Immigration and the Courts: The Supreme Court hears challenges to judicial law-making.

The Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration policy, but liberal judges have increasingly usurped the law. On Monday the Supreme Court will consider if immigrants whom Congress has deemed deportable can seek sanctuary in the courts.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes rules and procedures by which immigrants may be removed from the country. To prevent federal courts from getting clogged, Congress created special immigration courts with multiple levels of administrative appeal and limited federal judicial review of cases.

In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan man caught after crossing the Mexican border illegally is challenging the INA’s expedited removal. The law lets the government use streamlined procedures to deport anyone unlawfully present in the country for less than two years.

The man applied for asylum, but two asylum officers and an immigration judge determined that he failed the “credible fear” test for staying in the U.S. A district judge rejected his legal challenge because the INA lets immigrants appeal only specific factual findings in federal court, none of which the plaintiff contested. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the INA’s expedited procedures violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause protecting the writ of habeas corpus.

This is the principle that prisoners have a right to challenge the legal process by which they are detained. The Supreme Court has only once found a violation of the Suspension Clause—in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which involved enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay. But habeas corpus protects against unlawful executive detention, and the traditional remedy is release. The plaintiff here is not saying he was detained unlawfully, and the government wants to release him back to Sri Lanka. He isn’t seeking a habeas writ. He wants more procedural rights to stay in the U.S.

The law lets the government use streamlined procedures to deport anyone unlawfully present in the country for less than two years.

I'd like to see that time window expanded. We should have streamlined procedures to deport anyone unlawfully present in the country for less than two decades. Deport them all, quickly. No exceptions. Then get to work deporting illegals who have been here longer. Give them a nice, long trial if they want, but while incarcerated, and then deport them. Again, no exceptions. Crime, including their criminal entry or criminal overstay of a visa, should never be rewarded.

Well, here’s a tougher immigration policy the globalists like WSJ won’t like.

Lest we forget ...

This should be part of a Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement bill, missing since 1986 ONE TIME amnesty. The List of Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, missing since 1986 goes like this -

1) southern barrier;
2) require eVerify to hire;
3) end all chain migration;
4) birthright per Minor v. Happersett (plural parents);
5) end work visas;
6) 10-year moratorium on all new applications for citizenship (40 years to allow workplace automation effects on downsizing population);
7) Set up an illegal aliens’ victim restitution fund.

Enactment of these provisions will motivate illegal aliens to SELF-deport, and remove colonizadors from our welfare rolls.

I tire of illuminating the Media's lack of facts when it comes to discussing the Federal judiciary.

I've watched the Democrat Media bleat "Black Robe Lefty Clown Good!" for the last several decades, and then watched the Buffoon John Roberts chastise President Trump for challenging that Narrative - while giving The Wide Latina a COMPLETE pass when she politically criticized her own colleagues on the Court.

So, here's THE REST OF THE STORY on this Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam case:

"A district judge [Anthony J. Battaglia, Southern District of California] rejected his legal challenge because the INA lets immigrants appeal only specific factual findings in federal court, none of which the plaintiff contested. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [a three judge panel consisting of A. Wallace Tashima, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez] ruled that the INA’s expedited procedures violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause protecting the writ of habeas corpus."

Anthony J. Battaglia [SD-CA] is an Obama district judge
A. Wallace Tashima is a 9th Circuit Clinton judge
M. Margaret McKeown is a 9th Circuit Clinton judge
Richard Paez is a 9th Circuit Clinton judge

Thuraissigiam filed a habeas petition in federal district court [Southern District of California], arguing that his expedited removal order violated his statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights.

District Court judge Anthony J. Battaglia dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that § 1252(e) did not authorize jurisdiction over Thuraissigiam’s claims and rejecting his Suspension Clause arguments.

Contrary to The Buffoon Roberts' contention about apolitical Federal judges, here we see THREE Rapin Bill Clinton "judges" go full Resistance to stop Orange Man Bad, and keep the border open for the coronavirus.

Two of these clowns [M. Margaret McKeown and Richard Paez] were in the news this week, Resisting against President Trump.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.