These Supreme Court Immigration Cases Could Put A Dent Trump's Deportation Plans
The next two months may prove to be indispensable for the United States as the Supreme Court could handle immigration cases and come to a consensus on President Donald Trump's controversial proposals, especially those concerning deportation plans. Since February, Trump's administration has doled out dozens of deportation raids under agents working for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Soon, the Supreme Court may decide whether or not those plans will continue.
Two prominent cases in this realm could prove to be consequential in spelling out the future of immigration in America. According to ABC News, one case involves a lawsuit centering on the duration of time immigrants spend in custody. This time, which is often lengthy, is frequently endured by people who are actually legal residents in America or trying to gain citizenship. The justices will have to decide whether these individuals are entitled to court hearings. Another case involves a rather strange law that renders the acquisition of citizenship through one's mother easy but inconvenient through one's father. In other words, it's reportedly easier to become a citizen if your mother is a citizen that it is if only your father is a citizen.
The revelations from these ongoing cases could be essential in delineating the justices' opinion of Trump's ramped-up immigration proposals. Policies enacted in the future could depend on whether the justices believe the Trump administration's hostile approach toward undocumented individuals is necessary or if they decide it's simply a predatory and discriminatory method of displacing individuals and families.
According to an Associated Press report, Christopher Hajec, the director of litigation for Immigration Reform Litigation Institute, said that there could be some pushback. If the Supreme Court decides to rule in favor of the immigrants in these cases, Trump's plan to accelerate deportations could become "more difficult to realize," Hajec said. The rulings could also spell a clearly-defined opinion on Trump's controversial travel ban, which initially targeted seven Muslim-majority countries and then, in a revised order, came down to six. Two federal judges went ahead to reject the revised order.
Shortly after taking office, Trump claimed that he was gearing up to deport "bad dudes" out of the United States. In February, Trump announced his intentions to supposedly clean up America. "We're getting really bad dudes out of this country, and at a rate that nobody's ever seen before," he said. "And they're the bad ones. And it's a military operation."
Although his statement centers on undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, his concern isn't realistic. For instance, immigrants are actually much less likely than American citizens to commit crimes.
As analysts have noted before, it is difficult to predict what exactly and precisely the higher courts collectively think of Trump's deportation and banning plans. But from the looks of it, immigration policy will remain an unavoidable element of Trump's administration for the next four years.
So, the courts will have to step up and show where they stand under on the exceptionally contentious subject of immigration in America.