Post Reply supreme court to consider indefinite detention
18722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 7 days ago
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-to-consider-indefinite-detention-for-immigrants/ar-AAkTocT?OCID=ansmsnnews11


..what even is the point of that? we all know that means they will be released over and over and over without just staying in jail or getting sent back
14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7 days ago

redokami wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-to-consider-indefinite-detention-for-immigrants/ar-AAkTocT?OCID=ansmsnnews11


..what even is the point of that? we all know that means they will be released over and over and over without just staying in jail or getting sent back


When Trump "considers" it, he's considering it for legislation.
When the SC "considers" it, they're considering the legal constitutionality of whether he can even be ALLOWED to, before he starts.

Slight difference in headlines.
59230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7 days ago
Currently illegal/undocumented/expired visa immigrants can be held indefinitely without a hearing or trial - even if they are determined as not being a flight risk and are willing to post bond.

That violates due process. Citizen or not, you're supposed to get your moment in front of a judge as expeditiously as possible. If the rules allow you to post bond prior to that hearing, again it is supposed to be done as soon as possible.

I'm fine with holding someone who has committed a violent crime, although again due process must be followed.

I'm less fine with holding people whose only offense is that they're on the wrong side of the border, but willing to post bond until their cases can be brought to a judge. Seems to be pretty cut and dried to me - not causing a problem (violent crime), don't make them take up space that could be used for someone who does cause a problem (violent crime).

You did notice that the data used by the Justice Department for its statistics on immigration hearings has also been found to be flawed, yes?


The federal government's figures, the report found, are "misleading and greatly inflated" by several factors, including a decision to exclude certain types of cases and to base the calculations on whether a former detainee showed up for the first, not the last, of multiple proceedings, an approach that therefore includes situations in which hearings had to be rescheduled because an individual didn't receive notification or was unable to appear for another reason.


I find our immigration process to be greatly flawed, and its enforcement even more so.
19559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / NYC Metro Area
Offline
Posted 7 days ago , edited 7 days ago
I find indefinite detention wrong. If someone has broken the law you ought to charge them with a crime.

If you catch someone who breaks the law give them their day in court. If they fail to appear put them on trial in absentia for violating visa procedures. Once they are found guilty they should be cleared for deportation and black listed for reentry. Don't know why the government is being so incompetent when it comes to this matter.

Some of the undocumented may have legal standing to remain here though, so it isn't so black and white. For example, if they have a claim for asylum and it is approved, former military that enlisted in a special program to get a green card while waiting for approval, married to a US citizen under certain situations, those with deferred action status, etc.
Obviously we need to hire more judges to help clear up the legal backlog and secure the border and have a better entry/exit system to reduce the number of future cases to a sustainable/manageable level.
qwueri 
16470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 7 days ago
Holding someone with no intention of giving them their day in court is pretty messed up and seems to go well beyond concerns for flight risks.
You must be logged in to post.