Justice Neil Gorsuch - who was appointed by President Trump to the Supreme Court of the United States of America - has now decided to invalidate the mandatory deportation of illegal aliens convicted of crimes - siding with the Democratic Party’s wishes.
The move is monumentally erroneous as well as a direct danger to the American people, but apparently, Gorsuch thinks that the mandatory ruling is vague in its Constitutionality.
The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been monitored closely by courtrooms across the United States of America, in order to decide how they will next approach the increased deportations of arrested criminal illegal aliens under the Trump Administration.
This is the first time that Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with liberal justices, in a majority 5-4 decision that now invalidates the federal statute.
This decision is similar to how Justice Antonin Scalia would have approached decisions that he would side with liberals on if they were considered as being vague in nature.
The Dimaya case is interesting in the sense that he was both a Philippines national and later admitted into the United States of America in 1992 as a permanent resident of the nation.
Dimaya would later follow a life of crime, and in both 2007 and 2009, he entered no contest pleas to burglary charges in California after breaking into homes on what appears to be a crime spree.
An immigration judge argued that these criminal convictions made Dimaya susceptible to deportation from the United States of America, in what appears to be common sense. Dimaya had no desire to assimilate into America peacefully and had broken into homes across California, engaging in criminal behavior that makes him unworthy of being in our nation.
The Immigration courts said that these crimes would meet the prerequisites for an “aggravated felony,” as per the guidelines of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives authorization for deportation to non-citizens who've engaged in “crimes of violence, or repeated violent crimes as per labeling them an “aggravated felony.”
Dimaya had several left-wing attorneys and immigration activists in his corner filing appeals, claiming that the initial ruling was unconstitutionally vague and that his crimes weren't applicable for the “aggravated felony” label, despite being a lifelong criminal with numerous convictions.
Gorsuch and the other Supreme Court Justices agreed, suggesting the ruling is vague, and that Dimaya can now unfortunately stay.
What this means is that our legislators must redefine the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives those criminals an ability to avoid deportation by keeping away from the “aggravated felony” ruling.
What they should do, however, is rewrite the legislation for the Immigration and Nationality Act enforcing mandatory deportation for every felony, regardless if it's violent or not. That would immediately solve the problem.
While in the outside of the ruling, the liberal media are going to attempt to spin this to suggest Trump's monumental decision of appointing Justice Gorsuch is somehow diminished, but the reality is he's correct here.
Of course, Dimaya deserves to be deported. Even someone charged with misdemeanors such as disorderly conduct should be deported in most of our eyes, as it's proof they're unwilling to follow our laws. However, the current wording of the Immigration and Nationality Act is incredibly vague.
It needs rewritten and reworded to describe the specific situations in which would make a person eligible for the “aggravated felon” label, and then force their deportation immediately afterward.
It's 2018, the left has lost their minds, and in doing so Conservatives must carefully define old legislation in order to ensure that justice is served.
Justice Gorsuch’s decision here needs to be seen from that perspective, and don't allow this ruling to discredit his competence, because it doesn't.
Additional Sources or Relevant Information:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/supreme-court-federal-law-deportation-immigrants/index.html
<strong><span style="color:red;">Tips? Info? Send me a message!</span></strong>
~<b>Send Me An E-Mail!</b>
—<i>[email protected]</i>
<b><i>Follow Me On Twitter!</i></b>
<a href="https://www.twitter.com/IWillRedPillU">@IWillRedPillU</a>
<strong><span style="color:red;">Tips? Info? Send me a message!</span></strong>
<span style="margin-top:15px;rgba(42,51,6,0.7);font-size:12px;"><i>Be Sure To Share Our Articles!</i></span>
<span style="margin-top:15px;rgba(42,51,6,0.7);font-size:12px;"><b>The Goldwater</b></span>
Even someone charged with misdemeanors such as disorderly conduct should be deported in Most of our eyes? You must believe the cops are perfect & never mischarge. You must also be very naive about life & have no clue how often police charge innocent people & how people get mislead into being accomplices by clever crooks. I suggest to broaden your understanding of how badly the criminal court system operates
So they instead are prosecuted as citizens and go to jail/prison if convicted. Seems like the left thinks this means they walk free. They don't.
Let's not get all stupid about this. The ruling was simply the law is vague and needs to be rewritten; no more, no less. It's not a victory for liberals or a defeat for Trump.
This was a decision about legal immigrats. The rule can be made to be more specfic and be constitutional. You should correct the headline.
Dimaya had already been naturalized as a citizen of USA, which means the only way he could be stripped of his citizenship would be if he was committing acts of subversion against the government. Being a garbage human being isn't grounds for denaturalization so the writer of this article should be safe from deportation too.
"The move is monumentally erroneous as well as a direct danger to the American people, but apparently, Gorsuch thinks that the mandatory ruling is vague in its Constitutionality."
"This decision is similar to how Justice Antonin Scalia would have approached decisions that he would side with liberals on if they were considered as being vague in nature."
What a ridiculous article. Did the author even read on the SCOTUS decision? This has nothing to do with illegal immigration, but rather legal immigrants who've committed illegal crimes and the vagueness of the existing laws surrounding what authority the government has.
The headline also insinuates an "us v. them" attitude, implying that liberals and conservatives must always be at odds. Any Supreme Court Justice knows to put whatever political values they have aside to interpret constitutionality of laws–that's exactly what Gorsuch did here. Labeling judicial decisions as "left" or "right" devalues the work that Gorsuch and the other Justices do. Even those in the past like Scalia, who many within the left would criticize (and many within the right would praise) but would vote similarly here. But what do their political leanings have to do with their interpretations of laws when it comes to their constitutionality? Answer: NOTHING. So leave it at that.
Even Judges lack common sense.