“[A]ny alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.â€
Gorsuch dealt with this point in only one sentence when he acknowledged the president’s power over immigration, but charged that “to acknowledge that the president has broad authority to act in this general area supplies no justification for allowing judges to give content to an impermissibly vague law.â€
This is a very disturbing line of argument.
I disagree.
It was the proper ruling.
He won't (the judiciary, that is) fill in the blanks and legislate from the bench, a vague law.
We would hope no conservative judge does this.
This will have to go back to congress to have a more defined bill passed, as it should.
So much for the rock-ribbed originalist...
So far this is his first major ruling to judge where he goes....
John Roberts was also originally sold as a rock-ribbed originalist and an appeasement to Conservatives after the whole Harriet Meyers fiasco.
He's trying to equate criminal law with immigration law to come to his wrong conclusion. Conservative justices made the right ruling...based on case history and immigration law going back to the founding of the country...sadly they were in the minority.
This is like when Roberts decided a penalty was actually a tax therefor constitutional and Obamacare could stand.
Gorsuch rewrote what immigration law is supposed to be and do based on criminal law and is in danger of creating due process rights for people who have never had them in the pasts...nor should they have them now.
Gorsuch just helped the left's cause for stealing our sovereignty by allowing illegals to stay in this country regardless of what the immigration laws says.
As the article said what Gorsuch did was to "throw out the plenary power doctrine on immigration without even addressing it."
HBR
GBR
TBR
Hannity, Gorsuch are merely surrogatess, for Trump and Trump Bashing Room's daily media feed of anti-Trump stories.
Wash, rinse, repeat. Gotcha, gotcha.
HBR
GBR
TBR
Hannity, Gorsuch are merely surrogatess, for Trump and Trump Bashing Room's daily media feed of anti-Trump stories.
Wash, rinse, repeat. Gotcha, gotcha.
Folks here may despise immigrants, but they're entitled to the due process of law. And due process is imperiled if the law is unconstitutionally vague, leaving its disposition up to the discretion and potential abuse of the government.
Gorsuch's opinion may have been in the context of protecting someone folks here revile, but the principle he stands for protects the rights of you and me too.
Folks here may despise immigrants, but they're entitled to the due process of law. And due process is imperiled if the law is unconstitutionally vague, leaving its disposition up to the discretion and potential abuse of the government.
Gorsuch's opinion may have been in the context of protecting someone folks here revile, but the principle he stands for protects the rights of you and me too.
@Jazzhead
Nobody here despises immigrants. Most of us came from immigrants.
What we despise is contempt for the law and the undermining of our national security.
Our immigration law is a mess and is broken. Fix it instead of ignoring the law and giving preferential treatment to those who break it.
Care to discuss any of the merits of the article...the legal basis for the dissent and the majority opinion?I'm just here to "crap on the carpet," with my bias. Just like the never ending feed of anti-Trump biased material which is the main emphasis here.
Or are you just here again to crap on the carpet and start a fight?
Some folks here may despise immigrants, but they're entitled to the due process of law. And due process is imperiled if the law is unconstitutionally vague, leaving its disposition up to the arbitrary discretion and potential abuse of the government.
Gorsuch's opinion may have been in the context of protecting someone belonging to a class of human beings that some folks here revile, but the principle he stands for protects the rights of you and me too.
The consequences of Gorsuch’s conflation of deportation with a criminal penalty are grave and sweeping. This will not only be used for criminal alien crime cases, which alone will open the door for thousands of terrible criminals to stay in this country. It will be used to grant rights even to illegal aliens. Gorsuch is reading case law on due process for aliens as a right to judicial review, not just an executive hearing, and he is applying it to deportation instead of only to indefinite detention.
The tens of thousands of truculent immigration lawyers will now litigate every single deportation to death. Section 212 of the INA gives broad authority to the executive branch to keep out those who are determined to be drug users. Are we now going to question such determinations?
What else do immigrants have the right to know before we can deport them? District and appellate judges are already granting a right to advanced notice of deadlines of asylum applications and mandating that illegal alien teenagers be told of their “right†to an abortion.
Gorsuch cleverly uses a left-wing trick of creating a surreptitious, yet broadly consequential new right, but couches it as a narrow textual reading that can easily be remedied by a new law. “It’s important to note the narrowness of our decision today,†declared a disingenuous Gorsuch. Yup, very narrow, inverting the fundamental relationship between the sovereign citizen and a foreign national.
I'm just here to "crap on the carpet," with my bias. Just like the never ending feed of anti-Trump biased material which is the main emphasis here.
The curated feed, if you will.
And you're one of the biggest reasons why there is such a divide at TBR. You foment it...and encourage it and purposely do what you can to keep the sh*t stirred.
Yeah all those comments that lump any and all Trump supporters into one evil smelly group has nothing to do with it. Like the one that said all people who voted for Trump surrendered their principles. (actually accused us of surrendering our principals but we understood what you meant.)
Chew on this counselor.This might even have implications for the expulsion of foreign diplomats engaged in espionage, because it isn't 'violent' enough.
https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/ (https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/)
And don't sweep away the legal argument against what Gorsuch did with your vague generalities and dismissive tone like you always do.
Explain to us exactly how it's the right decision when never in our history has criminal law been applied to immigration law cases. the way that it is now in an attempt to do an end run on criminals being deported.
This might even have implications for the expulsion of foreign diplomats engaged in espionage, because it isn't 'violent' enough.
A solution might be to declare these people a national security risk, whisk 'em away to GITMO, and send them home. If we can't secure our borders, our nation is at risk.
Also, did Gorsuch conflate illegal aliens with those here legally when he was doling out rights from the bench? There IS a difference, and one does not equal the other.
Unfortunately, this is a disappointing setback on the illegal immigration issue.
IMHO, Gorsuch and 4 others own this decision, no one else, except the people in Congress.
Considering that out of that bunch there are over 200 lawyers and 100 whose profession was "education", they should be able to craft Bills which pass muster. ( Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf) p.5).
This implies some nonfeasance on their part, or intentional loopholes left to feed the lawyers and ensure invasion.
I believe the issue strictly dealt with deportation of illegals. Not legal resident aliens.Well, if the illegals who have committed violent offenses get released because they have 'rights', how long before domestic mother rapers and father stabbers demand Equal Protection under the Law?
I like your suggestion on how to deal with the illegals because of this ruling. It might be an eye opener for some of those MS13 cretins being let out and set free to see what GITMO is really all about.
First off no one here "despises" immigrants.
Illegal immigrants are NOT entitled to due process of U.S. law. They never have been in the history of this country...and they shouldn't be allowed going forward.
Gorsuch wrongly mixed criminal and immigration law to side with the Liberals on the court.
He wiffed on his first major ruling where his vote was the deciding factor.
First off, Dimaya was a legal alien in this country, not an illegal one. Secondly this law was vague and sucked. Someone making an FTD flower delivery could be in violation of this burglary law. Lastly Scalia ruled the same way for the same reasons in Johnson v. US where another shit law with vague details threw a skinhead behind bars.
I would rather have an end to these garbage laws than have this dude deported. Having Dimaya living in the Philippians again doesn't effect the country one bit. Having a dangerous law like this on the books does.
Good decision by Gorsuch.
Lastly Scalia ruled the same way for the same reasons in Johnson v. US where another shit law with vague details threw a skinhead behind bars.
Gorsuch relies on Scalia’s non-immigration decision on vagueness doctrine in Johnson, but as it relates to our immigration jurisprudence and history, he’d be wise to heed Scalia’s own advice. Scalia noted in a speech shortly before he passed away that modern justices place their interpretation of abstract principles over “the lived experiences and customs†of the American people. Referring to long-standing American traditions, Scalia admonished his fellow jurists to approach those issues with the mindset that a jurist “does not judge them; he is judged by them.â€
Scalia, who in general did not like vague statutes, would be appalled at granting such rights to aliens. He was a strong believer in sovereignty and the plenary power doctrine. In his famous Zadvydas v. Davis dissent, he wrote categorically, “Insofar as a claimed legal right to release into this country is concerned, an alien under final order of removal stands on an equal footing with an inadmissible alien at the threshold of entry: He has no such right.â€
Scalia made fun of the majority opinion that “obscured†the distinction between deportation and criminal punishment in “legal fog†to somehow suggest aliens have rights to remain in the country. The court used similar case law that merely prevented the government from throwing an alien in a labor camp without a judicial trial. “I am sure they cannot be tortured, as well–but neither prohibition has anything to do with their right to be released into the United States,†scoffed Scalia.
The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, was about a foreign national who was convicted twice of burglary and was ordered to be deported by the Obama administration.
