A decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday broadens the distinction between U.S. citizens and legal immigrants and could have repercussions for people locally, according to a Eugene attorney. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled last week that the federal government has the right to detain legal immigrants without bail until the immigrant is deported. Legal immigrants will now have fewer constitutional protections than American citizens, according to the four justices who dissented from the majority opinion.
The Constitution expressly forbids the government from holding a person without due process of law, including the filing of charges and a hearing to contest them. But the Supreme Court said immigrants shouldn't have the same constitutional rights as citizens because there is an overriding public interest in giving the government power to reduce immigrant criminal activity in the United States.
The court's decision upholds a 1996 immigration law that requires authorities to detain immigrants who have committed certain crimes. Even non-citizens who commit crimes such as shoplifting can be detained after they are sentenced, so long as their crime results in a jail term of one year or more.
In the court's opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist refuted critics' claims that the 1996 law is too harsh, writing, "Congress adopted this provision against a backdrop of wholesale failure by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deal with increasing rates of criminal activities by aliens."
But local immigration lawyers oppose that line of reasoning, arguing that immigrants are being treated unfairly by the judicial system, an occurrence that many people believe is becoming more commonplace in post-Sept. 11 America.
Raquel Hecht, a Eugene immigration lawyer, said a large number of her clients will be affected by Tuesday's decision, significantly impairing her ability to argue their cases. She added the court's decision will lead to the fragmentation of families, as family members convicted of minor crimes are hurriedly deported and the routes available to protest their removal start to disappear.
"I think (the court's decision) is going to limit the constitutional rights of long-term immigrants," she said.
Four justices seem to agree with Hecht.
Justice David Souter, along with Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, dissented from the majority's opinion, criticizing the court's official decision and reasoning.
"Due process calls for an individual determination before someone is locked away," Souter wrote, adding that lawful, permanent residents often build strong ties to America and aspire to become full-fledged citizens.
"This case is not about the national government's undisputed power to detain aliens in order to avoid flight or prevent danger to the community," Souter stated. "The issue is whether that power may be exercised by detaining a still lawful permanent resident alien when there is no reason for it and no way to challenge it."
Contact the senior news reporter
at jenniferbear@dailyemerald.com.
Page 1 of 1
Article Tools
Contact Us
