"Non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, are often locked up for
lengthy periods in prison-like conditions while fighting deportation
proceedings. That's a result of a 1996 law, signed by President Bill
Clinton."
Department of Homeland Security transport bus outside an immigrant detention
center. (photo: Reuters)
Why Is the Obama Administration Opposing Rights for Immigrant Detainees?
By Daniel Denvir, Guardian UK
03 December 16
Non-citizens are often locked up as they fight deportation proceedings, even
if they're in the country legally or don't pose a flight risk
Immigrants detained for months and even years by the federal government
should have no right to a bond hearing to determine whether their detention
is necessary or justified. That might seem like an extreme statement. It is.
But it's not coming from Donald Trump. That's what lawyers for the Obama
administration this week argued before the US supreme court in Jennings v
Rodriguez.
Non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, are often locked up for
lengthy periods in prison-like conditions while fighting deportation
proceedings. That's a result of a 1996 law, signed by President Bill
Clinton, which made detention mandatory for a huge swath of immigrants
convicted of crimes - even minor ones and even cases where an immigrant
poses no public safety or flight risk.
It's a remarkable case that encapsulates the absurd brutality of
contemporary immigration politics: so-called moderates like Clinton, George
Bush and Barack Obama have built and defended a monstrously efficient
deportation machine that will soon be handed over to a hardcore nativist.
As of October, a record 40,000-plus immigrants, including many asylum
seekers, were detained by the federal government, mostly in private
facilities. That number that could grow much larger under Trump. The
president-elect has pledged to orchestrate mass deportations and also
promised to freeze federal hiring, which could make an already severely
backlogged immigration court system grind to nearly a halt. It's no surprise
that private prison company stocks soared after Trump's win.
"If the president-elect means what he says on detention and means what he
says on the hiring freeze, inevitably detention times are going to
skyrocket," said Michael Tan, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants'
Rights Project and one of the attorneys on the case.
The Obama administration's response is that immigrants can file habeas
corpus petitions in federal court - a complicated and time-consuming process
that would provide no due process for most immigrants subject to
imprisonment by the federal government.
The case before the supreme court is a class-action lawsuit represented by
Alejandro Rodriguez, a lawful permanent resident brought to the United
States as an infant whom the government sought to deport because of
convictions for drug possession and "joyriding". Rodriguez was imprisoned
for more than three years with no bond hearing while he fought deportation -
a fight he ultimately won.
In fact, it is the very people detained for lengthy periods like Rodriguez
who are most likely to win their cases and be allowed to remain in the US
because they have substantive claims to make. Those without such claims are
typically subject to rapid deportation.
"The sad irony is the people who have the strongest claim to lawful status
in the United States are the most likely to end up in detention for months
or years without ever being able to see a judge and seek relief," said Tan.
Those detained for six months or longer, according to the ACLU, are five
times more likely to win their case than the average immigration detainee.
Though Trump has made brazen racism and xenophobia the centerpiece of his
political persona, his policy agenda echoes that pursued by Obama: deporting
those convicted of crimes. But the majority of those detained by immigration
authorities for six months or longer, according to the ACLU, were convicted
of crimes so minor that they carried a conviction of no longer than six
months.
The US court of appeals for the ninth circuit found that non-citizens like
Rodriguez did have a right to a bond hearing every six months. The Obama
administration disagreed and appealed to the supreme court.
In the 2003 case Demore v Kim, the supreme court ruled in favor of the
government's power to detain non-citizens for a limited amount of time
without a bond hearing - a period that the court found, based on information
provided by the government, averaged roughly five months for those fighting
their deportation before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The problem, the
government conceded in an August letter to the court, is that that figure is
bogus. In reality, the average detention time for such non-citizens was more
than a year.
The government, according to Scotusblog's bloodless analysis, is in part
relying on the 1953 case Shaughnessy v United States ex rel Mezei, which
"denied judicial review to an immigrant held in indefinite detention based
on secret evidence, an outcome next to impossible to square with modern
constitutional law."
