#Immigration case dealing with #GreenCard holders, #SCOTUS sides with #Trump admin
SCOTUS sided with the Trump admin Tuesday in an immigration case dealing with the government’s power over green card holders accused of crimes.
The 6-3 decision centers around an immigration officers’ 2012 decision to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime.
#law
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-immigration-b9ea1079296c0d7be844213986f96e6f
Lau argued that the officer overstepped their authority, & the decision wrongly allowed the #DHS under then-President Obama to swiftly begin #deportation proceedings after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in NJ.
#SCOTUS disagreed. “Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Justice #ClarenceThomas wrote in the opinion. [seriously? “moral turpitude”? it was clothes.]
@Nonilex It is long past time for Congress to get rid of that "moral turpitude" language in the INA. It is overly vague, subjective, and subject to whatever the current cultural trend deems "moral" or "immoral," which changes all the time.
Plus, the government is not in a position to define morality without violating the Establishment Clause.
@willowashmaple meh, governments establish morality every day of the week with rules ranging from rules against speeding through requirements to deem one worthy of public assistance.
Judgements on morality aren't establishment. They're political. Yes, subject to whatever the current culture trend deems moral, which changes all the time.
That's democracy for you.
