SCOTUS rules that ICE can detain illegal immigrants *indefinitely* once they are taken into criminal custody

[CitizenVectron]

 

 

So once an illegal immigrant is arrested, they can then be picked up at any time after and held indefinitely without charge by ICE. 

 

THIS WILL GO GREAT, GREAT JOB AMERICA

[SilentWorld]

Lmao 

[RedSoxFan9]

this is not who we are

or

this is exactly who we are

[PaladinSolo]

It's more like this who approximately 40% of us are. 

[Ghost_MH]

So the only solution to this ridiculous rolling is to abolish ICE, right?

[Mr.Vic20]

2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

So the only solution to this ridiculous rolling is to abolish ICE, right?

Yup, its time to melt the ice.

[Guest]

That is not what the ruling says, as far as I can tell. The indefinite action is the implementation of mandatory arrests for specific criminal aliens. The law says that DHS must arrest these offenders upon release from state custody, but the petitioners weren’t arrested at that point. DHS invoked the mandatiry arrest law some significant time after they had been released.

 

The ruling says that the window in which the arrest can be made are indefinite, but what is done with the arrested person is not. They go through deportation hearings.

[CayceG]

I'm just gonna say this. If a tweet reporting this news starts out with "Oof." then the reporter that wrote it should never be allowed on the internet again. 

[CayceG]

That said, here's analysis to show that, yes, the ruling does what it says--just as practice has been. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jason]

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, CayceG said:

That said, here's analysis to show that, yes, the ruling does what it says--just as practice has been. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, Riley didn’t understand the original tweet and you don’t understand the follow up. Mandatory detention is not indefinite detention. The indefinite part here is the window of capture for somebody who falls under the mandatory detention statute. Mandatory detention is done to ensure they show up for their removal hearings.

[CayceG]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

No, Riley didn’t understand the original tweet and you don’t understand the follow up. Mandatory detention is not indefinite detention. The indefinite part here is the window of capture for somebody who falls under the mandatory detention statute. Mandatory detention is done to ensure they show up for their removal hearings.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

 

 

 

That is not what the ruling is about, look at Jason’s last linked tweet which explains why people are bothered by it. The ruling is simply not about indefinite detention, it is explicitly about mandatory detention requirements having no endpoint.

[Slug]

sbl is right. I just finished reading it.  It was kind of a slog, but yeah.

 

So, normally when an illegal immigrant is picked up by ICE they are allowed to request release pending their deportation hearing. They can post bond, argue they aren't a flight risk, etc.  However when an illegal immigrant who has been arrested for certain criminal offenses is picked up by ICE, they aren't allowed to make that request; they're held in mandatory detention until their hearing.

 

Now, the law says that this mandatory detention happens “when the alien is released” from jail on their criminal charge and ICE picks them up.  The people in this case were trying to argue that since they weren't picked up immediately upon their release (they weren't just transferred into ICE custody) that the mandatory detention clause shouldn't happen.  Basically they're trying to say that the fact that they were arrested on criminal charges shouldn't matter and they should be allowed to request release because they were able to evade ICE for some period of time after they got out of jail.

 

So the mandatory detention clause isn't new, and this ruling doesn't make the detention indefinite (Jennings vs Rodriguez did that last year).  This ruling merely affirms that the time between a person being released from jail on criminal charges and them being picked up by ICE doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they can be held until their deportation hearing.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

4 hours ago, CayceG said:

That said, here's analysis to show that, yes, the ruling does what it says--just as practice has been. 

 

 

 

 

 

More proof we do not actually believe in inalienable rights. 

 

Take ALL the guns. NOW!