Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Supreme Court: Foreigners May Continue to Adjust Their Status

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like

    Supreme Court: Foreigners May Continue to Adjust Their Status

    [QUOTE=FOXNews.com]WASHINGTON The Supreme Court has made it easier for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally.

    The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States.

    The case involved two seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One allows people to avoid being deported by agreeing to leave the country voluntarily. The advantage to that course is that the wait to get back to the United States is shorter.

    The other provision allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances have changed to make their case to immigration officials. To do that, however, they must remain in the U.S.[/QUOTE]

    So, the Supreme Court has taken awat Proporty Owners rights. Taken away the Executive's authority to wage War and handle Prisoners. And now it usurps the Congresses power to control immigration.

    We need immigration reform, no doubt. But is the Supreme Court re-writing the Law the way to achieve it?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=Warfish;2585544]So, the Supreme Court has taken awat Proporty Owners rights. Taken away the Executive's authority to wage War and handle Prisoners. And now it usurps the Congresses power to control immigration.

    We need immigration reform, no doubt. But is the Supreme Court re-writing the Law the way to achieve it?[/quote]

    [B]Huh?[/B]

    The issue is that there are two conflicting provisions of the immigration law as written by Congress. On allows illegal aliens to agree to "voluntary departure" within 60 days.

    Another allows "motions to reopen" which must be decided within 90 days.

    The problem is that the periods are not coextensive - an alien who agreed to voluntary departure but then moves to reopen is stuck. And its not just a matter of saying "screw the 60 days, I'll just stay around" - because the penalty for doing that is essentially that there is no legal way to stay in the US.

    Just a quick (ridiculous) example:

    Jon, a blonde student from Ireland, overstays his visa. He is caught and agrees to voluntary departure.

    Two days after his agreement to voluntary departure, Ireland passes a law requiring all blonde Irish to report to concentration camps.

    Jon now has a problem. He'll be persecuted if he returns to Ireland. That means he's now eligible for political asylum in the US.

    What does he do? If he moves to reopen, he will need to overstay the 60 day period required by his voluntary departure agreement. But overstaying a voluntary departure agreement makes him ineligible for immigration under any circumstances (in other words, if he does that, his asylum petition is trashed automatically, no matter how meritorious it was).

    Or he could leave the country as required by his voluntary departure agreement. But if he does that, then his motion to reopen will be deemed withdrawn - in other words, the end result is the same: his asylum petition is trashed.

    In order to allow the motion to reopen (a motion[B] congress [/B]created in its immigration law) to have any meaning in the context of an alien who agreed to voluntary departure, the Supreme Court ruled that the alien must be allowed to withdraw his agreement to voluntary departure at any time prior to the 60 days.

    This isn't exactly earth shaking stuff, and they didn't strike down any laws.

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2585570][B]Huh?[/B]

    The issue is that there are two conflicting provisions of the immigration law as written by Congress. On allows illegal aliens to agree to "voluntary departure" within 60 days.

    Another allows "motions to reopen" which must be decided within 90 days.

    The problem is that the periods are not coextensive - an alien who agreed to voluntary departure but then moves to reopen is stuck. And its not just a matter of saying "screw the 60 days, I'll just stay around" - because the penalty for doing that is essentially that there is no legal way to stay in the US.[/QUOTE]

    We both know I am no legal mind, but I disagree with your premise.

    An Alien who volunteers to leave has volunteered to leave, period. To me that is a binding agreement from a guy here illegally in the first place. He should not then have the abillity to then say "No, I didn't agree/volunteer to leave, I want to 'motion to reopen' instead, go me!". If he wanted to go that route, he should not have volunteered to leave if the first place.

    But I guess if that is not explicit in the Law (that one cannot do one, then renig on it and do the other) then I assume your point in valid.