EVERYONE is entitled to the due process of law. The law will differ significantly with respect to those here illegally, but that does not mean the government can act arbitrarily without regard to the law. And besides, the individual in this case was NOT an illegal alien. He is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. The fact that you didn't bother to ascertain that key fact is the reason that your first statement above is followed by three :silly:.
His decision was based on the due process right afforded to all of us. Due process is guaranteed to both criminals and immigrants.
The solution is simple - fix the statute if you want lawful permanent residents to be subject to deportation for simple burglary. Otherwise, be glad that Justice Gorsuch is ruling as a true and impartial Constitutional conservative should.
First off, Dimaya was a legal alien in this country, not an illegal one. Secondly this law was vague and sucked. Someone making an FTD flower delivery could be in violation of this burglary law. Lastly Scalia ruled the same way for the same reasons in Johnson v. US where another shit law with vague details threw a skinhead behind bars.
I would rather have an end to these garbage laws than have this dude deported. Having Dimaya living in the Philippians again doesn't effect the country one bit. Having a dangerous law like this on the books does.
Good decision by Gorsuch.
Not so fast. The Scalia ruling has nothing to do with this case.
And also:
https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/ (https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/)
I've never considered burglary a violent crime and neither do millions of people out there, but it is if this shit law is allowed to stand.
I was just talking to Mrs. Liberty about this robbery definition this weekend (concerning a totally different matter), the topic being "burglary" vs "robbery." She spent many years as a Court Reporter in LA. Robbery is much more serious than burglary, because it has the element of "fear or force," making it a crime against a person. Burglary is more of a property crime, and becomes robbery if somebody is in the house.
I have not been following this case, but if the defendant is charged with simple burglary, that distinction is important. I'm one of the millions who does not consider burglary to be a violent crime, at least not until I get my hands on the thug who put the grabs to my stuff.
HBR
GBR
TBR
Hannity, Gorsuch are merely surrogatess, for Trump and Trump Bashing Room's daily media feed of anti-Trump stories.
Wash, rinse, repeat. Gotcha, gotcha.
@truth_seeker
Cute. But I haven't been here for days, and I see plenty of pro-Trump articles and threads. How are you missing them?
Did you actually read the threads today, on Hannity and Gorsuch? Bashing Trump or his surrogates is where the action is.
@truth_seeker
Cute. But I haven't been here for days, and I see plenty of pro-Trump articles and threads. How are you missing them?
I don't get it, Catherine. I see those threads all the time.There's pretty much always been a reasonable balance between pro-Trump articles-and-threads and not-pro-Trump articles-and-threads. Obvious enough
I'm of the opinion @truth_seeker that there are enough Trumpers here (who incidentally can post articles, also) to give TBR an aire of legitimacy. Am I wrong?
@Right_in_Virginia posts more pro-Trump articles than anybody else.In fairness, she has competition at minimum from @rangerrebew .
There should be plenty from and for everyone, pro-Donaldus Minimus and con-Donaldus Minimus alike.
@Right_in_Virginia posts more pro-Trump articles than anybody else. And she gets shit upon 24/7 for all her efforts...without one ounce of support from ownership.
The other day, @Frank Cannon called the constant barrage of anti-Trump articles the result of "hate boners". Crickets.
When I essentially say the same thing....in an EFFING members only thread (put there to soothe the feelings of the NTs) that certain members get "wood" every morning posting negative articles....the thread gets locked.
Go bleep yourself.
@EasyAce you and I both know there's a balance...only the people who purposely foment dissent see it differently.
It's rather disconcerting that on a Forum priding itself on welcoming all views, especially all political views, that presenting an opinion differing from the majority is not only considered "purposely formenting dissent" but that this opinion is so accepted. To present an alternate point of view here is to be slashed as an "agitator" ... someone with the audacity to "poke conservatives in the eye".
What the hell is this about?
The "injustices" and one-sided political views of TOS brought with it an influx of new members to this Forum --- each professing gratitude for the "fresh air" over here and the chance to express themselves without fear of ridicule or banishment.
I have been a member of this forum just about from its inception---yet I am now called what they were called on TOS --- a troll.
Me. A member in good standing for more than nine years. Me. A member who stayed through the leaner years only to watch good friends leave to end the snark, the personal disrespect and abuse is now a "troll".
Those from the great migration may think they're creating the anti-FreeRepublic. But, my friends, you are creating its mirror image.
It's rather disconcerting that on a Forum priding itself on welcoming all views, especially all political views, that presenting an opinion differing from the majority is not only considered "purposely formenting dissent" but that this opinion is so accepted. To present an alternate point of view here is to be slashed as an "agitator" ... someone with the audacity to "poke conservatives in the eye".
What the hell is this about?
The "injustices" and one-sided political views of TOS brought with it an influx of new members to this Forum --- each professing gratitude for the "fresh air" over here and the chance to express themselves without fear of ridicule or banishment.
I have been a member of this forum just about from its inception---yet I am now called what they were called on TOS --- a troll.
Me. A member in good standing for more than nine years. Me. A member who stayed through the leaner years only to watch good friends leave to end the snark, the personal disrespect and abuse is now a "troll".
Those from the great migration may think they're creating the anti-FreeRepublic. But, my friends, you are creating its mirror image.
Anything rattling in there about the topic of this thread, which since you have obviously forgotten is a Gorsuch ruling on immigration?
Anything rattling in there about the topic of this thread, which since you have obviously forgotten is a Gorsuch ruling on immigration?
Don't try to be clever. I was responding to a post about me.
Don't try to be clever. I was responding to a post about me.
Yeah, well, we all get drawn in on occasion. Try to resist taking threads off the rails
Yeah, well, we all get drawn in on occasion. Try to resist taking threads off the rails with ill formed complaints about being mistreated on a forum that you participate in voluntarily.
It does suc @Right_in_Virginia, just last night a Trumper called me a commie and I forgot to ping Myst.
Who voted to allow flag burning? Against warrantless searches? Scalia. So it goes, uphold the constitution.
It does suc @Right_in_Virginia, just last night a Trumper called me a commie and I forgot to ping Myst.
What the hell are you talking about now?
What's a "Trumper"? Is that like a "humper"?
Sorry, Corbe. I was joking.
**nononono*
Don't be a dunce. That was obviously a dig at you having to ping Myst to every little one of your perceived slights. And it was freaking hilarious.
Yes, I got the dig @RoosGirl But your peculiar sense of hilarity aside, when the hell did I ping Myst?
Or are you shooting the dark again hoping to be noticed?
So you understand it was a dig at your habit of pinging Myst, but you wonder when you pinged Myst? I just... wow. Seriously? Wow.
Sure. Just as soon as you tell your compatriots not to drag me personally into their posts.
@EasyAce you and I both know there's a balance...only the people who purposely foment dissent see it differently.
We should all be fomenting dissent.
@Right_in_Virginia posts more pro-Trump articles than anybody else. And she gets shit upon 24/7 for all her efforts...without one ounce of support from ownership.
The other day, @Frank Cannon called the constant barrage of anti-Trump articles the result of "hate boners". Crickets.
When I essentially say the same thing....in an EFFING members only thread (put there to soothe the feelings of the NTs) that certain members get "wood" every morning posting negative articles....the thread gets locked.
Go bleep yourself.
We should all be fomenting dissent.
We should all be fomenting dissent.
I'm shocked that dissent is now among the cardinal sins listed on the principled conservative membership card.
Go figure. :shrug:
Wow. One minute we were have a discussion on the fine points of some SCOTUS ruling, the next there are bullets flying everywhere.
Nice work people. I'm proud of you.
No kidding!
A reasonable discussion and then here comes the "You Always/Never" crowd.
I am of the conclusion now, that some just want the fight, and nothing more.
I've learned the lesson from watching enough football, the person who retaliates always gets the flag.
I've decided not to buy into this anymore.
I think we ought to start calling these folks out, from both sides.
I'll just post:
WE'RE ON TO YOU!
...and walk away, and move on to the next thread.
I'M ON TO YOU!
I'M ON TO YOU!
As I understand, the issue was not immigration so much, but rather the definition of that
constitutes a violent crime. Congress needs to do a better job of defining just what is and is not
a violent crime. Bashing Gorsuch over this is silly.
Get that shit out of here. Comments like that have no place on a thread like this.
Is that some really really awesome sarcasm or what?
As I understand, the issue was not immigration so much, but rather the definition of that
constitutes a violent crime. Congress needs to do a better job of defining just what is and is not
a violent crime. Bashing Gorsuch over this is silly.
As I understand, the issue was not immigration so much, but rather the definition of thatThe way I see it, do we want repeat offenders of any crime, be it 'violent' or just a violation of someone's home and property?
constitutes a violent crime. Congress needs to do a better job of defining just what is and is not
a violent crime. Bashing Gorsuch over this is silly.
