IRLI Files Brief in Support of Arizona’s No-Bail Law for Illegal Immigrants

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

“The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Maricopa County v. Lopez-Valenzuela, a case currently pending approval for a hearing before the Supreme Court. (Civil Action No. 14-825). IRLI’s brief is in support of the petitioner, Maricopa County, which seeks to appeal a decision by the Ninth Circuit invalidating the entirety of Arizona’s Proposition 100,” notes a post at IRLI’s blog.

“That law, passed by a 75 percent majority, provided for categorical denials of bail to persons who are charged with one of the four most serious categories of felonies, and for whom there is both probable cause that the person is illegally present in the United States and evident proof of guilt of the felony charged. Although there are recent studies showing this category absconds from removal hearings at a rate of 78 percent, the Ninth Circuit was unsatisfied with Maricopa County’s contention that criminal aliens pose a “significantly greater flight risk than lawful residents.” Moreover, this decision, from the Ninth Circuit’s full panel, rejected the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel, which had previously agreed with Maricopa County.”

Read more at IRLI’s website.

Share.

About Author

avatar

Founded in 1987, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is a national, nonprofit, public-interest legal education and advocacy law firm.

3 Comments

  1. avatar

    In all the furor over whether this president loves America, there is no denying that he and his wife sat in the pews of a church for 20 years and that pastor slammed this country and whites. In his book he actually included excerpts of the pastor saying people were starving in other countries because “white greed runs a world in need” due to the fact that cruise ships threw away food. That ignores the fact that those countries benefit greatly from tourism.

    And his wife who told two different stories about her trip to Target. The first time was two years ago on Letterman when she said she went incognito and a woman asked her if she could get something off a high shelf. Then a few weeks ago, she claimed the woman knew who she was and still asked her, like she was some servant. Why does this matter? Because it feeds into the concept of a racist America.

    As far as talking about the Crusades…uh let’s not talk about several hundred years ago. I’m not even religious but the holiest sites of Christianity were in the hands of a religion that was formed in another country centuries after the founding of Christianity. If Mecca were in the hands of another religion would anyone criticize them for trying to retake it? Of course not, but apparently double standards reign in this matter. Are there “no go” zones in western countries? The fact is that there are “no go” countries, which is almost all of the Muslim world. Don’t go there and expect to be given the same freedom of religion that Muslims take for granted here.