A BLOW TO IMMIGRANTS

[tonado]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/...ion/5755707.htm

 

Posted on Thu, May. 01, 2003

 

A BLOW TO IMMIGRANTS

COURT CHIPS AWAY AT RESIDENTS' RIGHTS

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing immigrants to be detained pending their deportation hearings is a blow to many legal residents who have been snared by a harsh 1996 law. Congress should revisit the law to lessen its impact on thousands of immigrants who have committed less-egregious offenses than the serious felonies anticipated by Congress.

 

In a 5-4 decision this week, the court said that the government can imprison immigrants who are contesting deportation without first giving them a chance to show that they aren't a flight risk or a danger to society. The court upheld a 1996 law that affects tens of thousands of permanent legal residents who have been convicted of drug violations and other lesser crimes deemed ``aggravated.''

 

The case involved Sam Kim, 24, who moved to California from Korea with his family when he was 6 years old. Mr. Kim got into trouble as a teenager, first for breaking into a tool shed and later for stealing $100 worth of books from a Costco store. Although the latter offense was petty theft, the 1996 law's definition of ''aggravated felony'' is so broad that that offense constituted a deportable crime and triggered INS proceedings against Mr. Kim.

 

When Congress passed the law, it wanted to deport hardened criminals and wrote language to ensure that none would escape while awaiting deportation proceedings. Thus, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority that ``when the government deals with deportable aliens, it does not require it to employ the least burdensome means to accomplish its goal.''

 

Mr. Kim was jailed for six months but won release pending his deportation. A federal court had found that Mr. Kim wasn't a flight risk and ordered him released. Immigration authorities objected, however, arguing that Mr. Kim was a flight risk because 20 percent of immigrants fail to show up for deportation. The Supreme Court majority agreed that Congress intended the law to be broadly interpreted.

 

In dissent, Justice David Souter argued that the Fifth Amendment requires that a specific determination be made that a person was a flight risk or a danger to society. Quoting a 1987 ruling, Justice Souter wrote: ``In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.''

 

While released from jail, Mr. Kim got a job and enrolled in college. His lawyer is challenging the deportation on grounds that it doesn't fit the criteria outlined by Congress. Mr. Kim, a legal permanent resident, knows little about Korea and doesn't speak the language. He is like thousands of other lawful residents who deserve at least a chance to be freed so that they can defend themselves.

 

The Supreme Court should have provided a better protections for legal residents. However, it's up to Congress to fix the 1996 law.

[AZwolfman]

Seems sorta like "guilty until proven innocent."