A poster boy for Amnesty

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree that he should not have been released until he could be deported.  That he should be deported back to a country whose already inadequate government had been effectively been wiped out by a natural disaster before at least the bare bones of government function had been restored, I absolutely reject.

For how long should he be held?  

Until there was at least a semi-functional society in Haiti again.  If things were done the way I like it, he'd be in Haiti now, unless of course he made another illegal entry after we deported him there.  Haiti is not yet back to the point to where deporting otherwise non-criminal illegal entrants is wat I would consider good policy, but it is back to the point where it is about as capable as it was before the earthquake of handling someone like this.

So, there is NO time limit?

Oh, and to return to the facts situation, the individual is currently dead, so deporting him now would be, well, pointless.

But, if he had been held after completion of his sentence for burglary until he might sometime be deported, what if he killed another inmate, or guard while incarcerated while awaiting deportation?  These things happen.

I find it laughable that immediately after castigating me for making a very probable assumption that if he had been held until he could be deported that both he and his victims would still be alive you then bring up the far less probable scenario of him having killed someone else while in prison awaiting deportation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The six month limit was based upon the court's interpretation of what Congress had determined to be a reasonable period of temporary incarceration pending deportation in cases in which the country to which he was to be deported refused to accept the deportee.

I see nothing in Zadvydas that suggests that the Court would find it unconstitutional if Congress were to authorize continued detention during periods of temporary suspension of deportation on humanitarian grounds. You asked me how I would handle it if I could set the law as I would, and while my preferred policy would require a change in the law, it does not appear to require a change in our constitution.

[CARLHAYDEN]

They are here illegally, and could not have gotten jobs here legally under current law.

And whose fault is that? 'Illegal' carries connotations of malice, although that's not part of the technical definition. Many of them did, in fact, forget or lack the resources to get paperwork done.

Nathan,

You get funnier and funnier.

"Malice" is a term which has very specific meanings.  While most serious crimes require general criminal intent, few require malice.

What's funny is how myopic you are about what I'm saying here. Here's a hint: It's about parole, not langue.

What you are posting makes absolutely no sense.

Have you actually read Saussure, and if not, will you make an effort to read up on the subject so that what I am posting will make no sense, or will you content yourself with the belief that it is my responsibility, not yours, that you cannot be bothered to Google two French words?

Uh, I'll try to make this clear.

The Atlas Forum is primarily designed for discussion of U.S. politics, with special boards for non-U.S. politics.

Now, the term "malice," is a term used in American law, with rather clear meaning.  So, I don't care what the French understanding (or misunderstanding) of that term.

Please go on with your irrelevancies if you must.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I agree that he should not have been released until he could be deported.  That he should be deported back to a country whose already inadequate government had been effectively been wiped out by a natural disaster before at least the bare bones of government function had been restored, I absolutely reject.

For how long should he be held?  

Until there was at least a semi-functional society in Haiti again.  If things were done the way I like it, he'd be in Haiti now, unless of course he made another illegal entry after we deported him there.  Haiti is not yet back to the point to where deporting otherwise non-criminal illegal entrants is wat I would consider good policy, but it is back to the point where it is about as capable as it was before the earthquake of handling someone like this.

So, there is NO time limit?

Oh, and to return to the facts situation, the individual is currently dead, so deporting him now would be, well, pointless.

But, if he had been held after completion of his sentence for burglary until he might sometime be deported, what if he killed another inmate, or guard while incarcerated while awaiting deportation?  These things happen.

I find it laughable that immediately after castigating me for making a very probable assumption that if he had been held until he could be deported that both he and his victims would still be alive you then bring up the far less probable scenario of him having killed someone else while in prison awaiting deportation.

[quote]

Please be so good as to indicate the post where I supposedly castigated you "for making a very probable assumption that if he had been held until deported that both he and his victims would still be alive."

I further repeat that you have given no real time limit, but have implied that it could well exceed six months.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For how long should he be held? 

Until there was at least a semi-functional society in Haiti again.  If things were done the way I like it, he'd be in Haiti now, unless of course he made another illegal entry after we deported him there.  Haiti is not yet back to the point to where deporting otherwise non-criminal illegal entrants is what I would consider good policy, but it is back to the point where it is about as capable as it was before the earthquake of handling someone like this.

So, there is NO time limit?

Oh, and to return to the facts situation, the individual is currently dead, so deporting him now would be, well, pointless.

But, if he had been held after completion of his sentence for burglary until he might sometime be deported, what if he killed another inmate, or guard while incarcerated while awaiting deportation?  These things happen.

I find it laughable that immediately after castigating me for making a very probable assumption that if he had been held until he could be deported that both he and his victims would still be alive you then bring up the far less probable scenario of him having killed someone else while in prison awaiting deportation.

Please be so good as to indicate the post where I supposedly castigated you "for making a very probable assumption that if he had been held until deported that both he and his victims would still be alive."

The bolded part of the post I was directly replying to CARL, where you suggested that I was calling for deporting a dead man.  If that wasn't castigation on your part then it must have been lack of reading comprehension on your part,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No I haven't, but no previous temporary suspension of deportations due to a natural disaster has lasted permanently.  Haiti's has lasted so long mainly because Haiti was a basket case even before the earthquake hit, but assuming the too slow pace of recovery there continues along its current trajectory, then I think it should be lifted sometime this autumn after the height of the hurricane season is over.  Whether it will be then, or earlier, or later, I can't predict.  If it happens when I think it should, cynics will no doubt claim the Obama administration made its decision on political grounds, and politics may well play a part in the timing. However, because so much of Haiti's economy is based on subsistence agriculture, waiting until October or November to be certain that Haiti does not suffer a major hurricane this year that will undo the earthquake recovery while it is still fragile seems prudent to me.

Also, as I already indicated, I'd have already resumed deportations of violent felons to Haiti by now.  The reason for allowing non-violent illegals to have a temporary stay of deportability is not only that their return would further burden a malfunctioning society, but that remittances from their work that they send back is a more cost-effective form of after-disaster assistance than government direct aid could be.  Since that latter reason is not applicable to violent felons,  then I think their deportations should resume once a functional criminal justice and police system had resumed in Haiti (functional by Haiti's expectations, not ours, since by ours they weren't functional even before the earthquake).

Since you seem to have missed it before, let me repeat that the six month limit you were harping about is based on the Court's interpretation of Congress' intent in the law that limits the time frame before deportation or release must occur. Congress is completely free to revise those limits and there is at least one bill (H.R. 1932) that has been submitted to revise those limits to allow for indefinite detention in broader circumstances.