Trump has made it clear that he has little respect for constitutional
rights. Obama's dismal record will make it all the easier for the
president-elect to shred them.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Department of Homeland Security transport bus outside an immigrant detention
center. (photo: Reuters)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/02/obama-administration-o
pposing-rights-for-immigrant-detainees?CMP=fb_guhttps://www.theguardian.com/
commentisfree/2016/dec/02/obama-administration-opposing-rights-for-immigrant
-detainees?CMP=fb_gu
Why Is the Obama Administration Opposing Rights for Immigrant Detainees?
By Daniel Denvir, Guardian UK
03 December 16
Non-citizens are often locked up as they fight deportation proceedings, even
if they're in the country legally or don't pose a flight risk
mmigrants detained for months and even years by the federal government
should have no right to a bond hearing to determine whether their detention
is necessary or justified. That might seem like an extreme statement. It is.
But it's not coming from Donald Trump. That's what lawyers for the Obama
administration this week argued before the US supreme court in Jennings v
Rodriguez.
Non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, are often locked up for
lengthy periods in prison-like conditions while fighting deportation
proceedings. That's a result of a 1996 law, signed by President Bill
Clinton, which made detention mandatory for a huge swath of immigrants
convicted of crimes - even minor ones and even cases where an immigrant
poses no public safety or flight risk.
It's a remarkable case that encapsulates the absurd brutality of
contemporary immigration politics: so-called moderates like Clinton, George
Bush and Barack Obama have built and defended a monstrously efficient
deportation machine that will soon be handed over to a hardcore nativist.
As of October, a record 40,000-plus immigrants, including many asylum
seekers, were detained by the federal government, mostly in private
facilities. That number that could grow much larger under Trump. The
president-elect has pledged to orchestrate mass deportations and also
promised to freeze federal hiring, which could make an already severely
backlogged immigration court system grind to nearly a halt. It's no surprise
that private prison company stocks soared after Trump's win.
"If the president-elect means what he says on detention and means what he
says on the hiring freeze, inevitably detention times are going to
skyrocket," said Michael Tan, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants'
Rights Project and one of the attorneys on the case.
The Obama administration's response is that immigrants can file habeas
corpus petitions in federal court - a complicated and time-consuming process
that would provide no due process for most immigrants subject to
imprisonment by the federal government.
The case before the supreme court is a class-action lawsuit represented by
Alejandro Rodriguez, a lawful permanent resident brought to the United
States as an infant whom the government sought to deport because of
convictions for drug possession and "joyriding". Rodriguez was imprisoned
for more than three years with no bond hearing while he fought deportation -
a fight he ultimately won.
In fact, it is the very people detained for lengthy periods like Rodriguez
who are most likely to win their cases and be allowed to remain in the US
because they have substantive claims to make. Those without such claims are
typically subject to rapid deportation.
"The sad irony is the people who have the strongest claim to lawful status
in the United States are the most likely to end up in detention for months
or years without ever being able to see a judge and seek relief," said Tan.
Those detained for six months or longer, according to the ACLU, are five
times more likely to win their case than the average immigration detainee.
Though Trump has made brazen racism and xenophobia the centerpiece of his
political persona, his policy agenda echoes that pursued by Obama: deporting
those convicted of crimes. But the majority of those detained by immigration
authorities for six months or longer, according to the ACLU, were convicted
of crimes so minor that they carried a conviction of no longer than six
months.
The US court of appeals for the ninth circuit found that non-citizens like
Rodriguez did have a right to a bond hearing every six months. The Obama
administration disagreed and appealed to the supreme court.
In the 2003 case Demore v Kim, the supreme court ruled in favor of the
government's power to detain non-citizens for a limited amount of time
without a bond hearing - a period that the court found, based on information
provided by the government, averaged roughly five months for those fighting
their deportation before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The problem, the
government conceded in an August letter to the court, is that that figure is
bogus. In reality, the average detention time for such non-citizens was more
than a year.
The government, according to Scotusblog's bloodless analysis, is in part
relying on the 1953 case Shaughnessy v United States ex rel Mezei, which
"denied judicial review to an immigrant held in indefinite detention based
on secret evidence, an outcome next to impossible to square with modern
constitutional law."
Trump has made it clear that he has little respect for constitutional
rights. Obama's dismal record will make it all the easier for the
president-elect to shred them.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
