I understand your reasoning, but after reading Gorsuch's opinion I think the problem lies more in California's law.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gorsuch Already Siding With Court Libs
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
I understand your reasoning, but after reading Gorsuch's opinion I think the problem lies more in California's law.
Wallet is referring to the California burglary statue, which apparently included various things not ordinarily considered violent among its proscriptions.
"
“What does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products,” Gorsuch said.
“How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force?” he asked. “The truth is, no one knows.”
In October 2017, Gorsuch voiced concern as to how the court could define violent crime when Congress had failed to do so.
“Even when it’s going to put people in prison and deprive them of liberty and result in deportation, we shouldn’t expect Congress to be able to specify those who are captured by its laws?” he said.
The recent decision involves a caseregarding James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who has been living in the United States legally since 1992. Dimaya was charged on 2 counts of burglary in California which prompted the government to begin the deportation process."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amyfu...al-justices-in-this-immigration-case-n2472115
Gorsuch's point is borderline absurd. Courts make determinations like this every day. Breaking into a home clearly involves a substantial risk of violence. You have to live in an ivory tower to suggest otherwise. The fact that the California statue potentially includes non-violent actions is irrelevant if this guy was not convicted on that basis.
"
“What does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products,” Gorsuch said.
“How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force?” he asked. “The truth is, no one knows.”
In October 2017, Gorsuch voiced concern as to how the court could define violent crime when Congress had failed to do so.
“Even when it’s going to put people in prison and deprive them of liberty and result in deportation, we shouldn’t expect Congress to be able to specify those who are captured by its laws?” he said.
The recent decision involves a caseregarding James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who has been living in the United States legally since 1992. Dimaya was charged on 2 counts of burglary in California which prompted the government to begin the deportation process."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amyfu...al-justices-in-this-immigration-case-n2472115
Gorsuch's point is borderline absurd. Courts make determinations like this every day. Breaking into a home clearly involves a substantial risk of violence. You have to live in an ivory tower to suggest otherwise. The fact that the California statue potentially includes non-violent actions is irrelevant if this guy was not convicted on that basis.
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018...-aliens-not-going-removable-because-decision/
Former immigration judge, Andrew R. Arthur, joined SiriusXM hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Tonight, describing the Supreme Court decision in Sessions v. Dimaya as endangering Americans by restricting the federal government’s capacity to remove aliens convicted of “crimes of violence.”
...
He continued, “Kidnapping is another one, a very common crime in which the ‘crime of violence standard’ is used, but the Supreme Court said today that this particular provision — 18 U.S.C. 16 subsection (b) that I just read — is void for vagueness. It’s too vague to be applied, notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court actually applied it in a case called [Leocal v. Ashcroft]. So it is a little odd.”
Arthur said, “[James Dimaya] is a fellow who committed two burglaries. This isn’t a guy who drunk drove a couple of times or wrote bad checks. These are serious crimes, and these are crimes that actually have an effect on the community. For the courts to issue a decision like this, such a sweeping decision, was a little bit of a surprise.”
...
Arthur said, “Burglary, indecent assault and battery, stalking, and manslaughter: those are four pretty serious crimes. The idea that you can be a lawful permanent resident, commit one of these crimes, commit several of these crimes, and be allowed to continue to live among us, that’s a serious problem. In the short run, until this gets fixed, those individuals are going to be allowed to remain in the United States and stalk and burglarize and engage in assaults and batteries until this can be resolved.”
Former immigration judge, Andrew R. Arthur, joined SiriusXM hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Tonight, describing the Supreme Court decision in Sessions v. Dimaya as endangering Americans by restricting the federal government’s capacity to remove aliens convicted of “crimes of violence.”
...
He continued, “Kidnapping is another one, a very common crime in which the ‘crime of violence standard’ is used, but the Supreme Court said today that this particular provision — 18 U.S.C. 16 subsection (b) that I just read — is void for vagueness. It’s too vague to be applied, notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court actually applied it in a case called [Leocal v. Ashcroft]. So it is a little odd.”
Arthur said, “[James Dimaya] is a fellow who committed two burglaries. This isn’t a guy who drunk drove a couple of times or wrote bad checks. These are serious crimes, and these are crimes that actually have an effect on the community. For the courts to issue a decision like this, such a sweeping decision, was a little bit of a surprise.”
...
Arthur said, “Burglary, indecent assault and battery, stalking, and manslaughter: those are four pretty serious crimes. The idea that you can be a lawful permanent resident, commit one of these crimes, commit several of these crimes, and be allowed to continue to live among us, that’s a serious problem. In the short run, until this gets fixed, those individuals are going to be allowed to remain in the United States and stalk and burglarize and engage in assaults and batteries until this can be resolved.”
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018...-aliens-not-going-removable-because-decision/
Former immigration judge, Andrew R. Arthur, joined SiriusXM hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Tonight, describing the Supreme Court decision in Sessions v. Dimaya as endangering Americans by restricting the federal government’s capacity to remove aliens convicted of “crimes of violence.”
...
He continued, “Kidnapping is another one, a very common crime in which the ‘crime of violence standard’ is used, but the Supreme Court said today that this particular provision — 18 U.S.C. 16 subsection (b) that I just read — is void for vagueness. It’s too vague to be applied, notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court actually applied it in a case called [Leocal v. Ashcroft]. So it is a little odd.”
Arthur said, “[James Dimaya] is a fellow who committed two burglaries. This isn’t a guy who drunk drove a couple of times or wrote bad checks. These are serious crimes, and these are crimes that actually have an effect on the community. For the courts to issue a decision like this, such a sweeping decision, was a little bit of a surprise.”
...
Arthur said, “Burglary, indecent assault and battery, stalking, and manslaughter: those are four pretty serious crimes. The idea that you can be a lawful permanent resident, commit one of these crimes, commit several of these crimes, and be allowed to continue to live among us, that’s a serious problem. In the short run, until this gets fixed, those individuals are going to be allowed to remain in the United States and stalk and burglarize and engage in assaults and batteries until this can be resolved.”
There is a lot of talk about what does and does not constitute a violent crime and so on. The legal and constitutional complaint is that it is too broad. And that, therefore, Congress should or could more narrowly or specifically define the crime where deportation is applicable.
Okay, well, maybe we need to go in the other direction. Instead of micro-managing definitions we should go in the other direction. Just flat out change the law so that any person who is still just a green card holder but commits a felony of any kind is subject to deportation and a non-renewal of their permanent residency card.
For what reason are we allowing "permanent" residents to remain here who have committed felonies of any kind- violent or non-violent? My point being that maybe we should not even have to get drawn into the argument of what is a violent burglary versus a "just dropping by to take your stuff" burglary. The court confirmed that this is for the most part subject to what Congress wants- not the courts- so just do it. Change the law. If felony, then gone. Howz that definition work out for those who think the law needs to be clarified?
And yes the definition of felony changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but lets not go down that rat-hole to dismiss the idea. There are numerous ways where that is dealt with in licensing and permitting applications etc, "felony or any crime which could carry a maximum penalty of a year or greater" blah, blah, blah.
Last edited:
Im pulled in different directions on this case. One side I agree on deporting illegal aliens. ( yes I know there's a huge debate that follows regarding those already here, and the whys and such) but it doesn't remove the fact that they are here illegally when millions of others came to these shores through the traditional immigration bureaucracy.
The other part is leary of the abuse and overreach by government. We've seen it time and time again when what seemed at the time good laws are turned and used against the people. So laws and opinions restraining government are appealing.
I mentioned this in the other thread. This isn't a case where the innocent are wrongly convicted. This is more of the guilty set free by technicality.
The other part is leary of the abuse and overreach by government. We've seen it time and time again when what seemed at the time good laws are turned and used against the people. So laws and opinions restraining government are appealing.
I mentioned this in the other thread. This isn't a case where the innocent are wrongly convicted. This is more of the guilty set free by technicality.