Opinion: Immigration: A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

When police arrest people for suspected crimes, the U.S. Constitution requires them to show probable cause to a judge within 48 hours. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not do that. When ICE arrests people, it typically holds them for weeks before any judge evaluates whether ICE had a valid legal basis to make the arrest.

That may need to change. 

A federal appellate court in California recently did something that is at once simple and radical. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the usual constitutional rules that apply to normal police all over the country also apply to ICE. "The Fourth Amendment requires a prompt probable cause determination by a neutral and detached magistrate," the court said. This really shouldn't be a big deal. Prompt independent review by a judge of whether the government has a legal basis to take away a person's freedom is an essential safeguard against tyranny. It's something we all should be able to take for granted. 

Yet it is a big deal. Since the 19th century, immigration enforcement has existed in a constitutional shadow land where the usual rules do not apply. When ICE arrests people, the only immediate review is from the ICE officers themselves. It may take the immigration court weeks to hold a hearing, and typically at the first hearing the judge may deal only with procedural matters.  

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/516740-a-federal-court-may-have-declared-immigration-arrests-unconstitutional

 

[Boiler 45,486]

Odd, most immigration issues are civil not criminal but then this is the 9th Circuit.

 

So for 8 years Obama was breaching the Constitution?

[pablo2752 106]

Poor Obama. Dude can't get a break from "breaking constitution"(idk if that part is true or not) or "deportation chief" accusation. 

[Boiler 45,486]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

 

How many people have been deported under Obama?

Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

How does he compare to other presidents?

In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.

President George W. Bush's administration deported just over two million during his time in office; and Obama’s numbers don’t reflect his last year in office, for which data is not yet available.

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

When police arrest people for suspected crimes, the U.S. Constitution requires them to show probable cause to a judge within 48 hours. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not do that. When ICE arrests people, it typically holds them for weeks before any judge evaluates whether ICE had a valid legal basis to make the arrest.

That may need to change. 

A federal appellate court in California recently did something that is at once simple and radical. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the usual constitutional rules that apply to normal police all over the country also apply to ICE. "The Fourth Amendment requires a prompt probable cause determination by a neutral and detached magistrate," the court said. This really shouldn't be a big deal. Prompt independent review by a judge of whether the government has a legal basis to take away a person's freedom is an essential safeguard against tyranny. It's something we all should be able to take for granted. 

Yet it is a big deal. Since the 19th century, immigration enforcement has existed in a constitutional shadow land where the usual rules do not apply. When ICE arrests people, the only immediate review is from the ICE officers themselves. It may take the immigration court weeks to hold a hearing, and typically at the first hearing the judge may deal only with procedural matters.  

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/516740-a-federal-court-may-have-declared-immigration-arrests-unconstitutional

 

Courts are becoming too political now a days instead of processing cases that are waiting for decades. No wonder judicial system is messed up. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, James120383 said:

Courts are becoming too political now a days instead of processing cases that are waiting for decades. No wonder judicial system is messed up. 

The fact that 20 miles from my home habeaus corpus is essentially suspended and as an LPR I could be at risk of deportation because I did not have my green card on me, is proof that the legality of this law should be questioned.

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

11 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

The fact that 20 miles from my home habeaus corpus is essentially suspended and as an LPR I could be at risk of deportation because I did not have my green card on me, is proof that the legality of this law should be questioned.

law is already clear that you need to be carrying immigration status at all times or be able to provide proof

[Mollie09 1,543]

1 hour ago, James120383 said:

law is already clear that you need to be carrying immigration status at all times or be able to provide proof

Penalty is not deportation, though.

[Boiler 45,486]

How many Canadians who are US LPR's are deported every month for not carrying evidence?

[MaleAlpha 314]

16 hours ago, James120383 said:

Courts are becoming too political now a days instead of processing cases that are waiting for decades. No wonder judicial system is messed up. 

Well, the immigration courts have always been political and about quotas and executing the policies of whoever is in charge of the executive branch at the time. No surprise they are not under the Judicial Branch but rather under the executive.

Edited September 22, 2020 by MaleAlpha

[JeanneAdil 6,498]

You may find this article interesting concerning rights of illegals and more 

Just saying it was an interesting read -no more than that

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have

 

Under the law, anyone facing a criminal charge has the right to counsel. However, the government is only required to provide counsel if the person is accused of a felony. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

Is it any surprise that the hearing was done in a sanctuary city or that a democratic judge would make such a ruling? 
 

is it not reasonable to think that people breaking the law, by being here illegally should be deported? Or What is the purpose of immigration entry laws, if we don’t need to comply with them? And why are we all following them if these ruling keep stopping punishment
 

I’d really prefer these rulings to be done impartiality using judges across multiple jurisdictions.. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Duke & Marie

[HRQX 4,145]

39 minutes ago, Duke & Marie said:

I’d really prefer these rulings to be done impartiality using judges across multiple jurisdictions.. 

The 9th circuit is slowly becoming less of an outlier. The current administration's argument recently won in the Sept. 14, 2020 Ramos v. Wolf 2-1 decision. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/9th-circuit-deals-blow-to-certain-immigrants-holding-tps-status-business-calls

Edited September 23, 2020 by HRQX

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

22 minutes ago, HRQX said:

The 9th circuit is slowly becoming less of an outlier. The current administration's argument recently won in the Sept. 14, 2020 Ramos v. Wolf 2-1 decision. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/9th-circuit-deals-blow-to-certain-immigrants-holding-tps-status-business-calls

Agreed, but seems the majority of hearings are done in either Cali or NY for some reason.. or maybe there’re the only ones I see... 🤷‍♀️