By Tank Murdoch
(TNS) On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the government and opponents of President Donald Trump’s asylum policy that seeks quick removal of migrants who don’t qualify under U.S. law.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, the high court heard arguments in two separate cases involving “disputes that pit immigration authorities’ campaign to curb immigration against fundamental guarantees of due process.”
- Check out “80:1 – Silver’s Incredible Potential Surge” — download for FREE in Crisis Reports
The paper continued:
In both cases, immigrants who are ethnic or religious minorities in their homelands sought to claim protection under the international Convention Against Torture, a treaty signed by President Reagan that forbids deportation of aliens to countries where they are likely to be persecuted. The Trump administration argued that neither Congress nor the Constitution has allowed the aliens the right to court review of deportation orders issued by immigration officials.
The one case case in particular involves Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a Lebanese who came to the U.S. in 2006 when he was 17. After obtaining a green card, he was arrested and sentenced to a year in prison under a plea bargain deal after federal prosecutors accused him of buying 273 cases of stolen cigarettes worth about $600,000.
“I was hooked on the easy money and was looking forward to using it to go to graduate school, open a business or buy a house,” Nasrallah said in an immigration-court affidavit. “I was as stupid as you can be. I threw away all my advantages, my college degree and the respect of my family.”
The government — Obama’s government, by the way — moved to quickly deport him but an immigration court judge blocked it, finding that as a member of the Lebanese Druze minority who has Western ties, he was more likely to be captured by Hezbollah fighters who are rampant in the country and tortured. However, that judge was eventually overruled by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then ruled it could not intervene in the case because it had no authority to review the immigration board’s findings.
The crux of the issue is this: Nasrallah is arguing that his due process rights were violated, though, remember, he’s not a U.S. citizen and he committed a crime.
Compare this case and Nasrallah’s argument with the passage of “red flag laws” in scores of U.S. states — laws that blatantly violate the due process rights (as well as Second Amendment rights) of American gun owners who see judges ordering police officers to take away their firearms on a suspicion or belief they could become violent.
No crime committed yet with a firearm. No crime committed at all. Nothing. Just a ‘belief’ that sometime in the future said person might commit an act of violence. And viola: Goodbye firearms.
Not only does that obliterate the Second Amendment’s “infringement” clause, it blows away a citizen’s right to face his/her accuser, as well as the right to counsel and the right to refute allegations.
- Be prepared for coronavirus and BEYOND with survival kits from Survival Frog — Click here
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is actually considering whether the ‘due process rights’ of a criminal immigrant have been violated.
Someone hit the “reset” button, please.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW