In a dramatic 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court has handed a definitive win to the Trump Administration in a case surrounding a Sri Lankan national: Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam. Mr. Thuraissigiam was apprehended shortly after penetrating the US-Mexico Border in January 2017 within just 25 yards of the border.
Following his arrest Thuraissigiam claimed that he had a credible fear of returning to his country because he had been beaten and abducted by persons unknown to him. Though he stated he did not fear persecution due to his race, beliefs or other protected classifications, it was determined by an asylum officer that he did not have the necessary “credible” fear of persecution to justify asylum. A supervisor reviewing the case agreed and signed off on the decision without a need to present it before a judge per an 1892 Supreme Court decision cited by Justice Alito,
“for “foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicil or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law,” decisions of administrative or executive officers exercising powers granted by Congress amount to due process.”
In his majority opinion joined by the other 4 conservative justices, Justice Samuel Alito refuted arguments that current Immigration laws preventing judicial review of the credible fear determination violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause,
“The ruling means the administration can deport some people seeking asylum without allowing them to make their case to a federal judge. The 7-2 ruling applies to those who fail their initial asylum screenings, making them eligible for quick deportation.”
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, a person arrested within 25 yards of the border has the same legal standing as if they were taken into custody the moment they crossed the border and so the 1892 ruling stands.
President Trump ran on a promise of deporting foreign nationals without legal standing to be in the country and this ruling upholds a streamlined process for those who are apprehended within a short distance of the border.
In a surprising, turn Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred with the conservative majority but in a limited fashion, they believe this ruling should only apply to the specifics of this case. "I agree that enforcing those limits in this particular case does not violate the Suspension Clause’s constitutional command," Breyer opined. "But we need not, and should not, go further."
Dissenting opinions aside, this SCOTUS ruling paves the way for the President Trump’s Department of Homeland Security to make significant progress toward the President’s goal of deporting the estimated 11.3 million unauthorized foreign nationals currently in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment