I read this today with some disappointment.
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court said Tuesday that part of a federal law that makes it easier to deport immigrants who have been convicted of crimes is too vague to be enforced.
The court’s 5-4 decision – in an unusual alignment in which new Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices – concerns a catchall provision of immigration law that defines what makes a crime violent. Conviction for a crime of violence makes deportation “a virtual certainty” for an immigrant, no matter how long he has lived in the United States, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for the court.
The decision is a loss for President Donald Trump’s administration, which has emphasized stricter enforcement of immigration law. In this case, President Barack Obama’s administration took the same position in the Supreme Court in defense of the challenged provision. President Donald Trump tweeted Tuesday evening that the court’s decision “means that Congress must close loopholes that block the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, including aggravated felons.” He ended by saying “Keep America Safe!” (continued here)
Think about this statement from the article quoted above.
Conviction for a crime of violence makes deportation “a virtual certainty” for an immigrant, no matter how long he has lived in the United States, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for the court.
When somebody comes to the United States and commits a crime, why would we want them stay here? When a troublemaker is the citizen of another country, why is that person our problem? Deportation is not a punishment. It is just a way a dealing with an unwanted guest. Moreover, the Constitution explicitly gives this power to Congress.
What do we do when someone comes into our house and makes trouble? Don’t we ask them to leave? Don’t we call the police for help if necessary? That is apparently what the framers of the Constitution thought too. They just applied the same logic to our entire nation.
There are fifty states and a multitude of legal jurisdictions in this nation. The whole notion that any statute designed to identify and deport troublemakers could completely avoid being vague is on its face absurd. So what if the statute is not crystal clear? Consider this case. If some foreigner burglarized your home, would you want him to be deported or to stay here? Is that a hard decision? For the geniuses on the Supreme Court, apparently it is.
How did we get into this mess? I would like to say I completely understand why some people find it so difficult to distinguish between citizens of the United States and foreigners, but I don’t. When the people of foreign nations are willing to build ICBMs, tip them with nuclear warheads, and point their ICBMs at us, it should be completely obvious that we need to be concerned that foreigners don’t necessarily share the same concern for the welfare of the people this country and its traditions that we do.
Does the confusion on the Supreme Court have anything to do with the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide? Why did the judges on the Supreme Court once approve of slavery? How about the political party that poor immigrants (immigrants that we immediately put of the public dole) vote for? Do political calculations influence the votes of some judges?
Anyway, here is an article on the Constitutional issues related to the decision.
Posted April 18, 2018 by Daniel Horowitz
The “but Gorsuch…” rallying cry for voting GOP is starting to run out of gas as the judiciary gets worse and worse and even “our” appointees find some convoluted reason to go along with the left-wing judicial supremacists who make a mockery of the will of the people.
In case you thought courts granting new rights to criminal aliens was a pastime only of the left-wing judges on the Ninth Circuit, think again. Yesterday, Neil Gorsuch joined with the four most extreme-left justices to rule that an entire statute of Congress mandating deportation for criminal aliens convicted of a crime of violence is “unconstitutionally vague.” While many conservative commentators defending and even championing his opinion are focusing on the regulatory aspect of Gorsuch’s rationale as it applies to general criminal law, they fail to observe that this is truly unprecedented and divorced from our entire history of immigration jurisprudence on deportations.
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. The Ninth Circuit stepped in and said the clause of the law used to deport him was unconstitutional, because it is evidently unconstitutional to enforce our own immigration laws unless we spell out every possible crime in the statute so that foreign nationals know the entire laundry list of crimes for which they can be deported. A right to know! (continued here)
Note that the article contains a link to the court’s decision. So we can study that too.
Want a verbal explanation? Note also that Mark Levin had Daniel Horowitz on his show today (audio links here: click on the => Mark Levin Audio Rewind – 4/18/18). Levin starts his show with the case and Horowitz discusses the case ten and a half minutes into the show.
You want to get the courts back under control? This is an election year. Both Congressional and Senate seats are on the ballot. Whichever party you belong to, please take part in the nomination process and then in the general election.