Supreme Court OKs speedy deportations for newly arrived illegal immigrants

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the legality of speedy deportations for immigrants who are in the country illegally, ruling that constitutional rights such as access to the court system don’t automatically kick in just because someone touches U.S. soil.

The 7-2 decision was a major blow to immigrant rights advocates, who say the current system, known as expedited removal and which puts power in the hands of immigration agents and supervisors, is too harsh.

Activists had argued that undocumented immigrants who have just arrived in the U.S. should be allowed access to the courts to challenge their removal — effectively prolonging their stay for months or years, even if they are here illegally.

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said a new arrival does not have due process rights under the Constitution. And he blasted a lower appeals court for ruling otherwise, saying it creates “a perverse incentive” to try to sneak into the country and then make a bogus asylum claim, earning better treatment than those who show up at a port of entry.

“The Constitution gives ’the political department of the government’ plenary authority to decide which aliens to admit,” Justice Alito wrote, adding that “a concomitant of that power is the power to set the procedures to be followed in determining whether an alien should be admitted.”

Justice Alito said the situation is different for an undocumented immigrant who has already made it into the interior and was arrested and detained while awaiting deportation.

He was joined by the court’s four other Republican-appointed justices.

Two Democratic appointees, Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sided with the majority in the case but were wary of drawing the broad conclusions Justice Alito did that due process rights don’t kick in just by touching U.S. territory.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying the ruling shuts down access to the courts even in a case in which the government got the decision clearly wrong. She was joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

Immigrant rights advocates were dismayed.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles saw the ruling less as a legal statement and more as a political attack, comparing it to last week’s decision blocking President Trump’s attempt to roll back the Obama-era DACA deportation amnesty.

The group said the high court appeared to be creating a distinction of “good immigrants” and “bad immigrants.”

“Legal status should be a process that provides a just path to people who want to become part of this country and provide a better life for their families than they find in their countries of origin — not some kind of litmus test that separates people according to perceived personal qualities,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of the coalition.

But the Justice Department hailed the decision, saying it will make it easier for the government to police U.S. borders.

Expedited removal was created by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. It allows newly arrived migrants to be ousted after a decision by an immigration officer.

It currently applies to migrants caught within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of their arrival, though the Trump administration is trying to expand that scope to the entire nation and the time to anyone who arrived within the last two years.

That expansion is being challenged.

Thursday’s case involved a Sri Lankan man who jumped the border and made it 25 yards into the U.S. before being apprehended. He attempted to make an asylum claim, but an asylum officer ruled he didn’t meet even the initial threshold of showing he had a credible fear of being sent home. An immigration judge agreed, and he was put into expedited removal.

He then renewed his asylum claim and demanded the right to appeal the immigration decision to the Article III courts.

He argued that because he made it 25 yards into the U.S., he earned constitutional rights including habeas corpus — in this case the ability to have a federal court review his deportation.