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

[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.

Power begets power. You finally get it?

I'm sorry, have I made some comments that led you to believe I didn't realize that people in power reach for more power?

 

[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!

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.

That's a side-step, weather. The issue is arresting and deporting YEARS after sentence being paid. If you accept this wimpy rationale, I see you accepting anything whatever cockamamie reason put before you by this admin. Again, it will get around to you and you will regret your gutlessness, I'm sure of it! I almost wish I could be there to witness your day of recognizing how you are betrayed, but I fear the noose will have tightened around our freedom by then. Like others before you, I think you will awaken too late.

 

[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!

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.

That's a side-step, weather. The issue is arresting and deporting YEARS after sentence being paid. If you accept this wimpy rationale, I see you accepting anything whatever cockamamie reason put before you by this admin. Again, it will get around to you and you will regret your gutlessness, I'm sure of it! I almost wish I could be there to witness your day of recognizing how you are betrayed, but I fear the noose will have tightened around our freedom by then. Like others before you, I think you will awaken too late.

Actually, I think the issue is whether the government can detain immigrants without any sort of bail hearing prior to a deportation hearing, not whether they will have such a deportation hearing. I don't think that whether immigrants who have committed crimes in the past can face deportation was in question in this case.

 

[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!

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.

That's a side-step, weather. The issue is arresting and deporting YEARS after sentence being paid. If you accept this wimpy rationale, I see you accepting anything whatever cockamamie reason put before you by this admin. Again, it will get around to you and you will regret your gutlessness, I'm sure of it! I almost wish I could be there to witness your day of recognizing how you are betrayed, but I fear the noose will have tightened around our freedom by then. Like others before you, I think you will awaken too late.

Actually, I think the issue is whether the government can detain immigrants without any sort of bail hearing prior to a deportation hearing, not whether they will have such a deportation hearing. I don't think that whether immigrants who have committed crimes in the past can face deportation was in question in this case.

You can't set bail for them because they'd never show up for court in most cases. It would be the same problem we have with catch and release.

 

[Votto]

Make America Safe Again

4 Leftards voted to make America Lawless.

Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

The 4 justices who voted against it should be impeached.

Then again, one of them I think died years ago, but I can't prove it as of yet.

 

[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.

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.

No because when the legal immigrant commits a crime, he pays for that crime with imprisonment. However he also broke the terms of his agreement of being a legal immigrant in the US. Therefore a hearing is held so a judge can revoke that permission to be here or not.

 

[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?

I'm sorry, have I made some comments that led you to believe I didn't realize that people in power reach for more power?

Forgive me.
I thought you were smarter than restating the obvious.
It won't happen again....

 

[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.

No because when the legal immigrant commits a crime, he pays for that crime with imprisonment. However he also broke the terms of his agreement of being a legal immigrant in the US. Therefore a hearing is held so a judge can revoke that permission to be here or not.

Yes, but that's true regardless of the ruling in this case. The ruling was about whether the immigrants can be detained without any sort of hearing regarding bail, I believe; it was regarding mandatory detention, not the deportation hearing.

 

[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.

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.

No because when the legal immigrant commits a crime, he pays for that crime with imprisonment. However he also broke the terms of his agreement of being a legal immigrant in the US. Therefore a hearing is held so a judge can revoke that permission to be here or not.

Yes, but that's true regardless of the ruling in this case. The ruling was about whether the immigrants can be detained without any sort of hearing regarding bail, I believe; it was regarding mandatory detention, not the deportation hearing.

I don't believe there is anything stopping authorities from having mandated detention until the hearing. Again, it's done for the purposes of the immigrant showing up for court. What immigrant who doesn't want to return home would show up for the hearing to kick him or her out?

Then all they have to do is run to some sanctuary city somewhere and never be seen again.

 

[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.

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.

No because when the legal immigrant commits a crime, he pays for that crime with imprisonment. However he also broke the terms of his agreement of being a legal immigrant in the US. Therefore a hearing is held so a judge can revoke that permission to be here or not.

Yes, but that's true regardless of the ruling in this case. The ruling was about whether the immigrants can be detained without any sort of hearing regarding bail, I believe; it was regarding mandatory detention, not the deportation hearing.

I don't believe there is anything stopping authorities from having mandated detention until the hearing. Again, it's done for the purposes of the immigrant showing up for court. What immigrant who doesn't want to return home would show up for the hearing to kick him or her out?

Then all they have to do is run to some sanctuary city somewhere and never be seen again.

Maybe an immigrant who expects, for whatever reason, to win their deportation hearing? Or one who wants to stay in the US as long as they can do so legally? I doubt every legal immigrant would be perfectly happy to live as an illegal.

What was supposed to be stopping that sort of mandated detention was the wording of the law, but 5 of the justices disagreed with that argument, so for now there is nothing preventing it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No because when the legal immigrant commits a crime, he pays for that crime with imprisonment. However he also broke the terms of his agreement of being a legal immigrant in the US. Therefore a hearing is held so a judge can revoke that permission to be here or not.

Yes, but that's true regardless of the ruling in this case. The ruling was about whether the immigrants can be detained without any sort of hearing regarding bail, I believe; it was regarding mandatory detention, not the deportation hearing.

I don't believe there is anything stopping authorities from having mandated detention until the hearing. Again, it's done for the purposes of the immigrant showing up for court. What immigrant who doesn't want to return home would show up for the hearing to kick him or her out?

Then all they have to do is run to some sanctuary city somewhere and never be seen again.

Maybe an immigrant who expects, for whatever reason, to win their deportation hearing? Or one who wants to stay in the US as long as they can do so legally? I doubt every legal immigrant would be perfectly happy to live as an illegal.

What was supposed to be stopping that sort of mandated detention was the wording of the law, but 5 of the justices disagreed with that argument, so for now there is nothing preventing it.

If you are attending a hearing to have your legal status removed, there are pretty good odds that's exactly what's going to happen. Maybe not all would do jump bail, but I would think most would.

If you really didn't want to go back to your country, living here illegally like so many millions do is better than returning home.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

No because when the legal immigrant commits a crime, he pays for that crime with imprisonment. However he also broke the terms of his agreement of being a legal immigrant in the US. Therefore a hearing is held so a judge can revoke that permission to be here or not.

Yes, but that's true regardless of the ruling in this case. The ruling was about whether the immigrants can be detained without any sort of hearing regarding bail, I believe; it was regarding mandatory detention, not the deportation hearing.

I don't believe there is anything stopping authorities from having mandated detention until the hearing. Again, it's done for the purposes of the immigrant showing up for court. What immigrant who doesn't want to return home would show up for the hearing to kick him or her out?

Then all they have to do is run to some sanctuary city somewhere and never be seen again.

Maybe an immigrant who expects, for whatever reason, to win their deportation hearing? Or one who wants to stay in the US as long as they can do so legally? I doubt every legal immigrant would be perfectly happy to live as an illegal.

What was supposed to be stopping that sort of mandated detention was the wording of the law, but 5 of the justices disagreed with that argument, so for now there is nothing preventing it.

If you are attending a hearing to have your legal status removed, there are pretty good odds that's exactly what's going to happen. Maybe not all would do jump bail, but I would think most would.

If you really didn't want to go back to your country, living here illegally like so many millions do is better than returning home.

Perhaps, but again, the argument was that the language of the law made it so that such mandatory detention should occur in a reasonable time from (or even the same day as) the immigrants' release from serving their sentence. I don't believe that whether that sort of mandatory detention is proper or moral was in question.

And if most would jump bail, then hopefully they would be denied bail at a hearing, while those who would not would be allowed it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No because when the legal immigrant commits a crime, he pays for that crime with imprisonment. However he also broke the terms of his agreement of being a legal immigrant in the US. Therefore a hearing is held so a judge can revoke that permission to be here or not.

Yes, but that's true regardless of the ruling in this case. The ruling was about whether the immigrants can be detained without any sort of hearing regarding bail, I believe; it was regarding mandatory detention, not the deportation hearing.

I don't believe there is anything stopping authorities from having mandated detention until the hearing. Again, it's done for the purposes of the immigrant showing up for court. What immigrant who doesn't want to return home would show up for the hearing to kick him or her out?

Then all they have to do is run to some sanctuary city somewhere and never be seen again.

Maybe an immigrant who expects, for whatever reason, to win their deportation hearing? Or one who wants to stay in the US as long as they can do so legally? I doubt every legal immigrant would be perfectly happy to live as an illegal.

What was supposed to be stopping that sort of mandated detention was the wording of the law, but 5 of the justices disagreed with that argument, so for now there is nothing preventing it.

If you are attending a hearing to have your legal status removed, there are pretty good odds that's exactly what's going to happen. Maybe not all would do jump bail, but I would think most would.

If you really didn't want to go back to your country, living here illegally like so many millions do is better than returning home.

Perhaps, but again, the argument was that the language of the law made it so that such mandatory detention should occur in a reasonable time from (or even the same day as) the immigrants' release from serving their sentence. I don't believe that whether that sort of mandatory detention is proper or moral was in question.

And if most would jump bail, then hopefully they would be denied bail at a hearing, while those who would not would be allowed it.

We can agree that the deportation hearing should be immediately after the criminals release and I don't know why they don't. But I'm assuming that since our courts are backed up years with hearings, it may be that they do file for a hearing after the sentencing and it's not ready in time for the prisoners release.

 

[sealybobo]

Make America Safe Again

4 Leftards voted to make America Lawless.

Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

Then why are they catch and releasing them again?

Trump Administration Is Reverting to ‘Catch and Release.’ Congress Is to Blame.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Make America Safe Again

4 Leftards voted to make America Lawless.

Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

Then why are they catch and releasing them again?

Trump Administration Is Reverting to ‘Catch and Release.’ Congress Is to Blame.

Because of the drastic increase in families crossing the border. When there are no other places to put them, they must be released.

When Piglosi had Trump over a barrel and he felt he could no longer keep the government shutdown, part of Piglosi's demands was that they reduce beds and space. She knew damn well that Trump would have no choice but to release them into our society.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, but that's true regardless of the ruling in this case. The ruling was about whether the immigrants can be detained without any sort of hearing regarding bail, I believe; it was regarding mandatory detention, not the deportation hearing.

I don't believe there is anything stopping authorities from having mandated detention until the hearing. Again, it's done for the purposes of the immigrant showing up for court. What immigrant who doesn't want to return home would show up for the hearing to kick him or her out?

Then all they have to do is run to some sanctuary city somewhere and never be seen again.

Maybe an immigrant who expects, for whatever reason, to win their deportation hearing? Or one who wants to stay in the US as long as they can do so legally? I doubt every legal immigrant would be perfectly happy to live as an illegal.

What was supposed to be stopping that sort of mandated detention was the wording of the law, but 5 of the justices disagreed with that argument, so for now there is nothing preventing it.

If you are attending a hearing to have your legal status removed, there are pretty good odds that's exactly what's going to happen. Maybe not all would do jump bail, but I would think most would.

If you really didn't want to go back to your country, living here illegally like so many millions do is better than returning home.

Perhaps, but again, the argument was that the language of the law made it so that such mandatory detention should occur in a reasonable time from (or even the same day as) the immigrants' release from serving their sentence. I don't believe that whether that sort of mandatory detention is proper or moral was in question.

And if most would jump bail, then hopefully they would be denied bail at a hearing, while those who would not would be allowed it.

We can agree that the deportation hearing should be immediately after the criminals release and I don't know why they don't. But I'm assuming that since our courts are backed up years with hearings, it may be that they do file for a hearing after the sentencing and it's not ready in time for the prisoners release.

That's probably by far the bigger issue; the overworked immigration court system. I'm sure it leads to all sorts of problems and cut corners. I don't mean that in a blaming sort of way, just that when there are an overwhelming number of cases, something has to give.

 

[debbiedowner]

Make America Safe Again

4 Leftards voted to make America Lawless.

Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

Someone forgot to tell ICE

ICE Reportedly Dropped 3 Busloads of Illegal Aliens At a Greyhound Station As Churches Scrambled to Provide Shelter

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't believe there is anything stopping authorities from having mandated detention until the hearing. Again, it's done for the purposes of the immigrant showing up for court. What immigrant who doesn't want to return home would show up for the hearing to kick him or her out?

Then all they have to do is run to some sanctuary city somewhere and never be seen again.

Maybe an immigrant who expects, for whatever reason, to win their deportation hearing? Or one who wants to stay in the US as long as they can do so legally? I doubt every legal immigrant would be perfectly happy to live as an illegal.

What was supposed to be stopping that sort of mandated detention was the wording of the law, but 5 of the justices disagreed with that argument, so for now there is nothing preventing it.

If you are attending a hearing to have your legal status removed, there are pretty good odds that's exactly what's going to happen. Maybe not all would do jump bail, but I would think most would.

If you really didn't want to go back to your country, living here illegally like so many millions do is better than returning home.

Perhaps, but again, the argument was that the language of the law made it so that such mandatory detention should occur in a reasonable time from (or even the same day as) the immigrants' release from serving their sentence. I don't believe that whether that sort of mandatory detention is proper or moral was in question.

And if most would jump bail, then hopefully they would be denied bail at a hearing, while those who would not would be allowed it.

We can agree that the deportation hearing should be immediately after the criminals release and I don't know why they don't. But I'm assuming that since our courts are backed up years with hearings, it may be that they do file for a hearing after the sentencing and it's not ready in time for the prisoners release.

That's probably by far the bigger issue; the overworked immigration court system. I'm sure it leads to all sorts of problems and cut corners. I don't mean that in a blaming sort of way, just that when there are an overwhelming number of cases, something has to give.

I agree and that's why Trump just needs to close down the border to all immigrants until we can handle them. No more asylum claims until we get done processing the ones that are on the books. They are coming here deliberately to break our system and because they know Democrats will allow them to give us so many damn problems.