Prior Deportees get Hearing, 9th Circuit Says

The ultra-liberal 9th Circuit deemed an important part of the 1997 immigration bill passed by Congress SEVEN years ago, to be illegal. Any illegal alien, regardless of the number of deportations, is now automatically entitled to a full hearing before an immigration judge. The 9th Circuit - contrary to the opinion of other circuit courts on this very issue, overruled the intent of Congress that an alien - from the everyday immigration scofflaw to the violent convicted felon - who illegally reenters the US and has been previously deported, is not entitled to a hearing, only immediate reinstatement of their prior deportation. Not to mention the expense of detaining the alien, and the expense to the US taxpayer to litigate the case in court.

Tick tick tick tick.........tick......tick.......

Stinken Commie 9th Circus Court. The money and travesty of justice these fools cost us. Nearly every ruling they come up with gets overturned if the losing party (usually the good guys) can come up with the money to appeal. They're nothing but a bunch of Commie hacks trying to redefine the Consititution and our American way of life.

One of the three judges was Stephan Reinhardt. Very liberal, very dogmatic, very married to Ramona Ripston, executive director of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU.

I'm gonna save this for the next time I get into a immigration argument and somebody tells me we can just round them up anytime we want to. And it's stupid of Bush to consider a alternative means of documenting the undocumented illegal.

I can point to this and hundreds more and say SEEEEEEE!

I wonder how long it would take to process 10 million through the courts.

The system is working fine................or is the system just working normally?

This is going to bury those immigration offices in the 9th's jurisdiction, which is probably WHY these morons issued this ruling. Or else they were just bitter over the election and knew the havoc it would cause to the Bush administration...

Just think, only 23,000 detention beds available nationwide for the detention of illegals, which are pretty much always full, and mean that thousands of illegals get released every day because of a lack of space to detain them. Now there are hundreds of criminal illegals who come out of jails and prisons across the country every day, most of whom have previous deportations and would have gone right to the border within a day or two - now they all have to be processed for the hearings they are now entitled to, and find them a detention bed to await their hearing. And all an immigration hearing does is basically just determine if they have any right to be here.

Now also think of how backed up the immigration courts are, to the point where tens of thousands of aliens get released from immigration to await their hearings. Imagine the havoc this will wreak on the immigration court system as well. And I'm only talking about the criminals, nevermind all the non-criminals or those who use false documents or have misdemeanor convictions. Forget about detaining them for their hearings or getting a quick resolution, when they should just be deported again, like they were up until Thursday.

And not to mention this is now an incentive for people to llegally reenter, now that the penalty of immediate deportation is gone, and they can just hang around for years waiting for a hearing. This is really bad.

I think they out to put Joe Arpaio (sp?) in charge of housing the illegals. I'm sure he could get some more tents.

Why is any of this even a question? For chrissakes, why can't we keep these invaders out of our country?

It may spur congressional action to do the impossible.

But it looks now like they are even more hogtied.

I would like to see the entire code scrapped. and something like the Bush proposal instituted along with new codes,criminal regs for bad paper and deportations of any who do not pass the smell test..or do not have legit work.

The courts interference could be taken into account with the rewriting, and the hearing could be done in 500 new moterhomes with rolling judges.(If they care to act)

The thing is, that we must get rid of all the old precedents and legal BS from places like the ninth.

I am a realist, and I understand the need for immigration. Especially now, with a aging populace and millions of labor jobs that need workers.

Our economic future depends on it, but assimilation is absolutely necessary and we just don't have that now. It is out of control and the result will be the obvious overloaded state services and LEO plus something much more dangerous, and that is unassimilated clusters of non-english speaking illegals.

They are hastening the destruction of Europe as well. although my opinions do not match most immigration worry warts on this forum, I have the same concerns.

I am willing to allow honest hard working Mexicans a pardon of sorts and a large fine and probation for their transgression of crossing, if they do the things necessary to assimilate, learn English, or go back home after a finite time of work. To return only after reapplication and clearances.

The systems not working at all.

I doubt that it will work as designed, at least for a while.

Hey, they are only trying to protect "immigrants" like the guy mentioned in the following article. There is a move to break up the ninth circuit court of appeals...I hope they hurry.

Also, see this link for more of the same:
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html

Esparza pleads guilty to killing nun

KLAMATH FALLS (AP) - Maximiliano Silerio Esparza pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges that he raped two nuns and killed one of them as they walked and prayed on a bike path last September.
Esparza, 33, was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of Sister Helen Lynn Chaska, 53. He got another 10 years for the attempted murder of the surviving nun, and 15 years for raping the women.

In return for his guilty plea, Esparza avoided a possible death sentence.
In a statement, Edwin Caleb, the Klamath County district attorney, said he offered the plea for several reasons, including the surviving nun's religious convictions. Caleb said he didn't want to force the nun to testify.
"The most obvious reason is the certainty that this monster will be in jail for the rest of his life and never get the opportunity to offend again," he said.
Police say Esparza rode a train from Portland to Klamath Falls about a week before the attack. He visited a strip bar and then attacked the nuns early on a Sunday morning as they prayed on the downtown bike path.
Esparza head-butted one of the nuns, then raped them both while controlling them with the rosary beads around their necks, police said.
Chaska - who went by the name Sister Helena Maria - was strangled by her own beads, according to an autopsy. She was a nun with the Bellevue, Wash., Immaculate Heart of Mary, a small order unaffiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.
Several months before the attack, Esparza was detained and let go by U.S. Border Patrol agents in New Mexico even though he had spent three years in California prisons and had once been deported.
The agents did turn up an old drug charge in Oregon, but Multnomah County passed on extraditing him. The warrant was apparently the only evidence of Esparza's criminal past that surfaced during the checks.
Once Oregon declined to extradite, Esparza was treated like any other undocumented Mexican and was dropped off at the border.

Have you heard about the new Totalization agreement with Mexico. I'm sure the 9th circuit will uphold that as well.

Totalization: Sellout of American Workers

by Phyllis Schlafly
Nov. 17, 2004
The Democrats are trying to make a campaign issue out of George W. Bush's alleged plan to "privatize" Social Security, scaring seniors into thinking their checks will be cut off. That is a phony issue; all Bush suggests is to offer younger workers the option (not the compulsion) of transferring a very small part of their Social Security benefit into private investments.

The real threat to Social Security doesn't come from giving young people this opportunity. The threat comes from the Bush Administration's plan to load illegal aliens into the Social Security system, an idea that would skyrocket costs and bankrupt the system at the same time that baby boomers flood into their benefit years.

The code word for this racket is "totalization." The United States has totalization agreements with 20 other countries, which have been reasonable and non-controversial, but totalization with Mexico is TOTALLY different.

The idea behind totalization with other countries is to assure a pension to those few individuals who work legally in two countries by "totalizing" their payments into the pension systems of both countries. All existing totalization agreements are with developed nations whose retirement benefits are on a parity with U.S. benefits, and the affected employees work for companies that have been paying taxes into the other countries' retirement systems.

Workers from the other 20 countries come with documents from their employer verifying that they are authorized to work in the United States. Only a minuscule fraction of Mexicans enter with such documents.

The legitimate goal of totalization with other countries is to avoid double taxation for retirement when employers assign their employees to work temporarily in another country. Reciprocity works because there is rough parity between the number of U.S. workers in the 20 other countries and the foreigners from those countries who work in the United States.

But this goal has no relevance to Mexico. There is no parity whatsoever between the number of Mexicans working in the United States and the number of U.S. citizens working in Mexico, and absolutely no parity in the social security systems of the two countries.

Mexican benefits are not remotely equal to U.S. benefits. Americans receive benefits after working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before receiving any benefits.

Mexican workers receive back in retirement only what they actually paid in, plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed.

Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which is estimated to cover only 40 percent of the workforce. The rest of the workers are in the off-the-record economy (euphemistically called the "informal" sector).

The 10 million Mexicans who have illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, did not pay social security taxes in Mexico, and did not work for employers who paid taxes into a retirement plan. If they were working at all, it was in the off-the-record economy.

Illegality is no issue with the countries where we have existing totalization agreements because none of them accounts for even one percent of the U.S illegal population. On the other hand, Mexico provides more than two-thirds of the illegals in the United States.

The Bush totalization plan would pay out billions in Social Security benefits to Mexicans for work they did in the U.S. using fraudulent Social Security numbers, something that Americans would go to jail for doing. It would pay Social Security Disability benefits to Mexicans who worked in the United States as little as 3 years.

The Bush totalization plan would lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Bush plan would even cover the Mexicans' spouses and dependents who may never have lived in the United States.

Since few if any of the illegal aliens have built up any equity in the Mexican retirement system, what is there to totalize? Totalization is a plan for the U.S. taxpayers to end up assuming the entire burden.

When George W. Bush became President in 2001, the Mexican government expected the United States to pass amnesty (disguised as a guest worker plan and "regularizing" the entry of Mexicans). After 9/11, Mexico's national policy turned to increasing the number of its nationals working in the United States and getting them to qualify for all the social benefits and privileges Americans receive, from driver's licenses to Social Security and Social Security Disability.

The Social Security commissioners of both Mexico and the Bush Administration signed a totalization agreement in June of 2004, but the text of the agreement has been kept secret. Maybe we will be permitted to see it after the President approves it and sends it to Congress.

Let your Members of Congress know you want them to stop this billion-dollar sellout of American workers and taxpayers.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/nov04/04-11-17.html

You are a sentimental fool. Mexicans and Central Americans will never pay into Social Security what you hope, so they can support retiring (white) workers. In fact their families suck off social services in the here and now.

Sentimental?????

i don't have a clue what you mean by that. I suppose it is a better way to say A******.

Currently, most ALL jobs being performed by illegal Mexican labor and even the legal ones are of the cash and carry type. This method of paying employees is quite legal, as long as a 1099 is issued, and you might guess what they do with them.

Documentation of the currently undoc'd workers and the identification of their employers will force them into the system where few were before.

Yes, they will be eligible as any other worker for payouts on retirement, but at least they will be paying in, and they are young and numerous. Their employers will also be matching those contributions and State and local tax bases will be increased in proportion to the numbers, so they will recoup some of their losses as well.

I do not see where sentimentality enters into this obvious problem. Nor the results of documentation and employer regulation.

Half the Mexicans/Central Americans are working off the books. Many of the others are claiming numerous dependents they don't have, so little taxes are taken from their paychecks.

You reward illegal illegal immigration and you will get a lot more of the same. Thus I am anti amnesty or whatever phony name the gubbermint gives it today.

Fine.

I see no other alternative, as the article that prompted this thread indicates.

Basically we are fighting our own immigrant friendly Constitution and courts.

Guess who is winning the argument and will continue to do so.

State and local LEO is not only not helping, they are in many cases prevented from doing so. Since the feds are hogtied, that leaves congressional action that will pas constitutional muster.

Or suspension of habeas and invocation of martial law to overcome all legal protections.

Your being against any so called amnesty only translates to status quo failure.

It is better to gain control of the numbers through new innovative but controversial legislation and code repair than to fight changes that would benefit the country in the long run, as there is no possibility of a short run fix.