things that matter

The Supreme Court Has Invalidated A Vaguely Worded Provision Allowing For Immigrants Convicted Of Crimes To Be Deported

Mark Fischer / Flickr

The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act is too vague to stand up in immigration court, according to Reuters. Trump-nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices in invalidating a provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act. The provision has been used by immigration officials as grounds for deporting immigrants who committed certain felony crimes. However, the justices found that the wording of the provision was unconstitutionally vague, Reuters reports. Mainly, the justice had issue with how a crime can be categorized differently from state to state leaving severity of crimes up to the states. This gave immigration authority vague guidelines they could apply as they wished to deem people deportable.

“Today’s ruling significantly undermines DHS’s efforts to remove aliens convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping, and burglary, from the United States,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Tyler Houlton said in a statement. “By preventing the federal government from removing known criminal aliens, it allows our nation to be a safe haven for criminals and makes us more vulnerable as a result. The Secretary has met with hundreds of members of Congress over the last few months to implore them to take action on passing legislation to close public safety loopholes, such as these, that encourage illegal immigration and tie the hands of law enforcement.”

The decision was made in reference to case Session, Attorney General v. Dimaya. James Garcia Dimaya is an immigrant from the Philippines who was convicted of non-violent burglary twice. Immigration officials were trying to use the two convictions as ground to deport Dimaya back to the Philippines. However, immigration law experts say that the ruling will not invalidate a large number of deportation orders. Also, the ruling will not prevent immigrants charged and convicted with the crimes of murder, rape, counterfeiting and terrorism from being deported.

You can read more about the ruling on Reuters.

(H/T: Reuters)


READ: John Oliver Blasts U.S. Immigration Courts For Letting Toddlers Defend Themselves

Share this story with all of your friends by tapping that little share button below!

Charges Against Disgraced Parkland Officer And New Florida Law Raises Questions for Teachers

Things That Matter

Charges Against Disgraced Parkland Officer And New Florida Law Raises Questions for Teachers

@libertynation\ Twitter

The arrest of Scot Peterson, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School sheriff’s deputy who heard shots fired inside the school and hid outside is raising some troubling questions for teachers.

Labeled a coward cop by many, Peterson has been charged with eleven counts of child negligence, culpable negligence, and perjury for his inaction and lies he made about his role while under oath.

Armed and tasked with providing security for Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Peterson can be seen hiding in video footage during the Parkland shooting. Many parents of slain children, such Manuel and Patricia Oliver, believe that Peterson should have risked his life and entered the school and do whatever he could to stop the shooter, Nikolas Cruz on February 14, 2018.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Screen-Shot-2019-06-06-at-5.29.43-PM.png
Twitter

The aftermath of the shooting has resulted in an uprising of teen activism, the arrest of Peterson, and changes in the law.

One such law passed in Florida last month, allows teachers to carry firearms.

The law has raised many questions and much controversy, such as concerns about racism and implicit bias that many fear could result in the shooting of black students. The charges against Scot Peterson and the passage of the gun law that allows teachers to be armed in classrooms has raised questions about the responsibility of those teachers who might choose to arm themselves at school. The Florida Education Association, Florida’s teachers’ union, is particularly concerned because they fear that Peterson’s arrest, could set precedence for holding armed teachers accountable for injuries or death of students on their watch, should they choose not to use their weapon to subdue a school shooter. Tort law speaks very specifically about negligence which the teacher association fears teachers, like Peterson, could be charged with under the new law: “Negligence is the unintentional failure to live up to the community’s ideal of reasonable care, having nothing to do with moral care. An individual who has behaved negligently is one who has not lived up to a certain imputed duty or obligation to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.”

While many believe that Peterson’s case is an anomaly and won’t set precedence, in August of 2018 the Florida Department of Education made an amendment to its insurance policy that makes it clear that armed teachers will not be covered for claims involving “armed instructional personnel while acting in the scope of their activities for the educational institution.”  And while state lawmakers have responded to the Parkland shooting by allowing more guns in public places, in this case schools, the Florida department of education has protected itself itself from lawsuits brought by parents or relatives of those who could be injured as a result of an armed teacher.

Twitter

When a state passes a law that encourages teachers to arm themselves to protect children in the classroom from school shooters, presumably other children, many other questions should be raised?

Is the hero teacher narrative at play? Is it fair to encourage teachers, trained to educate America’s children, to arm themselves and protect them or face neglect charges when they don’t or couldn’t?

Shouldn’t we be focused on common sense gun laws? Does it make sense to allow firearms in school?

When it comes to both a rallying cry for common sense gun laws and charges of negligence against Scot Peterson, many on Twitter are asking some of these questions and more.

TruthBeTold wants to know why the federal government isn’t being held responsible for not enacting strict gun laws and asks “What about Congress” What about the president? Didn’t they also fail to protect those children?”

12yearlagavulin and jon-e-lingo point out the irony of laws that protect police offers who shoot unarmed men but convict of negligence. Jonelingo points out how unlikely it would have been for Peterson to face jail time had he actually shot someone rather doing what he did which was not shoot.

Many on Twitter called Peterson a coward for not doing his job or being willing to “put his life on the line. Others, like Junebug, believe he’s being unfairly scapegoated.

Twitter user @LopezMaddox made a donut joke about the Broward cop to make about about Peterson’s lack of action.

The US Government Now Wants To Dig Through Your Social Media Accounts If You Apply For A Visa To Enter The Country

Things That Matter

The US Government Now Wants To Dig Through Your Social Media Accounts If You Apply For A Visa To Enter The Country

Unsplash

The U.S. government is continuing to put its limitations on foreigners. As immigration agencies implement mandates by the Trump Administration over who is allowed to enter the country, they are adding at least one more restriction that could be a lot trickier to monitor.

For people seeking a U.S. visa, they must now turn over five years worth of social media handles, email addresses, and phone numbers.

Unsplash

The BBC is reporting that previously, only foreigners that had been to countries where terrorism is rampant were told to turn over their social media information. Now it applies to everyone.

While the thought of an agent seeing embarrassing posts of you is enough to make you queasy, the violation of privacy is concerning many Americans.

This change in policy could affect more than 4.7 million people a year.

“National security is our top priority when adjudicating visa applications, and every prospective traveler and immigrant to the United States undergoes extensive security screening,” a State Department official told The Daily News. “We are constantly working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes to protect U.S. citizens while supporting legitimate travel to the United States.”

Some non-U.S. citizens are concerned that being vocal against President Trump might be enough to deny you entry into the U.S.

Credit: @cjwerleman / Twitter

The Trump Administration first initiated this proposal last year, and now it’s been approved. The new social media questions are in place for anyone seeking a visa to enter the country.

“This attempt to collect a massive amount of information on the social media activity of millions of visa applicants is yet another ineffective and deeply problematic Trump administration plan,” Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement last year, according to the Daily News. “It will infringe on the rights of immigrants and U.S. citizens by chilling freedom of speech and association, particularly because people will now have to wonder if what they say online will be misconstrued or misunderstood by a government official.”

READ: This ‘Roma’ Actor Has Been Denied A Visa For The Third Time And Might Miss The Oscars

Paid Promoted Stories