US Supreme Court: LEGAL immegrants can be held without bail

[Dr Mordrid]

LEGAL immegrants can be held without bail pending deportation....

Liberals can't blame the Patriot Act for this one....it was passed in 1996 and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Dr. Mordrid

[Victorian]

Re: US Supreme Court: LEGAL immegrants can be held without bail

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
LEGAL immegrants can be held without bail pending deportation....

Liberals can't blame the Patriot Act for this one....it was passed in 1996 and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Dr. Mordrid

Since when was Bill Clinton a "librul" (tm)....

[Dr Mordrid]

Since forever....he supported just enough mildly conservative policies to fake the public into seeing him as a "new Democrat" but under the facade....

To really see these policies one has to look at what the administrative departments were doing at the time, not just the legislative agenda.

Dr. Mordrid

[High_Jumbllama]

The ``respondent'' is Hyung Joon Kim, who came to the United States in 1984 at age 6. While still a child, he became a lawful permanent resident. In 1996, when he was a teenager, he was convicted of burglary and the next year was found guilty of petty theft.

He completed his sentence in California state prison and, the day after his release, was detained by immigration officials without bail to await deportation.

Permanent resident is not a citizen? I am confused. Why is there a difference. Why would you want to be one but not the other?

He was in the country for 12 years so this smells. He had a life and was legally in the country for that time.

[UtwigMU]

Normal majority voting system always leads to two or three parties which represent shades of center.

In order for a party to win it needs to appeal to central voters as extreme left or right voters generally vote their party, no matter what: For instance there are counties/states in USA where democrates or republicans traditionally win, no matter what.

If you look at differences between Clinton and Bush (I'm not too informed on domestic issues since they concern me less.) the difference is Clinton had moderate unilateral approach: IE more negotiations, broader (NATO, Yougoslavia coalition), while Bush is more unilateral: IE coalition of the willing, with us or against us. However they both started unilateral wars and they both bombed Iraq. Clinton even went so far to bomb Chinese embassy.

As far as domestic policy goes, proabably democrates tend to slightly increase state involvement, while republicans tend to slightly decrease it. Were say democrates to establish Scandinavian style welfare state (those countries currently have right goverments and are cutting back state care) or say republicans cut off all public funded healthcare and schools they'd be immediately voted out in the next term.

Even though both parties are spinning their differences as fundamental, the general life of average American hasn't changed if but slightly when Republicans came to power.

Otherwise politics functions in cycles: one party wins, achieves something, looses momentum, possibly individuals become corrupt, looses elections, other party wins, loosing party purges unsuccessful candidates and brings in new people, becomes opposition and wins in a few cycles.

IMO it's hygienic for parties in power to change every few terms. And if I'm not satisfied with politics of the party I voted for, I cast a vote for another on next elections.

IMHO this is neither advantage or disadvantage, since some systems are more suitable to different societies and transplanting a system that works in one enviroment doesn't neccessarilly mean it will work in another enviroment.

However, what I'd disagree with is lack of two round elections: For instance if there are 3 candidates the one winning majority of votes even though he didn't win more than 50% votes automatically wins.

Otherwise I'd say regarding our voting system (right parties wanted to pass 2-round majority system, where ~20.000 people elect MP in two rounds (one if candidate wins more than 50% in first round), proportional with elements of majority system is much better simply because of the fact that it leads to 3-10 parties which have representatives in parliament AND if one party seriously screw up they can face themselves being voted out of parliament and never contend again.

(For instance it happened to Green party and to Democrates here - they got voted out of Parliament and they never got back and proabably never will. Another party had number of their representatives almost halved after a term.)

Whereas if you have two party system, no matter how hard one party f*cks up, they still get enough votes to keep even a few representatives, simply because other party is unacceptable to other voters.

[UtwigMU]

Regarding citizens/permanent residents/citizenship.

While European countries are based on nation/language (migrations generally took place 4th-7th century), USA was formed from imigrants who accepted general American values (melting pot).

I'd say that USA about arround now came to stage in which melting is no longer functioning and they'll have to rethink and proabably tighten their migration policy (IE be more selective).

Otherwise for instance Switzerland has very strict citizenship policy (you have to be permanent resident very long) and if you don't have citizenship, they throw you out for causing traffic accident.

Generally here if you're an alien and commit felony, they sentence you and banish you for 5 years or more (I don't know what's the upper limit).

Meanwhile they put you in institution called "Center for removal of aliens" (I don't know wether they changed the name, it raised some polemics) and deport you.

As per that case: IMO they should revoke permit for residency and then detain him. It would be better as far as legality is concerned.

[SpiralDragon]

see what i dont get is that people from one country call somone from another who is living in that country an alian... i wonder what the inhabitants of planet X would call me if i went to love there

[Ribbit]

Originally posted by SpiralDragon
...if i went to love there

Freudian typo?

[Nowhere]

Originally posted by SpiralDragon
... i wonder what the inhabitants of planet X would call me if i went to love there

I would suggest not to be very keen to kissing. It is possible they don't have this in common

edit: the same for smiling of course...

[Brian Ellis]

"Otherwise for instance Switzerland has very strict citizenship policy (you have to be permanent resident very long) and if you don't have citizenship, they throw you out for causing traffic accident."

Please let me correct you here as I was a Swiss permanent resident for 35 years, before I moved here.

The Swiss system is complex and is changing because of reciprocal measures with the EU. However, I'll quote what it was until recently.

The lowest form of immigrant life was the "permis de saisonnier". This was a guy, usually working in building or hotellerie, who was an immigrant for a season (9 months max) at a time. He had very few rights other than to pay taxes and he had to return whence he came after the expiry of his contract. He could work thus for a max of 5 seasons, with 3 months in between. His family could not accompany him. This was abusive.

The next one up was the "permis de séjour", which gives one the right to live and work normally, indefinitely, but thw right to change jobs is limited and must be subjected to approval.

Then cane the most common one, the "permis d'établissement". This is automatic after 5, 7 or 10 years with a permis de séjour, depending on the nationality. This confers all the rights of citizenship except the right to practice medecine in any form without supervision from a Swiss practitioner, to vote or be elected (a few cantons allow voting on communal matters).

Then there are a host of special permis, such as for health reasons, retirement, if you are filthy rich, refugee, etc.

It is very rare for anyone with a permit allowing work to be thrown out of the country, except for very serious crime. In fact, I think that only Cantonal and Federal Judges can ordain expulsion, so it is complete nonsense to say that any alien can be chucked out for causing a traffic accident, even one causing multiple deaths, as this would be treated by a lower court.

Now, how can a working alien obtain Swiss Citizenship?
This can vary slightly from canton to canton, because a Swiss is primarily a citizen of his canton and only secondarily of the Confederation. Generally speaking, the second most important requirement is that he must show that he is integrated into the Swiss society by a) speaking the local language fluently, b) knowing some of the history and political structure of the country, c) eating fondue at least once per month, d) having some Swiss friends who will vouch for him, e) having lived and worked continuously (holidays and business trips excepted, of course) in the canton for a minimum of 10 years (12 in some cantons) and f) having a virgin criminal record (no jail sentences or fines decreed by a judge exceeding CHF 500: ordinary misdemeanours like traffic offences or being drunk don't count, of course). However daunting this list may be, the most important qualification, being Switzerland, is that you must pay, and through the nose, at that. The cost varies according to where you live, but legal fees, contribution to the communal poor box, stamp duties and all the rest of it may total between half and a whole annual salary. The result is that few immigrants even apply for citizenship (myself included, even though I was the boss and principal shareholder of an enterprise).

In all my 35 years there, neither my family nor I ever had any problems with the authorities, even though I retained my UK nationality. In fact, I would say that Switzerland is one of the most liberal places to live in, provided you played according to the rules. It is still relatively crime-free, even with a large foreign population (~22% over the whole country).

Let me tell you a paradox: I am still a UK citizen and I live in Cyprus. I have a mandate from the Swiss Government to represent Switzerland on a United Nations body. How many nations would even dream of such a situation?