Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you get time to read the RULING, especially Alito's dissent?
"Due to the huge numbers of aliens who attempt to enter illegally from Mexico, DHS does not have the capacity to detain all inadmissible aliens encountered at the border, and no one suggests that DHS must do the impossible. But rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alternative to return inadmissible aliens to Mexico while they await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded that it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply re lease into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way."
Keep in mind it was a 5-4 majority opinion.
What part of the law forbids release on bond or word for immigration violations prior to conviction? It's against the law to shoplift or drive drunk too but offenders are released all the time pending court date.
I don't think it's good policy to do so but it's not the court's business to determine what is good policy but whether an administration's policy is constitutional or not.
I think, that the remain in Mexico, was wrong...why, because most of these are NOT coming from Mexico, and its unfair to say remain in Mexico, when they are not from Mexico...
it should be remain in your home country until your request has been vetted and approved
Did you get time to read the RULING, especially Alito's dissent?
"Due to the huge numbers of aliens who attempt to enter illegally from Mexico, DHS does not have the capacity to detain all inadmissible aliens encountered at the border, and no one suggests that DHS must do the impossible. But rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alternative to return inadmissible aliens to Mexico while they await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded that it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply re lease into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way."
Keep in mind it was a 5-4 majority opinion.
So was the Roe reversal. Bearing that in mind-do you somehow think being 5-4 makes it a weak ruling or more arguable? It’s still a ruling.
I think, that the remain in Mexico, was wrong...why, because most of these are NOT coming from Mexico, and its unfair to say remain in Mexico, when they are not from Mexico...
it should be remain in your home country until your request has been vetted and approved
They should remain in Mexico because that is the first "safe" country they entered after fleeing their alleged "persecution" in their home country. That is what the UN charter states. People don't get to choose what country they wish to claim asylum.
What part of the law forbids release on bond or word for immigration violations prior to conviction? It's against the law to shoplift or drive drunk too but offenders are released all the time pending court date.
I don't think it's good policy to do so but it's not the court's business to determine what is good policy but whether an administration's policy is constitutional or not.
I see you have not read Biden v Texas and the dissents therein.
"Congress offered the Executive two—and only two—alternatives to detention. First, if an alien is “arriving on land” from “a foreign territory contiguous to the United States,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “may return the alien to that territory pending a [removal] proceeding.” §1225(b)(2)(C). Second, DHS may release individual aliens on “parole,” but “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit.” §1182(d)(5)(A)."
I kind of have to laugh. Conservatives thought they finally won when they got these people on the Supreme Court, looks like they didn't. Oh they'll overturn abortion but allow illegals to stream over the border. After all both dems and repubs don't care about people or the country only about power and money. Too bad. When are we going to realize voting is not going to change anything you have to save yourself no ones going to do that for you. This country is a joke and has been for a long time.
I see you have not read Biden v Texas and the dissents therein.
"Congress offered the Executive two—and only two—alternatives to detention. First, if an alien is “arriving on land” from “a foreign territory contiguous to the United States,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “may return the alien to that territory pending a [removal] proceeding.” §1225(b)(2)(C). Second, DHS may release individual aliens on “parole,” but “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit.” §1182(d)(5)(A)."
.
Their position will be they are releasing on parole for urgent humanitarian reasons. Now you can argue whether it is urgent or humanitarian. Also, a dissent is not an official court opinion and carries no weight.
Their position will be they are releasing on parole for urgent humanitarian reasons. Now you can argue whether it is urgent or humanitarian. Also, a dissent is not an official court opinion and carries no weight.
Alito continues:
"Due to the huge numbers of aliens who attempt to enter illegally from Mexico, DHS does not have the capacity to detain all inadmissible aliens encountered at the border, and no one suggests that DHS must do the impossible. But rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alternative to return inadmissible aliens to Mexico while they await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded that it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply re lease into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way."
"Due to the huge numbers of aliens who attempt to enter illegally from Mexico, DHS does not have the capacity to detain all inadmissible aliens encountered at the border, and no one suggests that DHS must do the impossible. But rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alternative to return inadmissible aliens to Mexico while they await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded that it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply re lease into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way."
Once again, a "dissent" carries no weight of law and is not a binding opinion on anyone.
Once again, a "dissent" carries no weight of law and is not a binding opinion on anyone.
In case you missed it, we are talking about what statutory law provides. Stop being obtuse!
"Congress offered the Executive two—and only two—alternatives to detention. First, if an alien is “arriving on land” from “a foreign territory contiguous to the United States,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “may return the alien to that territory pending a [removal] proceeding.” §1225(b)(2)(C). Second, DHS may release individual aliens on “parole,” but “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit.” §1182(d)(5)(A).
Due to the huge numbers of aliens who attempt to enter illegally from Mexico, DHS does not have the capacity to detain all inadmissible aliens encountered at the border, and no one suggests that DHS must do the impossible. But rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alternative to return inadmissible aliens to Mexico while they await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded that it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply re lease into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
