Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Back to article
0
Trump’s New Immigration Demand: No Due Process for Border Crossers
by Axios
0 actions taken this week
  • Joanna
    07/03/2018
    ···

    what is amazing are the people citing Zadvydas v Davis; Do any of you know how to read a case? You understand what a "dissenting opinion is" The case is about: "post-removal-period detention statute applies to certain categories of aliens who have been ordered removed, namely inadmissible aliens, criminal aliens, aliens who have violated their nonimmigrant status conditions, and aliens removable for certain national security or foreign relations reasons, as well as any alien “who has been determined by the Attorney General to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with the order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. V); see also 8 CFR § 241.4(a) (2001). It says that an alien who falls into one of these categories “may be detained beyond the removal period and, if released, shall be subject to [certain] terms of supervision.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. V). This case is not relevant to illegal immigrants who just crossed the border getting due process, it is about illegal aliens who have been here already and committed crimes and are facing deportation hearings that is when they are afforded due process. Even then a few of the justices dissented, therefore if this case were to be challenged it could be held that illegal aliens do not have due process. the plaintiff was an IMMIGRANT who initially came here legally but had a LONG CRIMINAL HISTORY. Please before you cite a case read it and understand it. You cant just copy and paste a paragraph from a holding. First the case must be similar in facts, this is not because the plaintiff in the case entered the US legally..... After entry of a final removal order and during the 90-day removal period, however, aliens must be held in custody. §1231(a)(2). Subsequently, as the post-removal-period statute provides, the Government “may” continue to detain an alien who still remains here or release that alien under supervision. §1231(a)(6). You who state this is a nation of laws and at the same time support illegal immigration dont make sense. if we are in fact a nation of laws, people must come here legally and when they dont according to this case a few of you cited they MUST BE DETAINED. I LOVE that you added a case that works against you thank god your not in the legal field Azdvydas one of the criminal RESIDENT ALIENS had a long criminal record, involving drug crimes, attempted robbery, attempted burglary, and theft. He has a history of flight, from both criminal and deportation proceedings. Most recently, he was convicted of possessing, with intent to distribute, cocaine; sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment; released on parole after two years; taken into INS custody; and, in 1994, ordered deported to Germany. See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2) (1988 ed., Supp. V) (delineating crimes that make alien deportable). The reason for this case was the country the alien came from would not accept him back becasue HE WAS A CRIMINAL... In 1994, Germany told the INS that it would not accept Zadvydas because he was not a German citizen. Shortly thereafter, Lithuania refused to accept Zadvydas because he was neither a Lithuanian citizen nor a permanent resident. In 1996, the INS asked the Dominican Republic (Zadvydas’ wife’s country) to accept him, but this effort proved unsuccessful. In 1998, Lithuania rejected, as inadequately documented, Zadvydas’ effort to obtain Lithuanian citizenship based on his parents’ citizenship; Zadvydas’ reapplication is apparently still pending. The second case you silly people cited also is a CRIMINAL ALIEN, SO CLEARLY YOU SUPPORT GANG MEMBERS STAYING IN THE US?? LEARN WHAT YOUR CITING. The second case is that of Kim Ho Ma. Ma was born in Cambodia in 1977. When he was two, his family fled, taking him to refugee camps in Thailand and the Philippines and eventually to the United States, where he has lived as a resident alien since the age of seven. In 1995, at age 17, Ma was involved in a gang-related shooting, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment. He served two years, after which he was released into INS custody. In light of his conviction of an “aggravated felony,” Ma was ordered removed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining certain violent crimes as aggravated felonies), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (1994 ed., Supp. IV) (aliens convicted of aggravated felonies are deportable). The 90-day removal period expired in early 1999, but the INS continued to keep Ma in custody, because, in light of his former gang membership, the nature of his crime, and his planned participation in a prison hunger strike, it was “unable to conclude that Mr. Ma would remain nonviolent and not violate the conditions of release.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 00—38, p. 87a. THIS CASE IS NOT FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO CROSSED ILLEGALLY IT WAS FOR DUE PROCESS FOR CRIMINAL ALIENS WHO WERE ALREADY IN THE US, SO IF YOUR CITING THIS CASE YOU SUPPORT CRIMINAL GANG MEMBERS STAYING IN THE US. This holding of this case is not precedent for an illegal alien coming across the border the facts are different. You cant say that were a nation of laws while at the same time wanting to break our laws. Illegal immigrants are here illegally, those two comments just dont make sense. EITHER WERE A NATION OF LAWS OR WERE NOT, WE EITHER HAVE AN IMMIGRATION PROCESS OR WE DONT, SO YOU ARE OK WITH ALLOW THESE CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS IN?? YES, OR NO THERE IS NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT. OH LEARN TO READ A CASE BEFORE YOU CITE IT. this case does prove our point however that illegal aliens can be detained until their hearing, but even then they should immediately be deported. How can any of you say you want our money spent on people who break our laws and force our money to be spent to defend them when we have many Americans who need help.

    Like
    Follow
    Share

Comment Liked by 0 Users