Every bit of push back helps. From the decision:
Aliens who are arrested because they are believed to be
deportable may generally apply for release on bond or
parole while the question of their removal is being decided. These aliens may secure their release by proving to the satisfaction of a Department of Homeland Security
officer or an immigration judge that they would not endanger others and would not flee if released from custody.
Congress has decided, however, that this procedure is
too risky in some instances. Congress therefore adopted a
special rule for aliens who have committed certain dangerous crimes and those who have connections to terrorism. Under a statutory provision enacted in 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–585, 8 U. S. C. §1226(c), these aliens must be arrested “when [they are] released” from custody on criminal charges and (with one narrow exception not involved in these cases) must be detained without a bond hearing until the question of their removal is resolved.
In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention
requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by
immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail. If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time—
according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long—the
mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the
alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on
bond or parole. Four other Circuits have rejected this
interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the Ninth
Circuit’s interpretation is wrong. We therefore reverse the judgments below and remand for further proceedings.
And shouldn’t they agree to not commit further crimes and illegal action—working illegally, identity theft, etc.? Seems like if they get released and go to work illegally the next day, they should be arrested immediately, along with their traitorous employer.
Four other Circuits have rejected this
interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the Ninth
Circuit’s interpretation is wrong. We therefore reverse the judgments below and remand for further proceedings.
...
That’s a tremendous slam. There shouldn’t have been any dissent at all.
It is my understanding that the “logic” of the 9th was being used as justification for many sanctuary city type lack of cooperation.
Does this now mean that cities that fail to comply with a DHS retention order for violent illegal aliens can be PROSECUTED for aiding and abetting a felon?
Because until some of these pro-sanctuary politicians go to jail, this is all just shuffling deck chairs.