- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
RECENTLY, IN 7-2 RULING- SCOTUS rules against Trump removing illegals without a hearing
that ruling has VIOLATED the US CONSTITUTION.. AS THE 1996 IMIGRATION REFORM ACT states that illegals can be removed without a hearing.
So Trump does not need to give any illegal a hearing. they can be removed..
THIS IS NOT AN EO.
This a LAW. it became effective April , 1997.
No other law has countermanded this law.
SCOTUS entire job is to enforce the constitution not break it.
There can be no misinterpretation here.
it clearly says they can be removed WITHOUT A HEARING.
Trump has every legal right to ignore the SCOTUS ruling if they choose. Trump took an oath to defend the constitution and laws of the US.
SCOTUS broke those laws.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidMust have read another Facebook post.
RECENTLY, IN 7-2 RULING- SCOTUS rules against Trump removing illegals without a hearing
that ruling has VIOLATED the US CONSTITUTION.. AS THE 1996 IMIGRATION REFORM ACT states that illegals can be removed without a hearing.
So Trump does not need to give any illegal a hearing. they can be removed..
THIS IS NOT AN EO.
This a LAW. it became effective April , 1997.
...[text shortened]... choose. Trump took an oath to defend the constitution and laws of the US.
SCOTUS broke those laws.
Here's the law in question: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225
The only aliens who can be summarily removed are those who:
A) Are " arriving in the United States" AND have not claimed " an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution." (b)(1)(A)(i).
The Attorney General may add other aliens to those procedures (iii)(I) but only if the alien: "has not been admitted or paroled into the United States, and who has not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that the alien has been physically present in the United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility under this subparagraph." So there is nothing in the SCOTUS decision that contradicts the law.
And BTW, the SCOTUS is the sole judge of whether a law complies with the Constitution. The President has no legitimate power to unilaterally defy their rulings.
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
@no1marauder
So after 30 years, SCOTUS suddenly decides to stick its nose into deportations? Buncha BS.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidThese are kidnappings, not deportations.
@no1marauder
So after 30 years, SCOTUS suddenly decides to stick its nose into deportations? Buncha BS.
In 1953, the Court stated: "It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 100-101 (1903); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 49-50 (1950); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 344 U. S. 598 (1953)."
Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/206/
@Cliff-Mashburn said"Therefore it is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer, at any time within the year limited by the statute, arbitrarily to cause an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States. No such arbitrary power can exist where the principles involved in due process of law are recognized."
@no1marauder
So after 30 years, SCOTUS suddenly decides to stick its nose into deportations? Buncha BS.
Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86, 101 (1903) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/189/86/
That's a wee bit more than 30 years.