Supreme Court eases rules for foreigners with expired visas to try to stay in US.
The AP reports that the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that will make it easier for foreigners who overstay their visas to stay in the U.S. legally.
The 5-4 ruling allows “someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States.”
I have seen the arguments about crack offenders used and want to point it out too.
(for those that use the argument) Rules and laws change. I just do not want the Constitution changed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1119916620071210
From what you have written above, “the 5-4 ruling allows “someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntary agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States”.
It DOES NOT mean it makes it easer to “stay in the US legally”. It seems to permit the person to remove their plea agreement to leave the US on a voluntary basis and fight deportation, but it does not not expand the individual’s right to stay. It mirrors our criminal courts in that it allows the person to withdraw their decision or change their mind and fight the deportation order. That action results in a hearing before an immigration judge rather than admitting they are here illegally and accepting deportation.
LuckyDuck,
Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose the second paragraph wasn’t the best wording.
your analysis of the case is extremely erroneous, you would have failed law school I’m afraid. the case does not make it “easier” did you read the entire opinion? You’ll also note that the court was divided down the middle on this issue. Illegal immigration it seems also has some strong detractors on the court as well.
you know your postings over the last month have swung so far to the left it’s pitiful, yet when put on notice about this you all spout the same “we take a centrist view” line. Where BVBL does take a far right approach, you certainly take up the far left. I’m still left wondering (as are many of your readers I’m sure) when the blog will come along that takes a more central and common sense approach because this blog certainly is not it.
em,
Seems pretty central to me. The administrative posts are to create discussion amongst the readers. You can agree, disagree, or chart your own course. If you want to think this is a liberal blog, you are certainly free to do so.
Now as for throwing cheap shots about failing law school, Alanna is not a lawyer. Her degrees tend to be more technical in nature. However, since people who live in glass houses should not be throwing boulders, I cannot resist pointing out that you, dear EM, would not have passed 5th grade English. So if Alanna is stuck in remedial laws school and you are stuck in 5th grade. Now which is more embarrassing? Sorry, I couldn’t resist because you were pretty personally nasty rather than challenging ideas.
Next time point out how “the analysis is extemely erroneous,” rather than taking cheap shots.
Junkyard dog, thanks for your considerate and thoughtful response to em. The one thing I appreciate about this site is that the readers are actually thinking about the issues, and discussing them civilly. As a community, we need to be able to work through our ideas and issues on-line and in person. bravo. -SC