For some reason, this has not filtered out in the news (imagine that) or shown up on video reports until now. In the case of illegal immigrants, at this time it appears ACLU lost a round and US Citizens have finally seen federal courts and the Supreme Court begin to rule against the rights of illegals to be allowed the same privileges of law that a citizen has.
The accuracy of the video on the legal issue is a bit over the top and not entirely accurate but it definitely expresses the anger over the issue of illegal immigrants and highlights that liberals who march and rant over ICE and the right of illegals to Demand as if they were citizens is wrong.
Below is a portion of the information found on the immigration blog on the decision and of the rights of illegals to be deported. An immigration attorney is the first step in seeking a better understanding for those who are interested. As the District Court and SCOTUS note though, while this does definitely effect recent arrivals, it does not address the issue of illegals who have lived within our borders for many years nor their deportation rights — again that is for immigration attorneys to discuss with clients.
Center For Immigration Studies
By Andrew R. Arthur, April 21, 2017
April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Castro et al. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., U.S., 2017 WL 1366739 (2017), a case involving the constitutional rights of a group of aliens who had entered the United States illegally.
Although “a variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ” generally, the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition in this case leaves in place a circuit court decision that limits the rights of aliens who were apprehended shortly after entering the United States illegally, at least in the Third Circuit.
The circuit court decision, Castro v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016), involved 28 families who were natives and citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Each of the members of those families had entered the United States illegally over a period of several months in late 2015. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents had arrested each “within close proximity to the border and shortly after their illegal crossing.”
The court noted the vast majority were apprehended within an hour or less of entering the country, and at distances of less than one mile from the border; in all events, no petitioner appears to have been present in the country for more than about six hours, and none was apprehended more than four miles from the border.
Each of the alien petitioners was processed for expedited removal under section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Because the aliens expressed a fear of persecution or torture if returned to their native countries, they were referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview under section 235(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the INA. While each was found not to have a credible fear, each requested and was granted review of their credible fear claims by an immigration judge.
It has long been settled that, as the Supreme Court held in Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (and as cited by the circuit court in Castro), “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”
What is significant about the decision in Castro is the fact that the circuit court extended that reasoning to the alien petitioners who had all entered the United States, albeit surreptitiously and briefly.
The circuit court in Castro recognized this, stating:
Another potential criticism of our position — and particularly of our decision to treat Petitioners as “alien[s] seeking initial admission to the United States” who are prohibited from invoking the Suspension Clause — is that it appears to ignore the Supreme Court’s precedents suggesting that an alien’s physical presence in the country alone flips the switch on constitutional protections that are otherwise dormant as to aliens outside our borders.
The circuit court in Castro found, moreover, that “the Supreme Court has suggested in several other opinions that recent clandestine entrants like Petitioners do not qualify for constitutional protections based merely on their physical presence alone.”
After surveying these opinions, the circuit court concluded: “At a minimum … all of these cases call into serious question the proposition that even the slightest entrance into this country triggers constitutional protections that are otherwise unavailable to the alien outside its borders.”
The significance of this position was apparent before the circuit court issued its decision. As Lee Gelernt, the attorney who argued the case before the Third Circuit and counsel of record on the petition for writ of certiorari, stated in an interview published the day after the circuit court heard the case:
The administration is asking the court of appeals to rule — for the first time in the country’s history — that noncitizens on U.S. soil are not entitled to go to federal court to challenge the legality of their removal. … If the court of appeals adopts the administration’s position, it would create an unprecedented situation in our nation’s history and would have ramifications well beyond these Central American families.
Questions still arise on possibilities of other cases being heard and other district court decisions which may eventually have to be considered and addressed for standing by the SCOTUS.
Further, it is not clear whether other circuits will adopt the reasoning of the circuit court in Castro. That said, there would be strong policy reasons for doing so.
The idea that the rights of an alien with no ties to the United States shift the moment that the alien touches dry ground is the sort of legal fiction that is difficult to explain logically.
The idea that an alien who evaded inspection to enter illegally has the same rights as a lawfully admitted alien is even harder to rectify.
Further, this fiction encourages aliens who want to come to the United States to undertake a dangerous cross-border trek with a smuggler, instead of undergoing orderly processing at a port of entry.
” This is a very difficult question that neither this Court nor the Supreme Court has addressed. We hold that, at least as applied to Petitioners and other similarly situated aliens, § 1252 does not violate the Suspension Clause. Consequently, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Petitioners’ habeas petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” – SCOTUS
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) passed Congress 30 years ago. (Here’s the New York Times report of Reagan signing the bill.) Around 2.7 million people received legal status under the IRCA, according to The Washington Post’s Emily Badger article. In 1996, the year the entire IRCA cohort was eligible according to government documents, a quarter of a million were naturalized. By 2001, one-third of the entire group had been. Those people should have already been moved through the system.
The questions as to why they haven’t done so are important, especially now with so many undocumented immigrants needing resolution to their status.
If those who were part of that amnesty have led productive lives with settled families and have taken steps to become naturalized citizens, then shame on the government immigration services and the last thirty years of congresses and presidents for dragging their heels.
If the undocumented immigrants covered under the 1986 amnesty chose not to take advantage and become naturalized but instead remain undocumented even after so many years, then shame on the immigrants. They deserve the same rights as ILLEGALS, few to none.
The fast tracking of illegals and refugees was and is a deliberately unlawful action most prominently noted and loudly objected to in the eight years under Obama. It is a disgrace and disservice to all immigrants who have waited years to become naturalized most especially those who fell under the amnesty of 1986.
I also wonder if taken to court, how SCOTUS would rule on refugees and illegals who have been fast tracked by the Democrats, Soros, and Obama in order to pad their votes. Would they in essence be allowed to keep their rights and benefits as a naturalized segment of citizens?
The posted immigration website information at one time stated clearly that refugees were not considered for citizenship except in certain circumstances and only after five years of living in the US. Yet Obama and his crew sent a good many of them through the naturalization process before two years had even passed at least as far as I could find in some articles.
With this particular SCOTUS affirmation of the district court ruling, the issue of rights of illegals to receive benefits, work, legal, or any other form of assistance has again been clarified within their ruling. It does appear in this case that with that visible reminder SANCTUARY status is totally illegal and by rights those cities and states should be sanctioned for their actions.
Of course, we knew that already. Another check 0ff on that list of removing Obama’s illegal actions. Time to hear more of those liberal heads explode — tick tock, tick tock.