Connect with us

Big League National Security

Supreme Court Rules Allowing ICE to Indefinitely Detain Illegal Immigrants

ICE hasn’t had the tools at their disposal to keep illegals at bay, but that may change after this ruling

Published

on

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a ruling yesterday that will allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to detain illegal immigrants indefinitely even after they have been released from custody.

SCOTUS issued their decision on Nielsen v. Preap with a 5-4 result, ultimately siding in favor of the Department of Homeland Security secretary in their ruling. Justices Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito voted in favor of Nielsen while Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan were opposed.

The case pertained to a statute requiring the mandatory detention of certain illegal aliens without bond. The law in question says that the Homeland Security secretary “shall take into custody” any illegal immigrant who has perpetrated certain criminal acts “when the alien is released” out of criminal custody.

Trending: WATCH: Black Lives Matter Protestors Overwhelmed by Counter-Demonstrators in Springfield, Oregon

The Trump administration argued that this law gave them the discretion to arrest and detain illegal immigrants indefinitely even after they have been released from custody. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contended that illegals should be afforded all kinds of rights, including a bond hearing, and that it is unconstitutional for the Trump administration to enforce immigration law.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Ultimately, SCOTUS sided with the Trump administration and not the Marxist attorneys employed at the ACLU. The subversive far-left organization is not happy with the results of this case.

“For two terms in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge. We will continue to fight the gross overuse of detention in the immigration system,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who argued the case in court and got her clock cleaned, in a press release.

In issuing his opinion for the court, Justice Alito released a powerful smack down on the Ninth District Court of Appeals – a highly politicized left-leaning court which regularly makes a mockery of the rule of law to oppose President Trump.

“In [certain] cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail. If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time— according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long—the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,” Justice Alito wrote, refuting the asinine interpretation of the law by robed liberal attorneys abusing their authority on the Ninth District Court.

“Four other Circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is wrong. We therefore reverse the judgments below and remand for further proceedings,” Alito added.

Justice Breyer was particularly feisty in his dissent of the court’s decision, arguing that ICE should be hamstrung at the expense of potentially dangerous migrants crossing the border illegally. He apparently considers it a deeply American principle to coddle invaders and grant them special privileges.

“I fear that the Court’s contrary interpretation will work serious harm to the principles for which American law has long stood,” Justice Breyer wrote.

Despite Breyer’s revisionism, mass immigration only became a reality in the United States after the 1965 Immigration Act was passed. Before that betrayal was pushed through, the US Republic was stronger than it is today by every conceivable metric. The Nielsen v. Preap decision will help undo some of the damage caused by the leftist push for multiculturalism and diversity.

Big League National Security

NEW: Joe Biden Bashes Incoming Trump Administration In Leaked 2016 Call to President of Ukraine

Completely inappropriate.

Published

on

Joe Biden speaks in critical and partisan terms of the incoming Trump administration in a new leaked call to the President of Ukraine unveiled Wednesday.

In the call, conducted in November 2016 a week after then-candidate Trump’s election victory, Biden bashes the incoming administration to the foreign leader, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Biden assails the Trump transition team as incompetent, turning down the idea of visiting the country before the January transition before Trump is “fully briefed” on matters related to Ukraine.

In a second call, Biden asks for Poroshenko to describe his conversations with incoming President Trump, going to to speak of Trump in more dismissive terms. He describes Trump as a “dog who caught the car, and who doesn’t know what to do.” Not quite a “dog-faced pony soldier,” but definitely not an appropriate way for an outgoing vice president to describe an incoming president to a foreign leader.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A Ukrainian comedian originally released the calls, suggesting questionable operational security within the conversations of Joe Biden and Poroshenko. Biden has a lengthy history of ethical questions regarding his relationship with Ukraine, including looking the other way as his son Hunter secured an extremely lucrative position at a Ukrainian oil company without any experience whatsoever in the energy industry.

Biden himself would later go on to demand the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating corruption allegations against the younger Biden, a clear conflict of interest Biden merely dismissed when he spoke openly of securing the prosecutor’s firing at a Council on Foreign Relations public event.

This is a totally inappropriate way for a Vice President to speak to a foreign leader, and the public should be concerned about how Biden plans to conduct diplomacy should he be elected President.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending