Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Posted on 04/23/2020 12:13:12 PM PDT by jazusamo
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court's decision that an immigrant with lawful permanent resident status cannot fight deportation due to a previous offense, even though that crime was not grounds for his removal.
In a 5-4 ruling with conservative justices on one side and liberals on the other, the court ruled for the Trump administration in holding that the statute in question, as drafted by Congress, requires deportation in the case of Andre Barton, even though the assault offenses that prevent him from appealing were not enough to deport him in the first place.
"Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the court's opinion. "Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens— even lawful permanent residents—who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress."
The controversy deals with an immigration law that allows defendants to apply for cancelation of deportation, but only if they satisfy certain requirements, including not having committed a particular offense within their first seven years of continuous residence in the U.S. This limitation, known as the "stop-time rule," refers to offenses that render individuals inadmissible or deportable. Barton, who is being deported for drug and firearms offenses, had committed aggravated assault offenses during that seven-year period, but those offenses did not qualify for deportation.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
>> who is being deported for drug and firearms offenses
The consequences for citizens would be far worse than deportation.
The Libtards would rather have the illegal perp roam freely.
Imagine that.
#WINNING
you might as well figure that we only have a SC of 5 people- the other liberals that have been appointed there are just a waste of space and energy- they rarely vote objectively and fairly based on facts- they shouldn’t even be in the court- their opinions have resulted in mass carnage and damage to society-
Yep, this seems like a no brainer to me but libs think it’s a travesty.
Lol! The liberals at NPR are going to be depressed this evening. For the last several months, they have been trying everything to get the Supreme Court to rule the other way. They even ran a full week long series about all the sappy hard luck stories about the “poor” immigrants who gained resident status as children and would be deported back to a country they never knew and didn’t even speak the language of if the Court ruled as they did.
“the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress.”
That 4 Libtards voted the other way on this is an affront to America.
What could possibly be their defense? Aren’t they supposed to follow the law?
I have sympathy for people and mistakes they make in life. Then again the crimes involved seem pretty serious.
My heart bleeds for NPR and their libtardism. LOL!
5-4 liberal is LANDMARK
Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Buzzy has bee very quiet of late.
Always “divided” when we win. These choads are so predictable, I deliberately read it when that word is in the title, which means good news. They use “landmark” when the commies win.
Hey, I hasn’t even read your post. Great job.
The wise Latina et al:
"The majority [...] concludes that the term “inadmissible,” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, refers to a status that a noncitizen could acquire even if he or she is not seeking admission. Under this logic, petitioner Andre Barton is inadmissible yet, at the same time, lawfully admitted. Neither the express language of the statute nor any interpretative canons support this paradox"
The majority ruling:
"the statutory text [...] employs the term “inadmissibility” as a status that can result from, for example, a noncitizen’s (including a lawfully admitted noncitizen’s) commission of certain offenses listed in §1182(a)(2).
"For example, as relevant here, §1182(a)(2) flatly says that a noncitizen such as Barton who commits a crime involving moral turpitude and is convicted of that offense “is inadmissible.” §1182(a)(2)(A)(i). Full stop. Similarly, a noncitizen who has two or more convictions, together resulting in aggregate sentences of at least five years, “is inadmissible.” §1182(a)(2)(B). A noncitizen who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is a drug trafficker “is inadmissible.” §1182(a)(2)(C)(i). A noncitizen who receives the proceeds of prostitution within 10 years of applying for admission “is inadmissible.” §1182(a)(2)(D)(ii). The list goes on. See, e.g., §§1182(a)(2)(C)(ii)–(E), (G)–(I). Those provisions do not say that a noncitizen will become inadmissible if the noncitizen is found inadmissible in a subsequent immigration removal proceeding. Instead, those provisions say that the noncitizen “is inadmissible.”
"Congress has in turn made that status—inadmissibility because of conviction or other proof of commission of §1182(a)(2) offenses—relevant in several statutory contexts that apply to lawfully admitted noncitizens such as Barton. Those contexts include adjustment to permanent resident status; protection from removal because of temporary protected status; termination of temporary resident status; and here cancellation of removal. See, e.g., §§1160(a)(1)(C), (a)(3)(B)(ii), 1254a(a)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A)(iii), 1255(a), (l)(2). In those contexts, the noncitizen faces immigration consequences from being convicted of a §1182(a)(2) offense even though the noncitizen is lawfully admitted and is not necessarily removable solely because of that offense."
“...and didn’t even speak the language...”
What a pantload, I cant believe they even try to sell that story. No such creature. Families that have been here for generations still haven’t learned to speak English without accent because they refuse to use it unless they have to.
“had committed aggravated assault offenses during that seven-year period, but those offenses did not qualify for deportation.”
Well it sure as heck should have. If the democrats had not corrupted everything.
The mechanics of reliably mounting the animatronics in a freeze dried form is complicated.
Sooooooo much this
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.