Thousands of advocates, activists, and community members flooded the streets at Foley Square in New York City on July 12, 2019. (Photo: Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Jun 25, 2020
The ACLU warned Thursday that people's lives could be "in grave danger" following the Supreme Court's ruling allowing for fast-tracked deportations of certain asylum seekers.
The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.
CNNreported:
Currently, undocumented immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of a land border and within 14 days of arrival are subject to an expedited removal process and can be ordered removed without further hearing or review. If the individual seeks asylum, however, he or she is provided additional screening before an asylum officer, a supervisory officer, and an immigration judge to determine whether the person has a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to his or her home country.
The high court's ruling means that if the asylum seeker fails that initial screening, they can face "expedited removal."
"While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the court long ago held that Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien's lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the Due Process Clause," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor warned in her dissent, "Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any non-citizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U.S. citizens or residents."
As NBC Newsreported,
The ruling was a defeat for Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam of Sri Lanka, who was detained by federal agents 25 yards north of the U.S.-Mexico border. He said that as a member of his home country's Tamil minority, he faced harm if returned and had once been kidnapped and beaten, though he said he wasn't sure why he was assaulted. When his asylum claim was rejected, he sought help in federal court by filing a habeas corpus petition, invoking the Constitution's guarantee against unlawful detention. But the Supreme Court said the option wasn't open to him.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as USA Today reported, "agreed with the judgment but said they would have applied it only to Thuraissigiam's claim."
The decision drew sharp rebuke from ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case.
"This ruling fails to live up to the Constitution's bedrock principle that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers," said Gelernt. "This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger."
The ruling is a win for the President Donald Trump, who's made anti-immigrant policies a centerpiece of his administration.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The ACLU warned Thursday that people's lives could be "in grave danger" following the Supreme Court's ruling allowing for fast-tracked deportations of certain asylum seekers.
The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.
CNNreported:
Currently, undocumented immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of a land border and within 14 days of arrival are subject to an expedited removal process and can be ordered removed without further hearing or review. If the individual seeks asylum, however, he or she is provided additional screening before an asylum officer, a supervisory officer, and an immigration judge to determine whether the person has a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to his or her home country.
The high court's ruling means that if the asylum seeker fails that initial screening, they can face "expedited removal."
"While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the court long ago held that Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien's lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the Due Process Clause," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor warned in her dissent, "Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any non-citizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U.S. citizens or residents."
As NBC Newsreported,
The ruling was a defeat for Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam of Sri Lanka, who was detained by federal agents 25 yards north of the U.S.-Mexico border. He said that as a member of his home country's Tamil minority, he faced harm if returned and had once been kidnapped and beaten, though he said he wasn't sure why he was assaulted. When his asylum claim was rejected, he sought help in federal court by filing a habeas corpus petition, invoking the Constitution's guarantee against unlawful detention. But the Supreme Court said the option wasn't open to him.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as USA Today reported, "agreed with the judgment but said they would have applied it only to Thuraissigiam's claim."
The decision drew sharp rebuke from ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case.
"This ruling fails to live up to the Constitution's bedrock principle that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers," said Gelernt. "This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger."
The ruling is a win for the President Donald Trump, who's made anti-immigrant policies a centerpiece of his administration.
The ACLU warned Thursday that people's lives could be "in grave danger" following the Supreme Court's ruling allowing for fast-tracked deportations of certain asylum seekers.
The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.
CNNreported:
Currently, undocumented immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of a land border and within 14 days of arrival are subject to an expedited removal process and can be ordered removed without further hearing or review. If the individual seeks asylum, however, he or she is provided additional screening before an asylum officer, a supervisory officer, and an immigration judge to determine whether the person has a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to his or her home country.
The high court's ruling means that if the asylum seeker fails that initial screening, they can face "expedited removal."
"While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the court long ago held that Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien's lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the Due Process Clause," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor warned in her dissent, "Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any non-citizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U.S. citizens or residents."
As NBC Newsreported,
The ruling was a defeat for Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam of Sri Lanka, who was detained by federal agents 25 yards north of the U.S.-Mexico border. He said that as a member of his home country's Tamil minority, he faced harm if returned and had once been kidnapped and beaten, though he said he wasn't sure why he was assaulted. When his asylum claim was rejected, he sought help in federal court by filing a habeas corpus petition, invoking the Constitution's guarantee against unlawful detention. But the Supreme Court said the option wasn't open to him.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as USA Today reported, "agreed with the judgment but said they would have applied it only to Thuraissigiam's claim."
The decision drew sharp rebuke from ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case.
"This ruling fails to live up to the Constitution's bedrock principle that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers," said Gelernt. "This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger."
The ruling is a win for the President Donald Trump, who's made anti-immigrant policies a centerpiece of his administration.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.