Open border types get busted in the face by the Supreme Court: illegal aliens are NOT entitled to bail.

Some things are blatantly obvious: Allowing those who are here illegally to be let OUT here on bail?

That's idiocy wrapped in stupidity.

Absent immediate deportation, which should be the standard, of course; keeping these people locked up until they wave any effort to stay seems like an obvious action to take.

I loathe illegal aliens.  I loathe governments at all levels who support them and front for them.  I loathe the ideas that those here illegally appear to get benefits and rights that our own homeless do not get.

The US Supreme Court, in a 5 to 3 vote, ruled that Courts cannot make an extra-Constitutional judgment (aka "constitutional avoidance") as a basis for skirting the Constitution to legislate from the bench... which, far more often then not, is what the 9th Circus is known for.

Of course the dissent in this case is dead wrong.  They rail on about what the founding documents and principles say... but I guarantee you this: there is nothing in those documents that first, supersedes the Constitution of the United States and second, that allows those here in violation of the laws of this land to remain here as if they were citizens.

Illegals are just that: illegal. Leftists have called me everything but green for that position, not the least of which involves being racist (I suppose my half-Filipino son might disagree) and that such an accusation is borne of cowardice in the face of factual law.

I want EVERY illegal, regardless of color, religion, gender, sexual preference or any OTHER classification, OUT of here.

I believe that to be a relatively easy goal to achieve.  But rest assured, I could care less if you're brown, white, or a one-eyed Turk from Stuttgart... if you're here illegally??

You need to leave.  Whether you do it voluntarily... or do it with our boot up your ass.

POLITICS

No Bail Hearings for Detained Immigrants, Supreme Court Rules

By ADAM LIPTAKFEB. 27, 2018

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
• Save

Photo

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., left, joined all of the majority opinion, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the bench. CreditBrendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that people held in immigration detention, sometimes for years, are not entitled to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail.

The vote was 5 to 3, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. Justice Stephen G. Breyer summarized his dissent from the bench, a rare move signaling intense disagreement.

The majority ruled on narrow grounds, saying that the immigration laws do not by their terms authorize the hearings. It sent the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, instructing it to consider whether the Constitution requires the hearings.

The Ninth Circuit had ruled that bond hearings are required after six months to determine whether detainees who do not pose flight risks or a danger to public safety may be released while their cases proceed. The court based its ruling on an interpretation of the federal immigration laws, not the Constitution, though it said its reading was required to avoid constitutional difficulties.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority on Tuesday, said that this interpretive approach, called “constitutional avoidance,” was unavailable here, as the words of the immigration laws were plain. “The meaning of the relevant statutory provisions is clear — and clearly contrary to the decision of the court of appeals,” Justice Alito wrote.

More: