Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Supreme Court Rules Immigrants Can Lie on Their Applications 2017-06-22 08:14:07 Post No. 130968121
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Supreme Court Rules Immigrants Can Lie on Their Applications 2017-06-22 08:14:07 Post No. 130968121
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Supreme Court Rules Immigrants Can Lie on Their Applications
Anonymous
2017-06-22 08:14:07
Post No. 130968121
[Report]
http://archive.is/4X5lU
The government may not strip someone’s citizenship for lying during the naturalization process without proving the falsehood is relevant, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The court unanimously rejected the government’s view that simply proving that someone lied during the process was enough. Justice Elena Kagan said that would give the government too much power.
“The government opens the door to a world of disquieting consequences,” Kagan wrote, adding that it would “give prosecutors nearly limitless leverage — and afford newly naturalized Americans precious little security.”
The case at the court involved a Bosnian native, Divna Maslenjak, who was criminally prosecuted for lying on her application about her husband’s military service. She was deported by the Obama administration, which held the broad view that any misrepresentation — whether relevant or not — was enough to give the government the right to consider revocation.
Maslenjak was granted refugee status in 1999 along with her family. She is an ethnic Serb and said she and her family faced persecution. She became a U.S. citizen in 2007. During her immigration hearing, she said her husband evaded conscription into the army. In fact, he had served in a Bosnian unit implicated in war crimes.
Divna Maslenjak was convicted, and she and her husband were deported to Serbia, while their children were allowed to remain in Ohio.
>>
>>130968121
where is "relevant" defined
i hate when the interpretation is left solely to the judge.
or is it for the jury? i dont really know how the murkan justice system works
>>
File: balkans vs serbia.jpg (512KB, 1111x741px) Image search:
[Google]
512KB, 1111x741px
>>130968121
>only time Obama will deport someone is if they're a Serb
Typical.
>>
File: 1337300661991.jpg (17KB, 270x216px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 270x216px
>>130968121
>tfw the supreme court are moving goalposts
When someone in court questions the relevance of what is being stated or used as evidence, it is in regards of the already outlined case. But with this, instead the relevance is left entirely up to the judge and jury. Under this, Muhammed can lie his ass off, the cucked judge and jury can just broken record "relevance?" to the prosecution, and the situation is fucked, fucked, fucked.
>>
>>130969839
True, but I think this has been a gaping goatse hole in our immigration laws since the civil war. It's really just affirming the fact that the government is not allowed to strip citizenship of anyone for any cause. It's complete bullshit.
We really just need to write some goddamn amendments that completely overhaul immigration. Get rid of this hole, so that literal invaders and criminals can be stripped of citizenship. End birthright citizenship. Retroactively apply these things so that current anchor babies (even if they've been here for 40 years) get their citizenship stripped too.
Of course I'd also like to put in an amendment saying only whites can be citizens or immigrate here, but hey, babysteps
>>
>Justice Elena Kagan said that would give the government too much power.
Nice to see a Justice pick and choose what's to much power.
>Obamacare
>>
>>130968121
This is reasonable enough, small errors like mistaken dates or typos should be just reported and corrected, if you want to punish fine them as well.
This is not talking about shit like lying on your nationality or hiding your previous criminal record.
>>
And of course this will also apply to natural born citizens who may lie about irrelevant information on government forms also, right? Or are you going to continue threatening them with jail time and fines?
>>
>>130971574
Yeah, no. Classic mistake. You're projecting your rationale and reason onto them. Once new precedents are set it is very difficult to go back from them. Projecting reasonableness and rationale onto the opposition is how we almost ended up with Shillary as POTUS and we barely acted in time. You know the saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me and so forth? I think you get the point.
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3