quote:

The case the high court ruled in involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him. The government argued among other things that he could be removed from the country because his convictions qualified as crimes of violence that allowed his removal under immigration law.

I try not to understand lawyers but if he was he legally then why would you deport them?
Sending back the illegals makes sense to ME but like I said > not a lawyer.

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:
They need to "un-vague" the law and be laser beam specific, then resubmit to the SCOTUS. What is their problem? List the crimes that will apply a speedy exit from our country. "Vague" is all too common in laws. 2 burglaries? Let me see here...yep, it is on the list, number 44. SCOTUS is just doing their job.

Although revising the law makes perfect sense to people like us (i.e. intelligent people who have the country's best interests in mind), getting anything immigration related passed through congress right now would be all but impossible. And my bet. If you opened the door to revising this law, you'd have Dem's and RINO's actively trying to further water it down. Unfortunately, that's the 'Twilight Zone' country we live in today.

Since I haven't read either of the SCOTUS opinions on this ruling 'yet', I'll reserve my opinion on it until later.

quote:

if he was here legally then why would you deport him?

If you're not a US citizen and you break the law you can, among other things, be deported - whether you came in legally or not, and regardless of how long you've been here. The only people who absolutely cannot be deported are citizens - which is why it was a big deal when former Nazi concentration camp guards (for example) are discovered in the US, stripped of their citizenship for having lied on their application for citizenship, and sent back to face trial in Europe.

quote:

The case the high court ruled in involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him.

So let me get this straight, this guy has been here ~26 years and is now ~39 years old. Too bad, besides for being not so good at "criminalling", he also didn't bother to achieve citizenship, which would make deporting him moot...

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

The case the high court ruled in involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him.

So let me get this straight, this guy has been here ~26 years and is now ~39 years old. Too bad, besides for being not so good at "criminalling", he also didn't bother to achieve citizenship, which would make deporting him moot...

Well, if he'd bothered to get his citizenship he'd be safe from deportation.

BUT, not bothering with the citizenship thing probably never stopped him from voting in California. . .

It was an unusually split result.

quote:

KAGAN, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, IV–B, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined, and an opin- ion with respect to Parts II and IV–A, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY and ALITO, JJ., joined as to Parts I–C–2, II–A–1, and II–B

For those so inclined, the opinion in full and dissents, all 96 pages, is here.

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:
They need to "un-vague" the law and be laser beam specific, then resubmit to the SCOTUS. What is their problem? List the crimes that will apply a speedy exit from our country. "Vague" is all too common in laws. 2 burglaries? Let me see here...yep, it is on the list, number 44. SCOTUS is just doing their job.

I don't think they can resubmit. The guy was tried and went to the Supreme Court already. But I get your point. Back in 2015 when the opinion came down that the law was too vague, why couldn't a senator or representative pick up the ball and specify the sh*t out of it. What were they doing? Sitting on their hands? Like they didn't hear about the ruling?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:
They need to "un-vague" the law and be laser beam specific, then resubmit to the SCOTUS. What is their problem? List the crimes that will apply a speedy exit from our country. "Vague" is all too common in laws. 2 burglaries? Let me see here...yep, it is on the list, number 44. SCOTUS is just doing their job.

I don't think they can resubmit. The guy was tried and went to the Supreme Court already. But I get your point. Back in 2015 when the opinion came down that the law was too vague, why couldn't a senator or representative pick up the ball and specify the sh*t out of it. What were they doing? Sitting on their hands? Like they didn't hear about the ruling?

Not politically important then, or too hard to get a consensus on re-drafting. Immigration is a toxic issue for both parties.

quote:

Immigration is a toxic issue for both parties.

That is true.
The grass roots "base" of each party oppose open immigration. The "elite" monied interest of both parties support open borders... though for different reasons.

Who has time to dream up proper laws and vote on them when there are all these hearings on day time cable national TV to primp for and interviews. You can’t just wing those and expect to impress anyone, you know.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Who has time to dream up proper laws and vote on them when there are all these hearings on day time cable national TV to primp for and interviews. You can’t just wing those and expect to impress anyone, you know.

Not to mention they can't be late for the evening cocktail circuit (e.g. wined & dined by lobbyists, $2000 plate fundraisers, etc)

quote:

Gorsuch joined the court's more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

OK, when he was being confirmed, did he not say he would only rule on what a law actually says and not interject personal feelings (whatever they are) into a ruling? That's what we wanted, isn't it?

quote:

In 1992, James Garcia Dimaya, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. In both 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted in California of first-degree residential burglary. In both instances, upon conviction, Dimaya was sentenced to two years in prison. Under federal law, if a non-citizen is convicted of an aggravated felony, then that individual is subject to removal from the United States. Based on Dimaya's two first-degree burglary convictions, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleged that Dimaya was subject to removal because the crimes for which he was convicted under California law constituted crimes of violence for which the term of imprisonment [was] at least one year. Such a crime constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), which utilizes the definition of crime of violence provided under 18 U.S.C. § 16.

18 U.S.C. § 16 defines a crime of violence as,[3]

“
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. [4]

In a deportation hearing, an immigration judge agreed with DHS' argument that first-degree burglary in California constituted a crime of violence. The judge explained that "unlawful entry into a residence is by its very nature an offense where is apt to be violence [sic], whether in the efforts of the felon to escape or in the efforts of the occupant to resist the felon." The judge held that Dimaya was subject to removal from the United States and ineligible for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Dimaya appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

https://ballotpedia.org/Sessions_v._Dimaya


Doesn't sound vague at all to me. Pretty specific actually. Bolded and colored for emphasis.

One take on it though I am a bit skeptical, especially since even Justice Kennedy was on the dissenting side, as this statement seems pretty clear to me as the law states a crime of violence is against a person or property:

"The law, as written, provides a legal basis for the deportation of a legal immigrant who is convicted of “crime of violence,” defined as “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...rvative-originalism/

"Conservatives can be expected to disagree reasonably over Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion Tuesday in Sessions v. Dimaya, in which he concurred with the Court’s liberals and cast the deciding vote in a 5-4 ruling invalidating an immigrant’s deportation.
But it is not reasonable to claim that Justice Gorsuch has somehow sold out his principles to become the next David Souter. His opinion in Dimaya is actually a conservative one, based on an originalist reading of the Constitution.

The majority held that Section 16(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutionally vague. The law, as written, provides a legal basis for the deportation of a legal immigrant who is convicted of “crime of violence,” defined as “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

The legal immigrant in question has been convicted twice of first-degree burglary in California. But the Court held, following the precdent in Johnson v. United States (2015), that the idea of “substantial risk” of physical violence was just too vague. Congress simply had not provided a precise enough definition of a “crime of violence.” That meant that the Fifth Amendment due process rights of a legal immigrant convicted of a crime could be violated by deportation.

Gorsuch’s concurring opinion begins:

Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolu­tion, the crime of treason in English law was so capa­ ciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.

In other words, Gorsuch is not concerned with the welfare of this immigrant or any other. Rather, he is concerned about the federal government potentially abusing its power by exploiting vague language in the law.

He goes on to point out that “burglary” includes “everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products,” leaving the courts in the dark about how to determined a “substantial risk” of force.

Gorsuch also addresses the question of whether invalidating a statute for vagueness is itself constitutional — a question raised by Justice Clarence Thomas in his own dissenting opinion — and applies originalist arguments to that subject as well, citing precedent and principle in 18th century English law.

The main dissenting opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, disagrees that the law is unconstitutionally vague, distinguishing the Dimaya case from the Johnson precedent and saying that the courts were merely called upon to make a “commonsense inquiry” about the risks of violence. And Thomas questions the “vagueness” doctrine itself.

Gorsuch’s opinion is not a case of yet another Republican appointee to the Supreme Court going liberal. Rather, it is analogous to Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), in which the original originalist voted against President George W. Bush because he believed that the Constitution forbade the government from holding an American citizen — even one accused of fighting alongside our terrorist enemies — without charge.

These cases both remind us that originalists will sometimes disagree in their conclusions, even if they agree in their methods.

And in this case, there is a clear remedy: Congress can simply amend the statute to clarify “crimes of violence.”

Far from violating the trust under which he was appointed, Gorsuch is fulfilling his commitment to originalism."

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News.

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:

He goes on to point out that “burglary” includes “everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products,” leaving the courts in the dark about how to determined a “substantial risk” of force.

Horseshit.

quote:

Burglary - In criminal law. The breaking and entering the house of another in the night-time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not. Anderson v. State, 48 Ala. 606, 17 Am. Rep. 36; Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457, 8 Sup. Ct. 1240, 32 L. Ed. 234; Hunter v. State, 29 Ind. 80; State v. Pettit, 32 Wash. 129, 72 Pac. 1021; State v. Langford, 12 N. C. 253; State v. McCall, 4 Ala. G44, 39 Am. Dec. 314; State v. Wilson, 1 N. J. Law, 439, 1 Am. Dec. 216; Com. v. Newell, 7 Mass. 245. The common-law definition has been much modified by statute in several of the states. For example: “Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse, or other building, tent, vessel, or railroad car, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any felony, is guilty of burglary.” Pen. Code Cal.

https://thelawdictionary.org/burglary/

A door to door salesman is not there to enter a home with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any other felony. They're trying to sell vacuum cleaners and life insurance.

In the *night time*?

quote:

too vague to be enforced.

Heck, one could say that about a huge portion of the Code of Federal Regulations. Or almost the entire IRS Code.

I would have voted the same way Gorsuch did. It's bad verbiage.

Think of it this way: they don't ban the AR-15 style rifles. Instead, they ban guns of violence.

It is a felony if you are caught with "a gun of violence."

So, the 2nd Amendment allows you to own a gun, but if you own a "gun of violence" you will be tossed in jail.

Everyone would be okay with that? Obviously we wouldn't, I'm just trying to give it a little context. What exactly is a "gun of violence?" Everyone will have a different definition of what that means.

Is burglary a crime of violence? Many would say yes because you are breaking into someone's home. Others would say no because you didn't physically harm a person. I heard an LBGT person on Louder with Crowder say that calling her anything other than her preferred pronouns is an act of violence.

Just because we think a definition is clear, doesn't mean everyone views it the same way. To avoid inconsistent application of our criminal laws from judge to judge, the Constitution demands laws be clear so citizens don't risk falling under them without having any idea they've done something to violate them.

Laws must be clearly written so all citizens clearly know what violates the law. This law is simply too vague and needs to be clarified.

There is a saying among lawyers, "tough cases make good law."

This is a tough case, but it makes good law. It tells the legislatures that they need to be specific when defining criminal conduct. In general, I think we all agree that's a good thing. the legislature can easily define what types of crimes make someone eligible for deportation.

In making this decision, Gorsuch is showing that he's a true Constitutionalist and intends to follow it.

quote:

Originally posted by StayFrosty:
Horseshit.

quote:

Burglary - In criminal law. The breaking and entering the house of another in the night-time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not. Anderson v. State, 48 Ala. 606, 17 Am. Rep. 36; Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457, 8 Sup. Ct. 1240, 32 L. Ed. 234; Hunter v. State, 29 Ind. 80; State v. Pettit, 32 Wash. 129, 72 Pac. 1021; State v. Langford, 12 N. C. 253; State v. McCall, 4 Ala. G44, 39 Am. Dec. 314; State v. Wilson, 1 N. J. Law, 439, 1 Am. Dec. 216; Com. v. Newell, 7 Mass. 245. The common-law definition has been much modified by statute in several of the states. For example: “Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse, or other building, tent, vessel, or railroad car, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any felony, is guilty of burglary.” Pen. Code Cal.

A door to door salesman is not there to enter a home with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any other felony. They're trying to sell vacuum cleaners and life insurance.

That is not a typical burglary statute. Black's law dictionary should not be confused with actual statutes in your state.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
I would have voted the same way Gorsuch did. It's bad verbiage.

Think of it this way: they don't ban the AR-15 style rifles. Instead, they ban guns of violence.

It is a felony if you are caught with "a gun of violence."

So, the 2nd Amendment allows you to own a gun, but if you own a "gun of violence" you will be tossed in jail.

Everyone would be okay with that? Obviously we wouldn't, I'm just trying to give it a little context. What exactly is a "gun of violence?" Everyone will have a different definition of what that means.

Is burglary a crime of violence? Many would say yes because you are breaking into someone's home. Others would say no because you didn't physically harm a person. I heard an LBGT person on Louder with Crowder say that calling her anything other than her preferred pronouns is an act of violence.

Just because we think a definition is clear, doesn't mean everyone views it the same way. To avoid inconsistent application of our criminal laws from judge to judge, the Constitution demands laws be clear so citizens don't risk falling under them without having any idea they've done something to violate them.

Laws must be clearly written so all citizens clearly know what violates the law. This law is simply too vague and needs to be clarified.

There is a saying among lawyers, "tough cases make good law."

This is a tough case, but it makes good law. It tells the legislatures that they need to be specific when defining criminal conduct. In general, I think we all agree that's a good thing. the legislature can easily define what types of crimes make someone eligible for deportation.

In making this decision, Gorsuch is showing that he's a true Constitutionalist and intends to follow it.

I agree with you.

But, the expression is "tough (or hard) cases make bad law." The idea is that a difficult or sympathetic set of facts will lead jurists to make exceptions to rules, or imprecise rules that will lead to unexpected and undesirable results in cases where the facts are more straightforward.

In this situation, if the courts made an exception and deported this guy even though the definition of "crime of violence" isn't clear, because they wanted to deport him, that would be bad law because then the courts and government could deport someone in the future for an even less good reason. "We deported him because he was speeding, and speeding can result in car crashes, and what could be more violent than a car crash?"