SCOTUS rules that "crime of violence" is too vague

Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
tldr: Immigrant convicted of burglary, twice. Govt. tried to boot him as an aggravated felon. Immigration Judge says first-degree burglary is a "crime of violence". Immigrant appealed to 9CA. At the same time, SCOTUS rules that a clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) defines "violent felony" was too vague, thus unconstitutional. SCOTUS confirms the "crime of violence" clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is also too vague.

Gorsich joined Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in the 5-4 vote.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
 
Toxick

Toxick

Splat
Capture.PNG
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I guess I have to admit while burglary is a crime, it is not a violent crime unless the burglar is armed and threatens to hurt if he doesn't hurt.

OTOH I don't see the distinction as being great - only that a violent crime puts an illegal at the head of the line -
but an illegal is still an illegal. They still get deported.

And I am not sure the threshold for crime ought to be that high. I don't think if steal cars you should be allowed to stay, for example.
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
SamSpade said:
I guess I have to admit while burglary is a crime, it is not a violent crime unless the burglar is armed and threatens to hurt if he doesn't hurt.

OTOH I don't see the distinction as being great - only that a violent crime puts an illegal at the head of the line -
but an illegal is still an illegal. They still get deported.

And I am not sure the threshold for crime ought to be that high. I don't think if steal cars you should be allowed to stay, for example.
Click to expand...

The subject of this case is a legal permanent resident.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Monello said:
Hopefully for not too much longer. We have enough home grown criminals to deal with. We don't need to import anymore.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Besides immigrants having a lower crime rate that native-born Americans, I thought it was pretty clear that he won't be deported.
 
Monello

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
Chris0nllyn said:
:confused:

Besides immigrants having a lower crime rate that native-born Americans, I thought it was pretty clear that he won't be deported.
Click to expand...

But this 1 particular immigrant has a much higher propensity for crime than all the people I know. So I guess he will now see the light and become some beacon of civility? No, he will go back to stealing from people, then maybe he will get shown the southern door.

So what is a reasonable crime rate for immigrants? 1%? 5%? 20%? 50%? I feel that criminality and immigration should be closely linked. Break our laws and out you go. I'm sure most feel that way.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Monello said:
But this 1 particular immigrant has a much higher propensity for crime than all the people I know. So I guess he will now see the light and become some beacon of civility? No, he will go back to stealing from people, then maybe he will get shown the southern door.

So what is a reasonable crime rate for immigrants? 1%? 5%? 20%? 50%? I feel that criminality and immigration should be closely linked. Break our laws and out you go. I'm sure most feel that way.
Click to expand...

As tempting as it is, I don't think we should base nation-wide statistics on one's personal experiences or friends. If he breaks the law, he should be arrested and charged like every other American citizen. Since he is one.

Once you've become an American citizen you should follow the laws of this country, but the country shouldn't use the law's vagueness to punish someone who happens to be an immigrant. SCOTUS agrees.

A "reasonable" crime rate is 0. For native born Americans and immigrants. If someone has done everything to become an American citizen, why should crime and immigration be linked? At that point aren't they just another American citizen?
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
If someone has done everything to become an American citizen, why should crime and immigration be linked? At that point aren't they just another American citizen?
Click to expand...

Did we all read this wrong, then? We're only talking about immigrants, people who have been naturalized and become citizens?

Or are we talking about *illegal* aliens, people who by law should not be here at *ALL*?

But - let's try something. Go to another country. France. China. MEXICO.
Overstay your visa.

Then go on a car stealing spree. See how fast they tolerate your overstay.
 
Merlin99

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Chris0nllyn said:
tldr: Immigrant convicted of burglary, twice. Govt. tried to boot him as an aggravated felon. Immigration Judge says first-degree burglary is a "crime of violence". Immigrant appealed to 9CA. At the same time, SCOTUS rules that a clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) defines "violent felony" was too vague, thus unconstitutional. SCOTUS confirms the "crime of violence" clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is also too vague.

Gorsich joined Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in the 5-4 vote.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
Click to expand...

I would agree with this, why say violent felony when what you meant was any felony?
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
Did we all read this wrong, then? We're only talking about immigrants, people who have been naturalized and become citizens?

Or are we talking about *illegal* aliens, people who by law should not be here at *ALL*?

But - let's try something. Go to another country. France. China. MEXICO.
Overstay your visa.

Then go on a car stealing spree. See how fast they tolerate your overstay.
Click to expand...

This case is about a lawful permanent resident of the US. I can only assume that's what we're talking about.

Not sure what the hypothetical has to do with this particular case and thread.
 
S

Starman

New Member
A good decision — exactly as Scalia would have found I’d imagine. Scalia was a true friend of liberty.

It is worth noting that while Gorsuch “sided” with the left and formed the majority, his rationale for doing so was slightly different on a couple of points.

He notes it in the decision which is 96 pages long, but no one here will read it. They will get their talking points from their handlers before “opining”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top