[Deep_6]

re:
"....Am I missing something. If the person is going to be deported,
why would you allow them to be out on bail? I would consider
everyone being deported to be a flight risk. Wish this 9th U.S.
Circuit would just go away!....."

Here's what you and others missed:

The ruling, binding on the nine western states under the supervision
of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, does not address immigrants
detained following the Sept. 11 attacks. The case addresses immigrants
who were convicted of a crime, served their sentence and are detained
while the government tries to deport them -- a process that can last
as long as three years.

The government is attempting to find reason to deport them; there
is no reason to deport them unless a reason is found to deport them.

Instead of being thankful for the freedom and liberty that's made
this Nation as great as it is, you denounce it's very foundation.

Sad commentary.

[Balding_Eagle]

you denounce it's very foundation.

Huh? Where did you get that?

[RippleFire]

The government is attempting to find reason to deport them; there is no reason to deport them unless a reason is found to deport them.

You got it wrong pal. Commission of the crime is the reason in law for deportation. The 3 years is what it takes to carry out the law under the current immigration judicial process. There is a reason there are lawyers that specialize in immigration law - fees.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

Sorry, but the fact that they were convicted of a crime is enough, by it self to require deportation. The three years is a delay tactic so that others think that they should not have to suffer that much more, cause they already paid their price for the crime. No, that is not how immigration law is written, a legal alien that commits a crime, or an illegal alien that commits a crime is subject to deportation, before or after criminal trials and sentences have been carried out.

[Hugh Akston]

Your logic there would seem to apply equally to people accused of mass murder. The government is trying to prove that they committed a crime. Should they be set free until the government proves their case?

In other words, are you suggesting that bail should always be granted?

[Hugh Akston]

Your answer did not answer my question. Let me restate it differently. You wrote:

The government is attempting to find reason to deport them; there is no reason to deport them unless a reason is found to deport them.

I said this logic could be applied to bail in general. Let me rewrite the above quote to show how:

The government is attemption to find reason to imprison them; there is no reason to imprison them unless a reason is found to imprison them.

Can you think of a possible circumstance where an immigrant facing deportation proceedings is not a flight risk?