Nevada Judge Claims It's Unconstitutional To Ban Re-Entry Into the Country After Deportation, Saying It Discriminates Against "Mexican and Latinx Individuals"

A Hawaiian judge serving in Nevada.

They want a borderless "country" and they don't care how they get it.

And what's the GOP doing about this? Nothing, except talking up the crushing need for more legal immigrants.

Or illegal ones. Either/or.

Whatever the Chamber of Commerce wants. Whatever FaceBook wants. Whatever Disney wants.

A federal judge in Nevada has declared unconstitutional a longstanding statute that makes it a crime to return to the United States after deportation, calling the law racist and discriminatory against "Mexican and Latinx individuals."

"The record before the Court reflects that at no point has Congress confronted the racist, nativist roots of Section 1326," U.S. District Judge Miranda Du wrote in a ruling issued Wednesday.

Her order dismissed a case against a man named Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez, who was indicted during the Trump administration.

...

Carrillo-Lopez was discovered in the U.S. in the summer of 2019 after having been deported in March 1999 and again in February 2012, according to his indictment.

Under Section 1326 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to U.S. Code, entry into the U.S. is illegal for anyone who has been denied admission, deported or removed.

"The amendments to Section 1326 over the past ninety years have not changed its function but have simply made the provision more punitive and broadened its reach," Du wrote.

...

"This is a big deal," [a former public defender named] Forsman said. "This issue was one that nobody thought you could win."

Because it's insane to claim you cannot criminalize people continually re-entering the country after they've been legally deported and told they cannot come back.

...

Congress first criminalized unlawful re-entry into the U.S. during that time frame as part of the Undesirable Aliens Act, or the Act of 1929.

When Section 1326 was enacted some 20 years later, Du wrote, Congress adopted language "word for word" from the Act of 1929, failing to "cleanse" its racist origins.

Du’s order also relies on data compiled by the U.S. Border Patrol.

"While no publicly available data exists as to the national origin of those prosecuted under Section 1326," she wrote, "over 97% of persons apprehended at the border in 2000 were of Mexican descent, 86% in 2005, and 87% in 2010."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Casper, who prosecuted the case, did not respond to a request for comment. But according to court documents, prosecutors do "not dispute that Section 1326 bears more heavily on Mexican and Latinx individuals."

Instead, the documents state, the government attributes the disparity to other causes.

"Specifically, the government argues that the stated impact is 'a product of geography, not discrimination' and the statistics rather ‘a feature of Mexico’s proximity to the United States, the history of Mexican employment patterns, and other socio-political and economic factors that drive migration from Mexico to the United States.'"

Du wrote: "The court is not persuaded."

The court is not persuaded that most of the deportations will concern persons of either the country that borders on the US or the other countries in the hemisphere that can be easily crossed to enter the US from the southern border.

She's basically saying: "You're not deporting as many white people from Canada or Europe!"

Well, yes, because there aren't many economic illegal migrants from those countries.

But "The court" is not persuaded, so.

posted by Ace at 02:48 PM

| Access Comments