- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS led by Gorsuch rules for illegal immigrant
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:04 pm
SCOTUS Immigration Decision
Plain textual argument from the right allows illegal immigrant to challenge his deportation in court when he would have otherwise been barred.
Plain textual argument from the right allows illegal immigrant to challenge his deportation in court when he would have otherwise been barred.
10
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:05 pm to ClosingTime
Kavabaugh dissent. Interesting.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:06 pm to ClosingTime
What about the word "ILLEGAL" don't people understand!
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:06 pm to ClosingTime
If the US government accuses you of a crime, legal or illegal citizen, I think you have a right to due process.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:07 pm to ClosingTime
Illegal ALIEN
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:08 pm to ClosingTime
Clarence Thomas and ACB joined the 3 liberals as well. Interesting and encouraging bipartisanship.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:10 pm to oldskule
quote:"What is there to understand about illegal aliens? They're illegal"
What about the word "ILLEGAL" don't people understand
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:11 pm to ClosingTime
This seems appropriate...otherwise a tyrannical government could deport citizens as non citizens without giving them the chance to prove their citizenship
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:11 pm to hottub
quote:
If the US government accuses you of a crime, legal or illegal citizen, I think you have a right to due process.
The court in this case is Immigration court, which is a strange hybrid of administrative and civil. What it is absolutely not is a criminal proceeding. All they determine is if a non-citizen should be removed from the country.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:13 pm to ClosingTime
quote:
Gorsuch, writing for the 6-3 majority, held that the US government had erred by sending two documents to the immigrant instead of one. He explained that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act says that an undocumented immigrant seeking to fight removal can be served with "a notice of appeal." But here, the immigrant was sent two notices of appeal with different information.
"The government says it needs this kind of flexibility to send information piecemeal," Gorsuch wrote -- but he emphasized that the law calls for only one document.
"Admittedly, a lot here turns on a small word," Gorsuch said referring to "a."
quote:
"The Court's decision contravenes Congress' detailed requirements for a noncitizen" to fight to cancel his removal, Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent. He said that the two documents the government sent two months apart "included all the statutorily required information." Kavanaugh added that he found the majority's reasoning "rather perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation." He said that the immigrant actually "gains an advantage" when the government sends two documents instead of one because he can learn more about the removal proceedings. Kavanaugh said that delivering the documents in two installments satisfies the requirements of a "notice to appear."
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:13 pm to hottub
This is normally true, however immigrants' Due Process is normally limited to procedure D. Process while undocument alien's D.Process is determined by what Congress determines. (Not the same D.Process that citizens have).
Courts usually don't touch this stuff with a 10ft pole, and rely nearly solely on discretion/intent of Congress.
Like article said, it really all came down the word 'a.' Only reason it seems they sided with plaintiff was because of the 2 documents. Had government just sent one document—it's likely this person would have gone through removal and then determined by judge if removable.
Courts usually don't touch this stuff with a 10ft pole, and rely nearly solely on discretion/intent of Congress.
Like article said, it really all came down the word 'a.' Only reason it seems they sided with plaintiff was because of the 2 documents. Had government just sent one document—it's likely this person would have gone through removal and then determined by judge if removable.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:15 pm to ClosingTime
Who knew, I keep hearing this court is STACKED WITH CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES........GO FIGURE.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:18 pm to Boogalie
Didn't realize being a Conservative meant allowing improper d.process under the law.
I for one like d.process and being able to present a case.
I for one like d.process and being able to present a case.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:25 pm to dpier16
quote:
Only reason it seems they sided with plaintiff was because of the 2 documents. Had government just sent one document—it's likely this person would have gone through removal and then determined by judge if removable.
Close....the guy was already declared removable. He was attempting to seek relief from that deportation with something called Cancelation of Removal. To qualify for that you have to ,among some other hefty requirements, have been in the U.S. for 10 years before the government begins the removal process.
They begin the process by filing a document called a Notice to Appear (NTA). This notice includes a listing of the immigration laws you violated and a date to appear in court.
In this case they sent an NTA to the guy with the listing of laws violated before the ten years expired. But they sent another one after the ten years with an actual court date.
The court says a single NTA has to have both bits of info to be valid and stop that ten year period from continuing to run.
The ruling says he has those ten years because of the faulty NTAs and can proceed with his case.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:27 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
so if the original document had stated plainly that "This is your 'notice of appeal' as required by law XYZ, but we will continue to update you as information becomes available", would that have changed anything?
ETA: after seeing closingtime's post, the ruling seems far more reasonable, and largely negates my question. By law, the alien's clock doesnt stop until served with his notice of appeal, and telling him "we'll be getting to that soon" don't meet that
I had thought it was simply the breaking up of the necessary info into two notices instead of "a" notice that was the crux, and while a plain and justifiable reading of the law at hand, it seemed a bit thin.
ETA: after seeing closingtime's post, the ruling seems far more reasonable, and largely negates my question. By law, the alien's clock doesnt stop until served with his notice of appeal, and telling him "we'll be getting to that soon" don't meet that
I had thought it was simply the breaking up of the necessary info into two notices instead of "a" notice that was the crux, and while a plain and justifiable reading of the law at hand, it seemed a bit thin.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:28 pm to ClosingTime
That’s fine as long as he is that literal for all of his rulings in the future.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:31 pm to luvdoc
quote:
so if the original document had stated plainly that "This is your 'notice of appeal' as required by law XYZ, but we will continue to update you as information becomes available", would that have changed anything?
Nope. Thats exactly what they would do. The court date would say "TBD" and they would send another with a date later. The decision today says you have to get it all in one document.....or start all over.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:37 pm to ClosingTime
I think clsoing time's post indicated that it was not the breaking up of the required info into two deliveries, but rather that the delivery is legally satisfied after all of the info is given, not when the first incomplete piece is given.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 7:57 pm to ClosingTime
Wonder how he would apply textualism to “Shall not be infringed”?
Posted on 4/29/21 at 8:17 pm to ClosingTime
quote:It rarely goes the other way in big cases. The Lefties are activist. The rightist textualists will rule at times in a fashion supported by the left.
Clarence Thomas and ACB joined the 3 liberals as well. Interesting and encouraging bipartisanship
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News