    I'm fine with corrections to contradictions in the Law, but you'll fogive me if, after seeing many recent rulings, if I do not trust the motivations of the court to simply arbitrate the Law. I see a pro-illegal immigrant bias here.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2585544]

    So, the Supreme Court has taken awat Proporty Owners rights. Taken away the Executive's authority to wage War and handle Prisoners. And now it usurps the Congresses power to control immigration.

    We need immigration reform, no doubt. But is the Supreme Court re-writing the Law the way to achieve it?[/QUOTE]Sort of makes you wonder why we even bother voting in elections, huh?

    I mean other than the fact that we are voting for the people who get to choose the 9 Justices who will rule over us with an iron fist, appointed for life {sort of like dictators or kings and queens}, and apparently no longer giving a rats @$$ less about the [COLOR="Red"]so-called[/COLOR] seperation of powers which is steadly turning into a complete farce

    Co-equal branches of Government .. HA HA .. that's the funniest thing I ever heard in my life :rolleyes:
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-16-2008 at 03:03 PM.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=Warfish;2585641]We both know I am no legal mind, [B]but I disagree with your premise.[/B]

    [B]An Alien who volunteers to leave has volunteered to leave, period. To me that is a binding agreement from a guy here illegally in the first place. He should not then have the abillity to then say "No, I didn't agree/volunteer to leave, I want to 'motion to reopen' instead, go me!". If he wanted to go that route, he should not have volunteered to leave if the first place.[/B]

    [B]But I guess if that is not explicit in the Law (that one cannot do one, then renig on it and do the other) then I assume your point in valid.[/B]
    [/quote]

    Fisher, its not my premise, its Congress' - they enacted a law allowing motions to reopen.

    [quote]I'm fine with corrections to contradictions in the Law, but you'll fogive me if, after seeing many recent rulings, if I do not trust the motivations of the court to simply arbitrate the Law. I see a pro-illegal immigrant bias here.[/quote]

    I'm just not sure how the ruling is "pro-illegal immigrant".

    An illegal immigrant who chooses to withdraw voluntary departure to contest deportation has a very, very, very high likelihood of being deported anyway, spending the duration of the immigration fight in INS detention, and being deported with far harsher consequences (an alien who accepts voluntary departure can re-immigrate legally in a relatively short time frame; an alien who loses a contested deportation proceeding faces a long immigration bar).

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=Green Jets & Ham;2585662]Sort of makes you wonder why we even bother voting in elections, huh?

    I mean other than the fact that we are voting for the people who get to choose the 9 Justices who will rule over us with an iron fist, appointed for life {sort of like dictators or kings and queens}, and apparently no longer giving a rats @$$ less about the [COLOR=red]so-called[/COLOR] seperation of powers which is steadly turning into a complete farce

    Co-equal branches of Government .. HA HA .. that's the funniest thing I ever heard in my life :rolleyes:[/quote]

    Ham, you realize that the SC didn't overturn any law here, right?

    If Congress disagrees, all they need to do is enact a bill saying "aliens cannot withdraw voluntary departure" and this ruling will have no effect.

    SCOTUS didn't rule that there was some constitutional right to move to reopen, regardless of whether Congress wants it that way.

    They ruled that the law Congress wrote created that right.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=Warfish;2585641]We both know I am no legal mind, but I disagree with your premise.

    [B]An Alien who volunteers to leave has volunteered to leave, period. To me that is a binding agreement from a guy here illegally in the first place[/B]. He should not then have the abillity to then say "No, I didn't agree/volunteer to leave, I want to 'motion to reopen' instead, go me!". If he wanted to go that route, he should not have volunteered to leave if the first place.
    . . .[/quote]

    Just wanted to point out that this applies to plea agreements, as well - a defendant who enters a plea agreement is free to withdraw his guilty plea until the moment of sentencing (IIRC)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2585726]

    Ham, you realize that the SC didn't overturn any law here, right?

    If Congress disagrees, all they need to do is enact a bill saying "aliens cannot withdraw voluntary departure" and this ruling will have no effect.

    SCOTUS didn't rule that there was some constitutional right to move to reopen, regardless of whether Congress wants it that way.

    They ruled that the law Congress wrote created that right.[/QUOTE]Nah I realize that, doggin, its just that I'm still smartin' over last weeks debacle

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2585721]Fisher, its not my premise, its Congress' - they enacted a law allowing motions to reopen.

    I'm just not sure how the ruling is "pro-illegal immigrant".[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2585728]Just wanted to point out that this applies to plea agreements, as well - a defendant who enters a plea agreement is free to withdraw his guilty plea until the moment of sentencing (IIRC)[/QUOTE]

    Fair enough. As I said, you'll just have to forgive me that I have little faith and trust in the neutrallity of the S.C. when it comes to simply ajudicating the Law. Frankly, I have little trust or faith in any of our Govt. Branches nowadays.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2585662]Sort of makes you wonder why we even bother voting in elections, huh?

    I mean other than the fact that we are voting for the people who get to choose the 9 Justices who will rule over us with an iron fist, appointed for life {sort of like dictators or kings and queens}, and apparently no longer giving a rats @$$ less about the [COLOR="Red"]so-called[/COLOR] seperation of powers which is steadly turning into a complete farce

    Co-equal branches of Government .. HA HA .. that's the funniest thing I ever heard in my life :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
    Just a question because I was not around here then. Did you have the same outrage about non-elected SC Justices imposing their will and ending the recount in Florida? As you well know that was very much a states rights issue where the Federal Courts, at the behest of Bush told a state how to count their votes.

    Please I don't want to rehash that decision here. I just wonder if the same people so angry at the Court now and the non-elected judges felt the same way then.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2585570][B]Huh?[/B]

    The issue is that there are two conflicting provisions of the immigration law as written by Congress. On allows illegal aliens to agree to "voluntary departure" within 60 days.

    Another allows "motions to reopen" which must be decided within 90 days.

    The problem is that the periods are not coextensive - an alien who agreed to voluntary departure but then moves to reopen is stuck. And its not just a matter of saying "screw the 60 days, I'll just stay around" - because the penalty for doing that is essentially that there is no legal way to stay in the US.

    Just a quick (ridiculous) example:

    Jon, a blonde student from Ireland, overstays his visa. He is caught and agrees to voluntary departure.

    Two days after his agreement to voluntary departure, Ireland passes a law requiring all blonde Irish to report to concentration camps.

    Jon now has a problem. He'll be persecuted if he returns to Ireland. That means he's now eligible for political asylum in the US.

    What does he do? If he moves to reopen, he will need to overstay the 60 day period required by his voluntary departure agreement. But overstaying a voluntary departure agreement makes him ineligible for immigration under any circumstances (in other words, if he does that, his asylum petition is trashed automatically, no matter how meritorious it was).

    Or he could leave the country as required by his voluntary departure agreement. But if he does that, then his motion to reopen will be deemed withdrawn - in other words, the end result is the same: his asylum petition is trashed.

    In order to allow the motion to reopen (a motion[B] congress [/B]created in its immigration law) to have any meaning in the context of an alien who agreed to voluntary departure, the Supreme Court ruled that the alien must be allowed to withdraw his agreement to voluntary departure at any time prior to the 60 days.

    This isn't exactly earth shaking stuff, and they didn't strike down any laws.[/QUOTE]

    Very well stated. Are you an attorney?

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=maury420;2585740]Very well stated. Are you an attorney?[/quote]

    yep, with Thelen Reid in NY. I gather from your posts you do crimlaw?

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    Immigration laws are confusing and not simple to say the least. It is not as easy as people think.



    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2585745]yep, with Thelen Reid in NY. I gather from your posts you do crimlaw?[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2585736]

    Just a question because I was not around here then. Did you have the same outrage about non-elected SC Justices imposing their will and ending the recount in Florida? As you well know that was very much a states rights issue where the Federal Courts, at the behest of Bush told a state how to count their votes.

    Please I don't want to rehash that decision here. I just wonder if the same people so angry at the Court now and the non-elected judges felt the same way then.[/QUOTE]Unelected Judges were invited into that process by Al Gore when his team took it to court, at that point appeals up the the SCOTUS were inevitable, but George Bush did not take it into the Judicial realm, that was Al Gore's decision

    Remember, Gore didn't trust Florida's elected officials to settle the issue so he took it to court
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-16-2008 at 03:57 PM.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2585749]Immigration laws are confusing and not simple to say the least. It is not as easy as people think.[/QUOTE]

    Oh it could be. Immigration is not as diffiucult a concept as some like to believe.

    That is, if anyone had an interest in REAL immigration reform, rather than the endless pandering, corruption and evil of the two Parties on this issue.

    Amnesty, open welfare and and an endlessly open border is not the answer, no matter how much the Republicrats and Democans might like to convince us.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2585756]Unelected Judges were invited into that process by Al Gore when his team took it to court, at that point appeals up the the SCOTUS were inevitable, but George Bush did not take it into the Judicial realm, that was Al Gore's decision[/QUOTE]
    Please I don't want to debate the whole decision but you are wrong on the facts. Gore took it to Florida State Court (where I don't know if the Judges are elected or not but good chance that they are), which had jurisdiction over recounts in Fla, when Katherine Harris refused to order them. Considering that the count had him down by around 500 votes that was the proper thing to do. Are you really saying that he should have just dropped it after Katherine Harris rules? Oh well Bush's Florida campaign Chairwoman made a ruling so I guess I lost? That's totally unreal. You know if the situations were reversed any Republican would have done the same thing.

    Bush appealed the Florida Courts ruling to the Federal level bringing in those unelected SC Justices.

  17. #17
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2585745]yep, with Thelen Reid in NY. I gather from your posts you do crimlaw?[/QUOTE]

    Yeah. I am trying to expand my immigration practice, but I'm just starting up.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    You have a point, but you have to click your heels three times before you make that statement again.

    But trust me to do what you are saying you will never want to pay for it.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2585758]Oh it could be. Immigration is not as diffiucult a concept as some like to believe.

    That is, if anyone had an interest in REAL immigration reform, rather than the endless pandering, corruption and evil of the two Parties on this issue.

    Amnesty, open welfare and and an endlessly open border is not the answer, no matter how much the Republicrats and Democans might like to convince us.[/QUOTE]

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2585766]

    Please I don't want to debate the whole decision but you are wrong on the facts. Gore took it to Florida State Court (where I don't know if the Judges are elected or not but good chance that they are), which had jurisdiction over recounts in Fla, when Katherine Harris refused to order them. Considering that the count had him down by around 500 votes that was the proper thing to do. Are you really saying that he should have just dropped it after Katherine Harris rules? Oh well Bush's Florida campaign Chairwoman made a ruling so I guess I lost? That's totally unreal. You know if the situations were reversed any Republican would have done the same thing.

    Bush appealed the Florida Courts ruling to the Federal level bringing in those unelected SC Justices.[/QUOTE]Look I'm not saying what he did was wrong or Bush wouldn't have done the same thing, I'm just saying once it was taken to court {by Al Gore} it was inevitable it would be appealed to the SCOTUS because either side that lost at any level was going to appeal it to the next level until it went right up the chain of command to the final level

    Just like you said, should Gore accept Kate Harris's ruling, Bush wasn't going to accept some circuit court judges ruling either, so once it entered that arena its final destination was the SCOTUS

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    I thought it was Bush's people who pushed it on the federal level.

    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2585784]Look I'm not saying what he did was wrong or Bush wouldn't have done the same thing, I'm just saying once it was taken to court {by Al Gore} it was inevitable it would be appealed to the SCOTUS because either side that lost at any level was going to appeal it to the next level until it went right up the chain of command to the final level

    Just like you said, should Gore accept Kate Harris's ruling, Bush wasn't going to accept some circuit court judges ruling either, so once it entered that arena its final destination was the SCOTUS[/QUOTE]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us