Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

G_j

(40,366 posts)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:38 PM Feb 2012

Does the fed. gov. have something to hide from the Supreme Court about its "alien return policy"?

From the NLG: Does the federal government have something to hide from the Supreme Court about its "alien return policy"? The Guild's National Immigration Project thinks so, and a district judge agrees.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/08/43723.htm

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Solicitor General May Have Misled on Immigration


MANHATTAN (CN) - The U.S. Office of the Solicitor General may have misled the Supreme Court about resources the government provides wrongly deported immigrants who win their appeals, a federal judge ruled, ordering the disclosure of redacted emails.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff opened his blistering 20-page order with a quotation he attributed to late 19th century political commentator Peter Finley Dunne.
"'Trust everybody, but cut the cards,' as the old saying goes," the order states. "When the Solicitor General of the United States makes a representation to the Supreme Court, trustworthiness is presumed. Here, however, plaintiffs seek to determine whether one such representation was accurate or whether, as it seems, the Government's lawyers were engaged in a bit of a shuffle."
In 2009, the Office of the Solicitor General told the high court in a brief that by "policy and practice, the government accords aliens who were removed pending judicial review but then prevailed before the courts effective relief by, inter alia, facilitating the aliens' return to the United States by parole under § U.S.C. 1182(d) (5) if necessary, and according them the status they had at the time of removal."
The Supreme Court relied on that assurance, made without citation, to hold that deportation did not qualify as "irreparable harm" in the case of Nken v. Holder.

..more..

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Does the fed. gov. have s...