ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

description

  1. Supreme Court Says Foreign Nationals Have No Due Process Rights Here. By Matt O'Brien

    Introductory note. I didn't write this article. Although I think it is correct to some extent, the author seems to have ignored our treaty obligations not to send aliens to countries where they will be persecuted or tortured.

    Contrary to what the liberal media and open-borders advocates say, immigrants are not owed same constitutional protections as regular Americans
    July 5, 2018


    President Donald Trump recently suggested that illegal aliens should be sent back to their countries of origin without hearings and the years of litigation that often follow.

    He branded the current process, which permits illegal aliens to repeatedly contest orders of removal, as “a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order.”

    The mainstream media wasted no time in characterizing his suggestion as a “push to end due process for illegal immigrants.” And multiple news outlets made all manner of wild claims about the so-called rights of illegal aliens. But once again, in an effort to portray the chief executive as a xenophobe, the open-borders lobby has gotten its facts backward.

    Trump is actually right on the mark. Much of the current legal framework for removing illegal aliens from the United States consists of badly reasoned federal district-court decisions, ridiculous settlement agreements, and politically motivated policy decisions.

    The open-borders lobby and its handmaidens in the mainstream media have consistently represented this hodgepodge as a clear articulation of “affirmative rights.”

    But that representation is misleading.

    Illegal aliens are entitled to considerably less immigration due process than their advocates would have us believe.

    And the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent on this point over the years:

    It is not within the province of the courts to order the admission of foreigners who have no formal, legal connection to the United States. "As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law." Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co.; Hilton v. Merritt)

    "It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self- preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe." (Ekiu v. United States)

    The United States need only provide an alien with a judicial trial when charging them with a crime and seeking a punitive sentence. (Wong Wing v. United States)

    "Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien." (Knauff v. Shaughnessy)

    Unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no right of entry to the United States as non-immigrants, or otherwise. (Kleindienst v. Mandel)

    Read more at https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...s-rights-here/



    About the author. Matt O'Brien is the former chief of the national security division within the fraud-detection and national-security directorate at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). He has also served as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s assistant chief counsel in the New York District. He is currently director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

    Updated 07-08-2018 at 01:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. When immigration judges get political, justice suffers. By Nolan Rappaport


    © Getty

    "Refugee Roulette"

    President Barack Obama’s immigration policies had the unintended consequence of encouraging illegal immigration. By focusing enforcement efforts primarily on aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes or who had been caught near the border after making an illegal entry, he created what I call a “home free magnet.”

    Aliens wanting to enter the United States illegally knew that they would be safe from deportation once they had reached the interior of the country unless they were convicted of a serious crime. This was a powerful incentive to do whatever was necessary to enter the United States.

    President Donald Trump destroyed this magnet with tough campaign rhetoric and his executive order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, which greatly expanded enforcement priorities. No deportable alien is safe under Trump’s enforcement policies.

    But previous administrations have left Trump with another enforcement problem that he has not resolved yet.

    The immigration judges who decide whether an alien in removal proceedings will be deported have been selected by successive administrations with varying views on immigration enforcement, which has produced an immigration court of 350 judges who have conflicting views on how immigration law should be applied.
    According to a Reuters analysis of thousands of immigration court decisions, whether an alien in removal proceedings is allowed to remain or is deported depends largely on which immigration judge hears his case and where the hearing is held.

    Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...ustice-suffers

    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author. Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.





Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: