Supreme Court: Immigrants Can Be Held Indefinitely

Posted by Tina

The Supreme Court ruled that US officials can indefinitely detain immigrants while their legal status is determined. The 5-3 decision reversed the 9th circus decision with Elena Kagan recusing herself. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Anthony Kennedy in the decision:

“Detention during those proceedings gives immigration officials time to determine an alien’s status without running the risk of the alien’s either absconding or engaging in criminal activity before a final decision can be made,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The dissenting opinion is predictably filled with the type of drama we’ve come to expect from race oriented leftists:

“Whatever the fiction, would the Constitution leave the Government free to starve, beat, or lash those held within our boundaries?” Breyer argued. “If not, then, whatever the fiction, how can the Constitution authorize the Government to imprison arbitrarily those who, whatever we might pretend, are in reality right here in the United States?” Breyer said, calling the ruling “legal fiction.”

“Starve, beat, or lash?”

Such predictable images are designed to implant in the minds of the casual observer practices of unlawful, beastly treatment of detainees by officers of the court. The dissenting Justices should hang their heads in shame for playing such political dramatic games in the use of the language!!!

And, “imprison arbitrarily?” Please! There is nothing arbitrary about upholding the laws of our nation. We do what we do with intention and purpose. Whether a person who has entered the country illegally or a person who has overstayed his visa and then arbitrarily chosen to again defy the law and remain, these persons know very well that they have done something wrong…something unlawful. They know their willful acts will result in detention. And they know the consequences of their lawlessness, in most cases, is deportation. There is no reason for law enforcement officials to disappoint them, encouraging further law breaking. The drama in the justices’ argument is the real “fiction” projected in the dissent.

The plaintiff in this case was brought into this country by his parents as an infant who became a lawful permanent resident…the article doesn’t indicate how. Is he a Dreamer, perchance? His three year detention began after two criminal convictions. Was the length of his detention due to the shortage of judges we had during the Obama administration that was made even more critical due to the thousands of child immigrants allowed purposely into our nation? Or was it due to the left’s propensity to ignore and flout our immigration laws? Whatever the case, this was a good decision that will hopefully help to restore respect for our nation and it’s laws.

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law, Morals and Ethics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.