Supreme Court bans indefinite detention of illegal immigrants

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled that the US government may not hold indefinitely illegal immigrants -- many of them Cubans who arrived here en masse in 1980 and whose return Cuba forbids.

In a seven-to-two ruling, the Supreme Court found that a "reasonable" length of detention with a view to deporting the immigrant would be no more than six months.

Nearly 1,000 Cubans who arrived in the United States in 1980 during the so-called Mariel boatlift are currently in US custody.

Havana, over a six-month period in 1980, allowed 125,000 candidates for exile leave the communist island.

Numerous criminals were among those detained by US authorities upon arrival here.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20050112/ts_alt_afp/usjusticedetainees

[AZCat]

1. The dissenting judges were Thomas and Rehnquist

I found the matching article at the NYT:

NYT: Court Limits Detention for Immigrants (AP)

It gives this info:
Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented. They argued that the government should have greater authority to detain illegal immigrants for national security reasons.
</snip>

[Supersedeas]

4. the Incoming and Outgoing chief justices

[hedda_foil]

5. Scalia didn't dissent?

Was he sick?

[NYC]

2. 25 years in custody?

...Nearly 1,000 Cubans who arrived in the United States in 1980 during the so-called Mariel boatlift are currently in US custody...

Why?

[Lexingtonian]

9. murders, rapists, etc

Castro used the Mariel boatlift to get offload his worst common criminals. Not the political kind, the real sociopaths. A real cuckoo's egg, which made sure the U.S. hasn't encouraged any mass flight from Cuba since. It was done just before Reagan's first term and the Reagan people didn't fuck directly with Cuba, partly as a result.

[NYC]

12. I do remember the Mariel boat lift,

but shouldn't they be tried, convicted, sentenced, etc? Is the plan (and was it always) just to keep them incarcerated forever?

[GraphicQueen]

10. They have been in custody because they...

are criminals. And now thanks to our idiotic Supreme Court they will be foisted upon the innocent public to continue their criminal paths.

[AZCat]

11. So next I suppose you'll be supporting...

mandatory life sentences for anyone ever convicted of a crime?

If you would take the time to read the article, you will see that the court held that the government cannot hold an immigrant (legal or illegal) for more than a reasonable period (six months approx.) beyond the sentence for the crimes which they were originally held.

These are people that have already served their sentence, and the government wants to hold them indefinitely. Do you want the government to have the right to hold anyone committed of a crime indefinitely? If so, I'm glad the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

[NuttyFluffers]

3. that's great!

perhaps the rule of law might actually be respected for once...... let's hope it's a trend.

[Sgent]

6. Bush rule of law....

Put them all on a raft, 12 miles offshore, and tell them its their problem now -- leaving a USCG Cutter to keep them from returning.

[NuttyFluffers]

7. aww, you shatter my illusions prematurely...

and they didn't even have a chance to grow beyond vague wistfulness...

:(

[Maat]

8. Ya' think, Supremies?

Think we ought to do something about such an agregious pissing on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the related case law? Ya' think? This is a 'duh!'