October 4, 2006, - 1:47 pm

Important Immigration Case Before Supreme Court

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two important companion cases that could change the wave of alien deportations for the better . . . or for the worse, Lopez v. Gonzales and Toledo-Flores v. United States. The transcript of the oral arguments is here.
Although both Jose Antonio Lopez and Reymundo Toledo-Flores, both Mexican nationals were legal immigrants, they were convicted in drug crimes–Lopez of aiding and abetting possession of cocaine and Toledo-Flores of possessing cocaine.
At issue is whether anti-drug and immigration laws can be used to deport aliens based on drug-possession offenses. Is a drug-possession offense that is a felony under state law (but a misdemeanor under federal law) rise to the level of “illicit trafficking,” making it an “aggravated felony” and requiring mandatory deportation for a legal immigrant who is not a U.S. citizen?
Thanks, Bader Ginsburg: More of This . . .

Leads to More of This.

If so, that means that aliens convicted for such drug offenses can be routinely deported and cannot appeal to an immigration judge (which ends up in years of appeals thereafter).
The federal government, represented in court by Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Edward Kneedler, argued that Congress wrote the deportation laws with the words “any felony” to mean that any felony triggers the automatic deportation. Unfortunately, right now, appellate courts in several circuits have come out with conflicting opinions. Some misguided, activist judges apparently believe that Congress doesn’t mean what it says in the laws it passes.
It’s imperative that Justices vote that any felony, whether under State or Federal law, should result in automatic deportation. Otherwise, we will have an even more endless backlog of illegal aliens here for years until they exhaust endless appeals. Ask any Detention and Removal Operations official at ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement), and they’ll tell you:
This will simply make their jobs tougher. And we will be stuck with more criminals in our midst. Additionally, we simply do not have the bed space for these people while they await years-long appeals. And most of them are mandatory imprisonment cases.
As , Detroit Free Press reporter Dawson that the State of Michigan alone pays tens of thousands of dollars to imprison aliens we should be deporting. Watch for those dollar figures to go up–in every state–should the Supes vote the wrong way.
And aside from that, do you want coke (or other hard drug) users and dealers becoming citizens because they got off on a technicality of state law versus federal law. A felony is a felony. A druggie is an undesirable resident or citizen.
Already Suprematrix Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted her ill-advised vote, with her comments in yesterday’s oral arguments:

“It seems to me unseemly in the immigration context.”

Ditto for Supe David Souter (thanks, Pops Bush!) who expressed doubt over the government’s position.
But this is not about what is “seemly” or “unseemly.” This isn’t about the Emily Post Institute of etiquette. It’s about addressing a national security crisis or exacerbating it.
Justices Roberts, Alito, and Scalia look like good votes in the right direction. Hopefully two more will get some good sense.
Or look for more illegal alien criminals within our borders . . . and on the streets.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses

“A druggie is an undesirable resident or citizen.”
Great idea
then we should not have these group of people at any position
Rush Limbugh
George W Bush
and lot of other democrats and republicans

thirdgoat on October 4, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Well, I imagine Clarence Thomas will vote the correct way .. along with Scalia (and yes, hopefully Roberts and Alito)

75273 on October 4, 2006 at 3:40 pm

Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg disagrees with anything written in the constitution, or any law written by congress that may enforce the laws of the land, and actually give hard time to some to drug dealers, especially Illegal drug dealers.
Afterall these Illegals and their Anchors are the new voters of the Democrat Party,…er victims of the democrat party and therefore need added protection. If only they could be taught to wash their hands when they clean Spinach.
Hopefully, these drug dealers will be deported, but with the lousy enforcement of our immigration laws they will probably be back the day after they are deported and will be re-arrested for a similar crime.
The two pictures posetd one looks like Ruth Buzzy is asleep and the next is a picture of the class of citizen we will get when they get the expected amnesty is granted. Who in their right mind would want these dregs of society heaped upon us. It is clear their own people don’t want them. When Foxe was president he shoved them as fast as he could to the border with maps and supplies to make the journey. So when they get here they become wards of the State and we are all responsible for feeding, housing and all their medical needs for free.
Now there is a debate on whether Felons should be deported this is insane.

mark on October 4, 2006 at 3:55 pm

Debbie, youíre right, this decision is indeed a matter of whether or not the high court is willing to address a national security crisis, or make it worse.
Legal aliens are still, well, aliens. Theyíre not citizens. They are in this country as guests, with conditions that dictate that they not break the law.
And Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Edward Kneedler is absolutely correct when he says that ANY felony should trigger the automatic deportation process. That is how the law has been written.
If activist judges want to shape or ìcorrectî legislation they donít agree with, then they should leave the bench and run for office.
These cases should never have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court
Itís plain enough for a simple man like me to understand.

Rocky on October 4, 2006 at 4:17 pm

And yet more ammunition for legacy Customs Special Agents everywhere to want out of this miserable agency called ICE …
Today, it’s drugs that don’t qualify. Tomorrow, it can be a CHILD PORN charge, a money laundering charge or a weapons charge, because there are CONFLICTS as to what constitutes a “felony”.
Well, there’s no conflict in what I’m about to say here: It’s a F-@#$-ing joke, that’s what it is. ICE Special Agents are disgusted to the point of ambivalence, and ICE DRO Officers are burdened to the point of inaction. Sadly, given the views of an apathetic judicial system and a “who gives a F-@#$” public, our time in ICE is better spent on the USAJOBS website looking for ways out of this loser, before we lose our decency, integrity, principle and, most important, sanity.

4EVERCUSTOMS on October 4, 2006 at 5:44 pm

I like the illegals in my area. They are family oriented, work very hard and probably raise my standard of living. The laws need to adjust to reality. And so do the natives who think they are being held back by immigrants.

shleppy on October 4, 2006 at 9:43 pm

Your fan club`s been working so hard that it`s got you mentioned in RollingStones:
`Writer Debbie Schlussel, we learn from Taibbi, is known around Dearborn as ìthat Jew Lady.î

hutchrun on October 4, 2006 at 11:09 pm

Sorry Debbie, I have to side with the felons on this issue. It’s clear to me that Congress didn’t intend “any felony” to mean all felonies any more than the First Amendment meant that Congress couldn’t restrict political anti-incumbent speech with the words “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”.
Logically, “any felony” means “any and all felonies” so the only reasonable ruling is that Congress intended for the U.S. to give safe harbor and citizenship to any person who commits a felony anywhere in the world. What don’t you understand? It’s not like it’s rocket science…

Curly Smith on October 5, 2006 at 8:51 am

Did someone wake up the oldgoat when they were trying to wake up Ginsberg? Limbaugh is not part of the government. Blair is NOT even an American citizen. And,Bush hasn’t had a drink in twenty years besides, we all know drinking is a saintly act if done by a Kennedy. Go back to sleep you oldgoat.

Burt on October 5, 2006 at 9:37 am

Business listening & speaking pre-intermediate ,

higiena kregoslupa on June 26, 2011 at 10:16 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field