be escaping people. After being released, an immigration court is supposed to assess whether the crime for which he served the sentence should result in the revocation of his permanent lawful status. This should happen immediately upon release, or soon thereafter. But in this case, it took years for the government to decide to get their act together. The immigrants basically tried to make the case that the government's failure to bring them to a timely immigration hearing was effectively a binding decision to say "we don't care about what you did, we've decided to let you stay."

I think this is a good example of a correct ruling on a bad law. The statute should be amended to require that the government initiate a hearing within a reasonable amount of time after release (one year, perhaps) and that failure to do so will have the effect of a hearing in the individual's favor.

Or we leave it as is, and they get sent home because they fucked up and committed a crime.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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.

That's a bad analogy as well. It's not a question of getting away with a crime. He was convicted of a crime, sentence, and served it. This is really about procedural matters, which seems to be escaping people. After being released, an immigration court is supposed to assess whether the crime for which he served the sentence should result in the revocation of his permanent lawful status. This should happen immediately upon release, or soon thereafter. But in this case, it took years for the government to decide to get their act together. The immigrants basically tried to make the case that the government's failure to bring them to a timely immigration hearing was effectively a binding decision to say "we don't care about what you did, we've decided to let you stay."

I think this is a good example of a correct ruling on a bad law. The statute should be amended to require that the government initiate a hearing within a reasonable amount of time after release (one year, perhaps) and that failure to do so will have the effect of a hearing in the individual's favor.

Or we leave it as is, and they get sent home because they fucked up and committed a crime.

Whether they get deported is to be determined at an immigration hearing. The case the court just decided isn't about punishment, it's about procedure and administration. Personally, I'm in favor of better organization. Leaving something open ended for years on end is sloppy law.

 

[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.

That's a bad analogy as well. It's not a question of getting away with a crime. He was convicted of a crime, sentence, and served it. This is really about procedural matters, which seems to be escaping people. After being released, an immigration court is supposed to assess whether the crime for which he served the sentence should result in the revocation of his permanent lawful status. This should happen immediately upon release, or soon thereafter. But in this case, it took years for the government to decide to get their act together. The immigrants basically tried to make the case that the government's failure to bring them to a timely immigration hearing was effectively a binding decision to say "we don't care about what you did, we've decided to let you stay."

I think this is a good example of a correct ruling on a bad law. The statute should be amended to require that the government initiate a hearing within a reasonable amount of time after release (one year, perhaps) and that failure to do so will have the effect of a hearing in the individual's favor.

Or we leave it as is, and they get sent home because they fucked up and committed a crime.

Whether they get deported is to be determined at an immigration hearing. The case the court just decided isn't about punishment, it's about procedure and administration. Personally, I'm in favor of better organization. Leaving something open ended for years on end is sloppy law.

Then don't commit a crime.

Problem solved, and it avoids all the sloppiness (for them)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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!

I don't see the problem with this at all. Legal immigrants are not he same as citizens. They are still citizens of the country they came from. They cannot vote in our elections. Therefore even though allowed to live here as long as they like, they are technically visitors.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Make America Safe Again

4 Leftards voted to make America Lawless.

Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

Thank God we've got Gorsuch instead of Garland.

Seemed like a risky move at the time, but the payoff was worth it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Should have a chilling effect on those cities and counties who refuse to notify ICE of those they detain. Now the POTUS has clear path to hold them accountable criminally for not complying.. This one is going to leave a mark on the sanctuary crowd..

Well something has to be done. It's like these aliens have more rights than citizens born in this country. Like that joke about if you can't afford college or can't get welfare, just come in from Mexico and claim you're an immigrant.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

More realistically is like a guy who shoots at the cops, gets caught six months later, and there is nothing the cops can do to him because he was not shooting at them at the time.

 

[The Original Tree]

Defending our Borders is Godly and Just.
It is God who establishes Nations and lands and borders for the various peoples of The World.

This is Biblical. And it is Moral for a Nation defend its borders and to implement The Rule of Law.

 

[The Original Tree]

I think The Federal Government should Sue Sanctuary Cities or Charge Government Officials with Infractions of Federal Law for Obstruction of Justice and Harboring Fugitives.

US Code states 10 years in prison for helping illegal aliens evade capture.

 

[easyt65]

.....still 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.

More realistically is like a guy who shoots at the cops, gets caught six months later, and there is nothing the cops can do to him because he was not shooting at them at the time.

More realistically it's like a guy who shoots at the cops, gets caught, goes to jail, serves his time, then 5 years after his release is detained without a hearing until he goes before a judge to determine if he should be put on parole.