Appeals Court Overrules Activist Leftwing Minnesota Judges, Declares That Illegal Aliens Can Be Held Indefinitely Without Bond While Waiting for Their Deportation

This is important because if you want to deport someone -- put them on a plane -- you need to have physical custody of their bodies, and activist judges keep ruling that after ICE captures an illegal alien, he must be allowed to go free. He'll just show up for his actual deportation, right?

No, of course not. He will disappear "into the shadows," as Jeb Bush might say.

But that's what these activist, lawless Democrat judges want -- a soft judicial repeal of the power to deport. They can't just say "we're overruling Congress" -- Congress has the power to make laws about immigration and naturalization, of course -- so instead they just spam out fake requirement after fake requirement to make it effectively impossible to deport anyone.

In short -- they want to codify Biden's lawless executive decision to open the borders and guarantee all comers a permanent residency in America into "law" without having to go through the bother of actually changing the law.

The Eighth Circuit is the second appeals court to tell lowly court judges they do not have the power to overrule both Congress and the President.

Appeals court lets Trump administration hold many immigration detainees without bond

A panel of appeals court judges handed the Trump administration a major legal victory on Wednesday in its quest to detain large swaths of immigrants living in the country illegally, saying that people who entered the United States without inspection and admission can be detained without bond.

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit marks the second time that a federal appellate court has sided with the administration on the issue, even as hundreds of lower court judges across the country have taken the opposite view. The conservative Fifth Circuit issued a similar ruling earlier this year.

Wednesday's ruling could impact more than 1,000 immigration detention cases in Minnesota alone, according to a source in the U.S. Attorney's office in that state. The Eighth Circuit also oversees six other states stretching from North Dakota to Arkansas.

The case involved a man named Joaquin Herrera Avila, a citizen of Mexico who was apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security in Minneapolis last August. DHS detained him without bond and brought removal proceedings against him.

His lawyers filed a petition of habeas corpus seeking his release, and the U.S. District Court in Minnesota granted the request. Wednesday's decision reversed the lower court's ruling.

The majority opinion was drafted by Judge Bobby Shepherd, a George W. Bush appointee, and joined by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a Trump appointee. Judge Ralph R. Erickson, who was appointed during President Trump's first term, dissented.

"Except for a single DUI, for nearly 20 years, Joaquin Herrera Avila had been living a law-abiding life in the United States," Erickson wrote. "For the past 29 years, Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his removal proceedings. The court now holds that Avila--and millions of others--are subject to mandatory detention."

...

But the Trump administration has argued that anyone who entered the U.S. illegally is subject to mandatory deportation, unless immigration authorities grant them parole on humanitarian or public interest grounds.

Last fall, a Justice Department-run immigration court made a sweeping determination that the government could essentially detain a large swath of immigrants indefinitely while their removal proceedings are pending.

Since then, federal courts across the United States have been crushed by a tidal wave of cases filed by immigrants challenging their detention. In most cases, U.S. District Courts have sided with the immigrants and ruled against the government. According to a tally from Politico, more than 400 judges have ruled against the government in more than 5,000 cases.

And that's not all. The Supreme Court appears inclined to side with the Administration on the government's right to turn away "asylum" seekers at the border.

The majority of Supreme Court justices appeared to be sympathetic to the idea that the Trump administration should be able to turn away asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border. If the court rules in favor of the administration, the government will be able to revive a policy used during Trump's first term, where those seeking asylum were stopped at the border from setting foot in the US.

Federal law dictates that those who arrive in the US and are "physically present in the United States" or "arrive in the United States" can apply for asylum. The issue is whether noncitizens merely have to show up to the border to request asylum or if they have to cross the border fully before applying.

The majority of justices appeared to be sympathetic to the Trump administration in the case, per the New York Times. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that "arrives in" means that someone has fully crossed the border.

"'Arriving" sounds more 'in the process of.' 'Arrives in' sounds more like 'you've reached your destination,'" Justice Barrett said in the hearing. "If it's not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing?" Former President Barak Obama implemented the policy where some seeking asylum would be turned around at the border, which was expanded by Trump. However, that policy was rescinded under the Biden administration.

Biden rejected Trump's border security measures and allowed tens of millions of illegal immigrants to cross into the United States, be paroled, and wait for immigration hearings that were often scheduled five or more years down the road. At one point during his term in office, Biden dismissed a bunch of immigration cases, leaving migrants in a legal limbo with neither legal status nor deporation orders.

The Trump administration has urged the justices to allow the policy to be reinstated. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested that the debate about where a migrant is at when they request asylum is "very artificial." Two of the liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, had tougher questions for the administration in the case. They were the only justices who appeared sympathetic to allowing the full embrace of asylum claims at the border.

Look, we don't give thanks enough. Trump has had some bumps and oopsies this term, but he's been great 96% of the time. 96% will get you an A anywhere. An A+, really, with the curve.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 03:10 PM

| Access Comments