Supreme Court

Immigration Hardliners Lose Today in an 8-1 Supreme Court Ruling

The ruling also raises questions about the future viability of "Chevron deference."

|

C-SPAN

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of an undocumented immigrant seeking to qualify for discretionary relief from federal deportation proceedings. The ruling also raised serious questions about the future viability of a controversial legal doctrine known as "Chevron deference."

The ruling came in the case of Pereira v. Sessions. Wescley Fonseca Pereira is a Brazilian citizen who arrived in the United States in 2000 on a six-month non-immigrant visa and has been here ever since. He works as a handyman and has two daughters, both of whom are U.S. citizens. In 2013 he was arrested on a minor traffic infraction and the federal government took steps towards deporting him.

Under federal immigration law, a nonpermanent resident subject to removal proceedings may seek relief from the attorney general, who has the discretionary authority to "cancel removal" and adjust immigration status if the alien in question has maintained 10 years of continuous physical presence in the U.S.

The problem for Pereira is that federal law also says that "any period…of continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end…when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a)" of federal immigration law. Under that section, a "notice to appear" is defined as a "written notice" and it must specify the "time or place of the proceedings."

In 2006, when he had been in the U.S. less than 10 years, Pereira was arrested and served with a Department of Homeland Security document labeled "Notice to Appear." According to the federal government, this DHS action effectively stopped the clock and rendered Pereira ineligible for discretionary relief under the 10-year presence rule.

The problem for the federal government is that this 2006 DHS document specified neither the time nor the date of Pereira's removal hearing. In other words, perhaps the clock did not stop on Pereira's 10-year clock after all. If so, that would mean that he remains eligible for discretionary cancellation of his removal from the country.

In its decision today in Pereira v. Sessions, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Here is how Justice Sonia Sotomayor summarized the issues at stake and the Court's judgment on them:

If the Government serves a noncitizen with a document that is labeled "notice to appear," but the document fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings, does it trigger the stop-time rule? The answer is as obvious as it seems: No. A notice that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not a "notice to appear under [federal law]" and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule. The plain text, the statutory context, and common sense all lead inescapably and unambiguously to that conclusion.

In short, Pereira represents a loss for immigration hardliners and their allies in the federal government, who pushed for a statutory interpretation that was least favorable towards aliens seeking discretionary relief from deportation.

It is also a loss for advocates of the legal doctrine known as Chevron deference.

That doctrine takes its name from the Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which the Court said that when federal judges are confronted with an "ambiguous" statute, the default position is for the judiciary to defer to the statutory interpretation favored by the federal agency charged with enforcing that statute.

In the present case, when Wescley Fonseca Pereira came before the Board of Immigration Appeals, that body held that because federal law was "ambiguous" about whether or not a "notice to appear" must necessarily include the date and time, the scales should be tipped in favor of federal immigration officials. In July 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit agreed, ruling that the federal immigration board's judgment "is entitled to Chevron deference."

The Supreme Court overruled that reliance on Chevron. Justice Sotomayor's opinion held that federal immigration officials were not entitled to such deference because federal law is clearly and unambiguously against their preferred statutory interpretation.

To make matters worse for Chevron supporters, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often holds the Court's swing vote in tight cases, wrote separately to say that "it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision." According to Kennedy, "the type of reflexive deference exhibited in some of these cases is troubling. And when deference is applied to other questions of statutory interpretation, such as an agency's interpretation of the statutory provisions that concern the scope of its own authority, it is more troubling still."

Those remarks echo previous concerns about Chevron raised by other members of the Court, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. They also echo the Chevron criticism for which Neil Gorsuch is famous from his days on the 10th Circuit. As then-Judge Gorsuch observed in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016), under Chevron, "an administrative agency may set and revise policy (legislative), override adverse judicial determinations (judicial), and exercise enforcement discretion (executive)." As Gorsuch put it, "under any conception of our separation of powers, I would have thought powerful and centralized authorities like today's administrative agencies would have warranted less deference from other branches, not more."

It's a big deal when Justice Kennedy voices similar concerns and signals his interest in revisiting such a contentious precedent. It might just mean that Chevron's days are numbered.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

111 responses to “Immigration Hardliners Lose Today in an 8-1 Supreme Court Ruling

  1. This is a stupid take on the decision. It was about Chevron deference, not about immigration.

    1. Really, it’s only stupid if you assume the take to be honest or in good faith. Otherwise, it’s completely expected *and* stupid.

      1. Reason morphed into Salon lite so slowly, I hardly noticed.

    2. Except that the case was about rules involving DHS proceedings on an immigrant who was set to be deported.

      1. Immigration did not factor into the case. It was a dispute about what the statute said and what deference was owed to the government agency’s interpretation of the statute. It could literally have been about ANY government agency or area of law.

        I read the whole opinion. You should too.

        1. Immigration did factor into the case because the case being argued before the court arose from a dispute about immigrant deportation rules. It could literally have been about any government agency or area of law, but it was literally about the DHS and immigrant deportation proceedings.

          1. “It could literally have been about any government agency or area of law”

            Glad you admit it had nothing to do with immigration

            “but it was literally about the DHS and immigrant deportation proceedings.”

            Oh you’re an idiot.

          2. “the case being argued before the court arose from a dispute about immigrant deportation rules.”

            No very stupid person, it arose from a dispute about the presence/absence of a timestamp.

            I was kidding before when I said stick to snark, but now I’m serious. Avoid discussing things seriously so you don’t look so stupid in the future.

            1. Someone seems to be smarting.

              1. Tulpa’s right though.
                Does that make you mad?

        2. I read the whole opinion. You should too.

          Look, you *could* view it as a broad win for most everyone and liberty in general. Hugh and Reason want you to understand that first and foremost it’s really a decision in favor of brown people and that the evil white nationalists are losing.

      2. No, it was about the Chevron deference, stick to bad snark.

    3. It was about immigration because if the federal agency involved was e.g. the EPA and the agency was interpreting a rule that the agency thought required more rigorous enforcement than the clear statutory language allowed, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, et al would have been shouting “Chevron deference forever.” They’ve done it before.

    4. The headline is correct. Immigration hardliners did lose the case. It does not say the case was about immigration.

      If you’re going to get picky about why your bias is better than their bias, at least get the right nit to pick.

      1. Except the hardliners lost nothing. Sessions can simply deny the relief. All this does is make him consider the relief, not implement it.

        That’s why the proper lens for this case is Chevron as the article goes into.

        But we already know what will happen. Chevron will always be upheld in liberal favor while this case will be invoked against conservative rulings.

        1. That’s why I don’t get why they pushed so hard and wasted so much taxpayer money. It’s discretionary. All the AG has to do is say “no”.

  2. Ruling doesn’t appear to have anything to do with immigration.

    1. STOP messing with the open border narrative Reason is trying to push!

  3. federal judges are confronted with an “ambiguous” statute, the default position is for the judiciary to defer to the statutory interpretation favored by the federal agency charged with enforcing that statute.

    That’s pretty fucking awful. Good riddance.

  4. For anyone interested, Justice Alito was the dissenting vote.

    1. Thanks.

    2. His dissent was not all that far removed from Kennedy’s concurrence. The dissent basically said that if the court was not going to overturn Chevron here, precedent required deference to DHS, with the outcome being the opposite result from the majority’s holding.

      1. And alito is right. Either repeal Chevron completely or not at all. This ruling now gives judges a political tool to formulate what they want to rule.

  5. I don’t give a damn if the only reason SCOTUS is “troubled” by the expansive discretionary powers they granted executive branch agencies is because of the Literal Hitler now in charge of those agencies, anything that pushes back against Chevron is a win. Jesus Christ, that rule said that the EPA should be subject to less judicial oversight than Congress! When’s the last time you saw SCOTUS refuse to strike down a law on the grounds that, “well, if Congress passed the law and the President signed it, they must think it’s Constitutional so who are we to second-guess their finding of Constitutionality?”

    1. When’s the last time you saw SCOTUS refuse to strike down a law on the grounds that, “well, if Congress passed the law and the President signed it, they must think it’s Constitutional so who are we to second-guess their finding of Constitutionality?

      Is this sarcasm? Are you familiar with the Chief Justice?

      1. Yeah, this is not only in living memory but the last ten years. Lots of people appear to have been in a coma since Bush though.

    2. When’s the last time you saw SCOTUS refuse to strike down a law on the grounds that, “well, if Congress passed the law and the President signed it, they must think it’s Constitutional so who are we to second-guess their finding of Constitutionality?”

      National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

      1. Roberts was greenlining, but I’m sure that yes, the rest of the majority felt precisely that.

    3. I’m not a big Chevron defender, but it’s not correct to say that it means that EPA is subject to less judicial oversight than Congress. Congress can do nigh-on-well whatever it wants. Its boundaries – rational basis review and fairly capacious understandings of its authority – constrain the agencies, as well, and then agencies can only act within Congress’s lawfully delegated authority. Which, Chevron aside, does have certain constitutional and institutional limits of its own.

      The Trump era has definitely made me more appreciative of Chevron‘s inherent evils – it might turn out that Trump will largely be the reason why the judiciary is examining some of its historical deference to the executive branch as a whole – and so I’m generally on-board with cutting it back. That said, I don’t think we should be too sanguine about Congress’s ability or willingness to fill in the gaps that Chevron was supposed to fill. And I don’t mean that they’ll legislate less – a result most libertarians would celebrate – but that they’ll continue to put out shitty laws that someone will have to interpret. If it’s not the agencies, then it’s going to be… judges. Is that a better arrangement?

      1. That’s one silver lining of Trump Derangement Syndrome. If nothing else, Trump is so wild and others so fearful of his actions that the courts and Congress will step back and reign in the executive branch, which has gotten far too strong in recent years.

    4. Literal Hitler

      Trump is planning to nationalize business, intern Jews, invade Czechoslovakia and Poland?

      Who knew!

      1. Trump is planning to nationalize business,…

        You think he wouldn’t, if he had the slightest fig leaf of authority to do so? It’s already clear he views businesses and jobs as his to toy with as he pleases. His Commerce Secretary is a corrupt, sick joke. Show him a lever to nationalize Amazon, and he’ll pull it. Short of that, cratering a humming economy to “win” a trade war is absolutely on his agenda.

        intern Jews,

        I mean, Guatemalans, for now, but of course they don’t have due process rights or anything, right? Because they’re not Americans, right? Like Jews weren’t really Germans, right?

        invade Czechoslovakia and Poland?

        Don’t give the man ideas. No, to be fair, Trump is probably not interested in that degree of military adventurism. Seizing the assets of nations in which we have an outsized military presence, however… that might be more appealing. Isn’t that how he thinks we should have financed our Iraq war debt?

        1. Trump likes Jews, like his son in law, so they’ll be fine!

          But them Hispanics had better watch out! I would seriously vote for the guy in 2020 (I voted GayJay in 16.) if he rounded up every single illegal in the USA and sent them all packing. Keep in mind I’m part beaner myself, but this shit has got waaay to out of control. I’m tired of all the bleeding heart whining around it. They broke the law, they need to go. All of them.

          That’s never gonna happen, but even if it did it’s a far cry from mass murder.

        2. Wow… Let me guess. You think Obama was a bastion of a light guiding hand on a free market? What part of trump reducing billions in regulatory enforcement screams he wants to nationalize industries? I’ve seen some dumb takes…. But wow.

  6. Make it illegal to half-assedly craft and pass legislation.

    1. Yeah! Instead of deference (“We don’t know what this means, ask the agency, they’re staffed by experts on the subject.”), provisions should be voided for vagueness.

  7. An end to Shaved Ron Deference? That sound you heard was Bailey angrily throwing all his razors in the trash.

    1. Did you get… eaten by a spam bot, or something?


  8. It’s a big deal when Justice Kennedy voices similar concerns and signals his interest in revisiting such a contentious precedent. It might just mean that Chevron’s days are numbered.

    Ok, after laughing for about ten minutes I just have to say that what’s going on is way more simple. The Chevron defense is essentially just a way for the SC to rule however the fuck they want at the moment. If they like this or that outcome, they’ll use or ignore Chevron however they see fit.

    So while it’s a heartening thing that they ignored it here, that won’t stop them from using it as a defense tomorrow. They’ll use the ever-famous FYTW reasoning.

    1. ^^This^^

  9. This just means ICE has to do its job and give the person a date of hearing. I agree with the majority here. But, it is a bit of a stretch to claim this is some kind of a defeat for immigration hardliners.

    1. Matt Welch needs a win since Trump ended Obama’s ICE policy separating kids from their parents.

      1. Damon Root too. Haha

      2. Yes- I sense that most Reason contributors are for unlimited immigration since it appears to fit the libertarian idea of minimally intrusive govt- however, we are faced with overwhelming numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, who have immediate access to the welfare state.

    2. Exactly. This is not a defeat for immigration hardliners, but rather shows that ICE was incompetent. They had a law they could use effectively for their purposes, and botched it.

      1. Paragraph 5 says DHS not ICE.

  10. So this case was about whether he has the ability to appeal to the AG and the courts stated that he could make an appeal? Is that all that it is or does it automatically mean he can not be deported?
    Why should he not be deported when he has overstayed his visa by more than a decade (a non-immigrant visa.) His two children are US citizens presumably because he had managed to avoid deportation while staying well past his visa. Is mentioning his children a nod to anchor babies being a thing? On another note, why would eluding deportation for 10 years mean that a person shouldn’t be deported? It’s just a long period of failing to abide by the law and the terms agreed upon for entry into the country.

    1. I guess the 10-year condition would pretty much assure that the person had become a functional member of society (had a job, didn’t kill anyone, etc.)

    2. It might surprise you to learn this, but there was a time when immigration policy was oriented around what made sense, and not some bizarre ethno-nationalist prerogative to pave the way for the return of our lord and savior, (white) Jesus Christ.

      Overstaying your visa or crossing the border without one are criminal offenses, but trifling ones. Bureaucratic no-nos. All of this fevered bitching about the “rule of law” obscures that no one is actually harmed when an undocumented immigrant gets a job, starts a family, and otherwise contributes positively to their community. So, no, it isn’t always obvious that, when someone’s here illegally, you deport them. Maybe you do, maybe you don’t.

      This law was apparently crafted for that kind of discretionary judgment, regardless of the fact that the current imp sitting on top of the DOJ will have little use for it.

      1. What is the point of agreements when not all parties in the agreement have any intention to live up to their part? Take the US as an example. Citizens vote for who they want to make the rules and indirectly choose what rules are applied to the people. It’s called consent of the governed. I’d think that most of the population would like some restriction upon people from other nations coming here and changing the dynamic of who the governed are and what they desire. In the smaller example we have visa overstays. This man was allowed into the country for a term of 6 months on an agreement that didn’t include attempting to settle here. He clearly didn’t leave at the end of the agreed upon term and further immigrated when such was not an agreed option. As someone who believes in contract rights, the violation of his contract and blatant unwillingness to abide by the terms means that the contract is void and he is subject to the penalty. Deportation is the penalty, regardless of how long he got away with the violation.
        Off topic, but does it make you feel superior to constantly insist that any opposition to your positions is based upon racism?

        1. Off topic, but does it make you feel superior to constantly insist that any opposition to your positions is based upon racism?

          No, what makes me feel superior is engaging in internet debates with complete and utter morons who play with political philosophy concepts like letter blocks with characters they haven’t yet learned to arrange.

          Anywho…

          What is the point of agreements when not all parties in the agreement have any intention to live up to their part?

          I mean, it’s cute, all of this contractarian gobbledygook you’ve collected from your college days, but if we’re being hyperliteral about the metaphor, waiving conditions and obligations under contracts is always an option, and sometimes to the benefit of one or both parties. Just because a guy’s here when he said he wouldn’t be here doesn’t mean that we are obliged to cast him summarily out. We might have the right to do so. Doesn’t mean we should.

          1. Simon, you are ignoring the point and substituting looking down your nose for an actual counterpoint.

            To claim that there is no meaningful difference between a 6-month work visa and a permanent immigration visa is nonsensical. This isn’t a wrong check box on a form. This isn’t getting a car permit instead of a truck permit. That’s a bureaucratic no-no. This

            He broke his word. He violated the black and white, unequivocal terms of his visa. Under what situation does knowingly breaking a law and getting away for so long mean the law doesn’t apply?

            Now, whether we wish to show mercy is a different matter. I would suggest you argue that point about how it would be wise to let him stay. That is, after all, why this appeal exists, to give mercy. However, to claim that anyone who disagrees is solely due to racism is simply foolish.

      2. “Bureaucratic no-nos. ” Really??? All nations have a right to decide who enters a nation based upon whatever criteria they desire. Overstaying visas harms all of us who pay taxes since they have immediate access to the welfare state, including the cost of educating their children to the tune of $10k- $20k/year.

        1. Noncentral fallacy. The individual in question is one of those paying taxes, not one of those accessing the welfare state.

  11. Sounds like a technicality to me. They’ll just make sure to include a time and place in future notifications to appear. No big deal.

  12. Well there’s gonna be one hell of an argument this Thanksgiving at the Gorsuch house now that Neil peed on his momma’s legacy

  13. This was a PROCESS ruling, you ignorant fucks, not an IMMIGRATION ruling. Just like the Makepiece decision was also a PROCESS ruling, not a ruling about making cakes or religious rights.

    Reason staff just seems to be full up of fucking morons.

  14. Seems like this was merely a procedural ruling. Hence the 8-1 decision.

    It says nothing about larger policy.

    1. Except that Kennedy’s dicta revealed a possible willingness to revisit Chevron which I think is the point of the article.

      1. Not even close.

        As Walk_on_Walter observed – Reason staff just seems to be full up of fucking morons.

  15. This seems about as narrow as a ruling could possibly be…….you didn’t put a time and date on there, therefore it wasn’t a “notice” at all, and the agency can’t CYA by calling it a “notice” when it didn’t give you notice of anything.

    I doubt this case is cited more than 5 times in future USSC cases.

    1. It will be cited a ton by liberal judges of when not to utilize Chevron for conservative interpretation of executive agencies.

  16. “the default position is for the judiciary to defer to the statutory interpretation favored by the federal agency charged with enforcing that statute.” SOUND FAMILIAR?

  17. In this article dude goes from “undocumented immigrant” to “non-immigrant visa”.

  18. “”If the Government serves a noncitizen with a document that is labeled “notice to appear,” but the document fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings, does it trigger the stop-time rule? The answer is as obvious as it seems: No. A notice that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not a “notice to appear under [federal law]” and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule.””

    That’s pretty easy to agree with and I don’t see how it affects immigration hardliners, except for those purposely trying to screw you over in an very unfair way. If you want me to appear somewhere, you must tell me when and where.

  19. “”If the Government serves a noncitizen with a document that is labeled “notice to appear,” but the document fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings, does it trigger the stop-time rule? The answer is as obvious as it seems: No. A notice that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not a “notice to appear under [federal law]” and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule.””

    That’s pretty easy to agree with and I don’t see how it affects immigration hardliners, except for those purposely trying to screw you over in an very unfair way. If you want me to appear somewhere, you must tell me when and where.

  20. So what?

  21. I feel no sting of loss over someone who wasn’t deported because the government failed to issue a “notice to appear” with no time and date.

    And yes, I’m apparently one of those “immigration hardliners.” It’s quite clear to me that around these parts, being in favor of immigration enforcement of any kind makes you an extremist.

    1. Don’t fret, they think Bill Weld is going to be sober in 2020.

    2. You’re an extremist here if you aren’t for dissolving all borders and forcing the mere peasants to live in vast favelas alongside MS-13 and Islamic jihadi groups.

    3. He can still be deported. Sessions just now has to consider leniency. Doesn’t have to grant it.

  22. IMMIGRATION HARDLINERS WILL NEVER ADMIT DEFEAT

    1. You’re really bad at this thing called logic.

  23. Under federal immigration law, a nonpermanent resident subject to removal proceedings may seek relief from the attorney general, who has the discretionary authority to “cancel removal” and adjust immigration status if the alien in question has maintained 10 years of continuous physical presence in the U.S.

    So the AG can kick his ass out of the country regardless of this decision. It’s simply that he didn’t automatically become ineligible because of some ambiguous formulation. On top of that, you can bet that future notices will be served with more precision.

    What does any of that have to do with “immigration hardliners”?

  24. Mr. Root clearly doesn’t understand this case. First, it wasn’t a weakening of Chevron; it merely held that Chevron didn’t apply because the conditions precedent hadn’t been met. I wish it were a reversal or Chevron, which is bad law, but unfortunately it is not. Perhaps Justice Kennedy’s sentence opens the door for a reconsideration of Chevron a little bit wider (it was already opened a crack by Justice Gorsuch), but this case didn’t do it.

    Second, it wasn’t the great victory for illegal immigrants that Root asserts. It was a silly case, and the government should not have brought it because of bad facts. It must have been difficult for the poor Assistant AG to argue before the Court that a notice with neither date nor place was actually a “notice to appear”. The only surprise is that it wasn’t a 9-0 decision. But while the clock didn’t toll for Mr. Periera, the decision whether to grant him a waiver of deportation remains discretionary with Mr. Sessions. He can simply choose not to grant it, and nothing will have been gained.

  25. “It is also a loss for advocates of the legal doctrine known as Chevron deference.”

    Which is to assume that the Left would ever be consistent in their legal doctrine.

    Change the who, whom of the story to a landowner and the EPA, and who thinks the Left rules with the landowner?

  26. The notice only has to specify the time OR place of a scheduled hearing? Not the time AND place? It’s kind of hard to appear if you don’t know both. And anyway, what good is putting a migrant’s ability to remain here at the discretion of this attorney-general, when it is a foregone conclusion that he will not exercise that discretion in the migrant’s favor?

  27. This is really a fairly trivial decision over administrative minutiae, as far as immigration. The blow to “immigration hardliners” is tiny. It’s entirely correctable by procedural changes. The blow to Chevron is more encouraging — it’s really antithetical to our original system of government to privilege agency interpretations of regulations over citizens’ interpretations.

  28. The petitioner overstayed, failed to apply for extensions, failed to apply for Legal Permanent Resident status. Then he avoided correspondence from the government. He brought an action against the government on a technicality and won the right to continue to be eligible for discretionary cancellation of removal. For all of the trouble he’s caused we say NO to the CANCELLATION and YES TO REMOVAL. Adios.. wiseguy.

  29. The fact that we have nonsense laws like this on the books is the whole problem. When somebody is found to be in the country illegally there should be ZERO recourse whatsoever for them other than confirming they’re a foreign national, and then sending their ass home. They shouldn’t be able to complain about being sent back. They shouldn’t be able to waste taxpayer money suing the government. None of this shit. Just confirm they’re not a citizen and send them back the next friggin’ day.

    What kind of idiots passed all these shit laws with all this bleeding heart nonsense in them? Congress I suppose… Fuck those guys.

    1. Well, I actually agree with granting the ability to grant mercy, especially if it was an administrative error or there was some extenuating circumstance. You don’t want to deport someone over lost mail or a late form.

      In fact, this does seem to be reasonable, giving the AG official discretion.

      However, I fail to see why it should be granted in this case, unless we are just wanting the law to not apply anymore.

      1. That’s the whole thing, they don’t want the law to apply anymore. They just want anybody to be able to come in and skirt the law, and if busted to be able to weasel out of it.

        In a sane world I would be okay with being reasonable… The problem is once you give the left an inch they take a mile. So I say NO INCHES anymore. I’m tired of listening to the whining about this stuff. I’m part Mexican for fucks sake, and I have zero sympathy for these people, because I shouldn’t. Mexicans live in one of the wealthiest countries on earth. The average Mexican makes the average Chinese or Indian person look like the peasant most of them still are. They’re not livin’ large south of the border like we are, but they’re some of the best off people on earth… So I have no sympathy for this shit. The same applies to most other countries in Latin America, with a few exceptions.

    2. You speak the plain truth. Awesome. I feel the same way.

    3. Bravo. I can’t add anything else. You are over the target.

  30. When you write a story like this you should always include how the vote broke down, who was the 8 and who was the 1. I had to google the case to find out who the dissenter was: Alito. It’s too hard to find it in the opinion.

  31. This whole problem started when this Brazilian national overstayed his visa and the Americans who hired him (or non-Americans who hired him who ultimately Americans hired, etc.) violated immigration law in hiring him. We need a law that dishes out JAIL TIME for folks who hire illegals, so as to make them unemployable. (Of course, this should not apply to a homeowner who unknowingly hires a contractor who is an illegal; such illegals should be pursued by undercover immigration stings, etc.)

    1. Great points.

  32. So everybody was in agreement,,,, nice to see,,, well one judge did not agree but the article did not say who… I looked it up and I think it was Alito…

  33. The term “immigration hardliner” is not very informative. It could refer to hardline supporters of open borders. It could refer to hardline opponents of illegal immigration. It could refer to hardline supporters of amnesty programs. And on and on. There are lots of ways to take a hard line on immigration.

  34. Gorsuch is not a fan of vague and ambiguous laws.

  35. Chevron is an abomination

  36. Solution for illegal immigration is the old Texas Hold ’em. Send them home at the border directly.
    Start prosecuting employers, those who house, etc all illegals.
    Self deportation!

    1. Agreed.

  37. Who cares about the Chevron deference? He was still here illegally and the AG still has the discretion to remove the illegal alien lawbreaker. Just deport the lawbreaker and be done with it.

  38. firmware zte blade v8 se gofirmware

  39. afoundry firmware gofirmware

  40. kik for pc windows 10 topappsforpc

  41. allview p4 pro firmware http://gofirmware.com/post/all…..pro-p4-pro

  42. download 360 root apk for android latest version http://bestandroidtoroot.com/a…..st-version

  43. the 8 best cable modem for gaming the8best

  44. failed to retrieve fortiap recommended firmware updates gofirmware

  45. how to root 5058 view website

  46. hyundai e502 firmware gofirmware

  47. the 8 best trimmer for mens balls the 8 best trimmer for mens balls

  48. multi window app for rooted android bestandroidtoroot

  49. the 8 best tesa power strips bestpowerstrips

  50. sharp aquos phone serie shl23 frpbypassapkpro

  51. review tv antenna morpilot indoor amplified reviewtvantennas

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.