|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Court debates immigration case with potential impact on war on terror
By William Mears
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It may be about one man's fight against the immigration system, but the Supreme Court case of a Korean-American could have broader implications for the Bush administration's war on terrorism. At issue is whether non-U.S. citizens are afforded due process before deportation proceedings begin. Justices will hear arguments in the case Wednesday. Hyung Joon Kim was a lawful permanent resident from South Korea when he was convicted in 1997 of petty theft in California. After his 1999 prison release, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) took him into custody, denied him bail, and sought to deport him. A 1996 federal law specifically allowed this for those who commit an "aggravated felony." In January 2002, a federal appeals court ruled against the INS on the issue of bail, saying it was unconstitutional to deny it to permanent resident aliens. The court recommended the INS use more discretion in individualized bail hearings, particularly for those who are not considered "menaces to the public." In its legal filings with the court, the INS said convicted aliens "have enjoyed full due process protections in connection with those convictions." The agency also argued in this case the detention of criminal aliens benefits public safety, a question that worries civil libertarians who fear continuing mass roundups of aliens -- especially those of Middle Eastern or Muslim heritage -- in the name of domestic security. The appeals court addressed post-September 11 concerns, saying, "No responsible court will leave an 'unprotected spot in the nation's armor,' and our decision does not do so. We do not hold that a lawful permanent resident alien in removal proceedings has an absolute right to bail. We hold only that such an alien has a right to an individualized determination of a right to bail, tailored to his or her particular circumstances." Three other appeals courts have split on the constitutionality of the mandatory detention law, and the INS asked the Supreme Court for a quick clarification, saying hundreds of such deportation hearings occur each week. This case is being closely watched, not only because it parallels the cases of hundreds of mostly Middle Eastern men in INS custody, but because any court ruling could provide a legal blueprint for federal authorities who are using immigration detention laws as a way to hold, often indefinitely, those suspected of involvement in terrorism. The case is Denmore (INS) v. Kim, No. 01-1491.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