Vague laws are an affront to the rule of law.For once (mark the calendar!), I agree with you. The Congress has largely abdicated its Constitutional responsibility to legislate and passed that off to bureaucrats and the courts who act with the full force of legislation. Vague legislation gives far too much latitude to the wannabe petty tyrants secure in bureaucratic niches from which they are difficult to dislodge, and where they are largely free of repercussions for their actions.
One thing that frosts me - and the both the right and the left are guilty of it - is that we insist on letting the courts do our dirty work. It's too hard to pass sound laws, or to fix bad laws - that would require right and left to compromise to assemble a majority. So we hope the courts will overturn bad laws. But the courts don't represent the people.
And too often, laws that Congress does pass constitute bare frameworks, to be filled in by the bureaucracy in the form of regulations. But the bureaucrats are unelected too.
Congress has abdicated its responsibilities to the courts and the bureaucrats. That's not how the Framers envisioned it. Thank God for sound jurists like Justice Gorsuch who ignore the political howling from the right and do their job under the law and the Constitution.
For once (mark the calendar!), I agree with you. The Congress has largely abdicated its Constitutional responsibility to legislate and passed that off to bureaucrats and the courts who act with the full force of legislation. Vague legislation gives far too much latitude to the wannabe petty tyrants secure in bureaucratic niches from which they are difficult to dislodge, and where they are largely free of repercussions for their actions.
Well said, @Smokin Joe
Well said, @Smokin Joe
You and @Smokin Joe need to read up on Ting v. United States 1893In the Ting case, none of the petitioners had complied with the requirements of the then immigration law to obtain their permits as required to remain in the US legally. Apples and oranges, really.
that the power to expel or deport (now "remove") non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally "absolute and unqualified."
Do non citizen residents have the luxury of due process like you and I?
The answer always has been and still should be a resounding NO.
First of all, due process is no luxury, it is a right recognized by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
And it is a right belonging not just to citizens, but to resident aliens too. Such aliens are lawfully present here - in the parlance, the law has bestowed its favor upon them - and such status cannot be reversed without due process.
Yeah, well, we all get drawn in on occasion. Try to resist taking threads off the rails with ill formed complaints about being mistreated on a forum that you participate in voluntarily.
And don't forget the "ignore" feature as well, don't blame the victim.
@Right_in_Virginia
Really, the main thing I think, is one is able to express an opinion, it's time for good people to just speak up and it's your view that is important, not someone who mainly just cusses at someone, taunts, calls them names and the like.
It applies to citizens of the United States only.
It does not apply to non citizens. On that the court and the law has been clear for two centuries.
And your go to source...the sainted Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
Ting v US.
Does the federal government have the right to deport non citizen residents of the US?
The answer is yes.
Do non citizen residents have the luxury of due process like you and I?
The answer always has been and still should be a resounding NO.
I agree - subject to the resident alien's right to due process, same as you and I
How can you call yourself a conservative when you advocate that the federal government can arbitrarily and capriciously punish an individual who lawfully resides here? The word "tyranny" gets tossed around a lot on this board, such as when I suggest that gun owners register their firearms. But tyranny does not exist when the Constitution mandates due process of law before rights and liberty can be extinguished. I point that out merely to illustrate when TRUE tyranny is advocated - such as by yourself by your egregious comment above.
You miss the point. Ting merely recognized the Congress had the authority to establish all aspects of the nation's immigration policy, including rules and procedures for alien registration and deportation.
You are absolutely mistaken that alien residents are not protected by the same due process rights that you and I enjoy.
The solution is to get Congress to fix the law, to remove the unconstitutional vagueness. As has been pointed out by several here, vague laws should be opposed by principled conservatives, for they encourage the arbitrary and capricious exercise of government power.
Tyranny is affording people who are not citizens rights they have not earned and in doing so sabotaging the very sovereignty of this country.
THAT is tyranny and that is what you're defending counselor.
The Conservative believes in the letter of the law and the law in this case says that the defendant in this case should be deported back to his home country according to the Immigration Laws of the United States. That is what I'm defending...that is the Conservative stance.
A resident alien has "earned" the right to stay here. By the government's act of permitting him to stay, he has "earned" the right to due process if he should do something subsequent to potentially merit relinquishing that right. In this case, the statute set forth criteria for grounds for deportation, that were too vague to be duly applied to this individual.
It is not an affront to our sovereignty to afford a resident alien his due process rights. To fail to provide such rights is the act of an arbitrary and capricious government - that is, a tyrant.