Home / News / National / Supreme Court ruling a big defeat for open border proponents

Supreme Court ruling a big defeat for open border proponents

Open border proponents were given a setback this morning as the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may deport illegal aliens quickly and with only limited judicial review. The ruling also covers those who claim asylum.

The 7-2 ruling was a victory for President Donald Trump on immigration, his signature political issue, and could affect thousands of individuals who illegally entered the U.S. The President has moved to quickly deport to their home country, thousands of MS-13 gang members, drug cartel agents and terrorists who WERE apprehended along the border and in U.S. cities, plus other individuals who have travelled to Mexico from other nations.

President Trump has repeatedly reiterated that the U.S. welcomes all immigrants who seek asylum legally. He has also stated that it is unfair for individuals to enter the country illegally, bypassing other individuals who have applied for legal entry through the immigration process.

The opinion in the case, known as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) v. Thuraissigiam, was written by Justice Samuel Alito. Two of the courts liberal justices joined with conservatives. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justice Elena Kagan joined. Both were appointed by President Barack Obama.

Most asylum claims “ultimately fail, and some are fraudulent,” Alito wrote for the court.

“In 1996, when Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) … it crafted a system for weeding out patently meritless claims and expeditiously removing the aliens making such claims from the country.

“It was Congress’s judgment that detaining all asylum seekers until the full-blown removal process is completed would place an unacceptable burden on our immigration system and that releasing them would present an undue risk that they would fail to appear for removal proceedings.”

The statute imposed restrictions on the ability of asylum seekers to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed, but, after Sri Lankan national Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam’s claim that he had a credible fear of persecution in his homeland was rejected, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a lower court ruling and found he was entitled to challenge his detention in federal court.

But Congress is entitled to speed up the removal process, and according to the Supreme Court’s precedents, the detention review-limiting provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act do not run afoul of the Constitution, Alito wrote in overturning the decision rendered by the 9th Circuit.

The case goes back to 2017, when Sri Lankan Thuraissigiam was arrested 25 yards north of the U.S.–Mexico border in San Ysidro, California, after entering the country unlawfully. His case was processed under the expedited removal system instead of the slower-moving traditional removal system.

Justice Sotomayor criticized her fellow justices in her dissent, saying they were ignoring binding legal precedents.

“The majority declares that the Executive Branch’s denial of asylum claims in expedited removal proceedings shall be functionally unreviewable through the writ of habeas corpus, no matter whether the denial is arbitrary or irrational or contrary to governing law. That determination flouts over a century of this Court’s practice.”

The Supreme Court is considering other border issues for the next term.

–EPOCHTimes News Service