Supreme Court allows quick removal of asylum-seekers
Source: USA Today
Supreme Court allows quick removal of asylum-seekers
Richard Wolf
USA TODAY
Published 10:10 a.m. ET Jun. 25, 2020 Updated 10:37 a.m. ET Jun. 25, 2020
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court handed a green light Thursday to the Trump administration in its effort to speed up the removal of those seeking asylum.
The court ruled that asylum-seekers claiming fear of persecution abroad do not have to be given a federal court hearing before quick removal from the United States.
The decision was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
The case, one of many to come before the high court involving the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration, concerned Sri Lanka native Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam. He was arrested 25 yards north of the Mexican border and immediately placed in expedited removal proceedings.
{snip}
Immigration officials determined that Thuraissigiam did not have a credible fear of persecution, even though he is a member of Sri Lanka's Tamil ethnic minority that faces beatings and torture at the hands of the government.
{snip}
Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-trump-administration-removing-asylum-seekers/3087251001/
Right, Twitter's no good for LBN. I get it. I'll come up with something.
-- -- -- -- --
Original:
Scotus rules for Dept of Homeland Security in immigration case. That's the court's only opinion of the day, Tune in next week
Link to tweet
-- -- -- -- --
WiseGuyHat Retweeted
https://twitter.com/Popehat
Alito, who wrote the opinion in Thuraissigiam, did not appear to understand the facts of the case at oral arguments.
Link to tweet
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,600 posts)Sheesh, there's nothing about this at Google News. Something will show up.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Sigh.
Kudos to Justices Kagan and Sotomayor for sticking their necks out in defense of the oppressed people of the world. History, I hope, will be on their side.
-Laelth
iluvtennis
(19,871 posts)FBaggins
(26,757 posts)They agreed that the ruling was correct in this case... but thought that it should be a narrow ruling impacting just this case. The ruling sets a larger precedent that they think is unwarranted (that there could be scenarios where this ruling would control... but they wouldn't rule the same way).
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Polybius
(15,476 posts)Was it the right decision? I usually trust whatever RGB does.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Evidently, theres a concurrence that she joinedagreeing with the majority (in this instance) but in which fears are expressed about establishing an inappropriate precedent.
-Laelth
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)"The court's other two liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed with the judgment but said they would have applied it only to Thuraissigiam's claim."