Justice Neil Gorsuch leads fraudulent SCOTUS interpretation of the law on illegal immigration case
Updated: 6 days ago
This ruling essentially made the entire process by which we deport illegal immigrants....illegal.
An illegal immigrant came to the U.S. in 2005. Because he broke the law, the removal process started in 2013. He was ordered to leave the U.S. voluntarily or face deportation. The law offers no real punishment and could not be more fair (equitable) or clear.
You got caught. You were not supposed to be here. Leave or we will deport you. Criminal trespassing. Illegal entry. (Just remember the way citizens were treated after Jan 6th.)
The illegal immigrant received two notices - one in March 2013 with his charges, and another in May 2013 with the time and place of the hearing - during his 8th year in the U.S. illegally.
Federal law says that an illegal immigrant in such a situation can avoid deportation at the attorney general's discretion if they have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years. The clock officially stops when they receive "a notice to appear" with information about their hearing. But in cases like plaintiff Agusto Niz-Chavez's, the government sent multiple documents containing different pieces of information. The court's majority ruled that because the law says "a" notice, that means it must be a single document.
That is not what the law means and that interpretation of it is fraudulent.
So if the wording of 'the law' was written this way: "notice to appear" instead of "a notice to appear" are we to believe that we would not be having this conversation right now? Do the other 5 Justices who sided with Gorsuch believe that 'a' means 'single' or 'singular?' Not withstanding the fact that the illegal immigrant did receive "a notice to appear." There is no indication that it must be limited to one.
The law does not say you can send more than one notification. It also does not say that you cannot.
What makes this this so disturbing is that is satisfies the criteria for 'you didn't say it wasn't, therefore it is' argument. Which, of course is fraudulent, being the premise for a logical fallacy and subject to circular reasoning.
The bottom line is that this is absolutely not 'interpreting the law.' This is manipulation of the law.
The illegal immigrant received 'a notice' and Gorsuch added the qualifier 'that it must be limited to' in order to arrive at his conclusion which means that his interpretation of the law is fraudulent as his reasoning requires the interpretation of text that is not present in the law (his own). A single 'notice' can include a series of documents. Gorsuch also misinterprets 'notice' to mean a single contact.
Let's apply this to other situations. Maybe a cop who repeatedly tells a suspect to "drop their weapon" is harassing the suspect if the officer tells them more than once. Does the law say that a police officer is allowed to tell am armed suspect 'multiple times' to drop their weapon or is it non-specific?
There are more dictionary entries for the word 'a' preceding plurality than singularity
Gaslighting by SCOTUS:
"At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court's opinion. "But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him."
Gorsuch led an unusual collection of justices in the 6-3 decision. Siding with him were liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, as well as conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas. Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned the dissent, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
When is 'interpretation of the law' just a personally held belief by someone skilled in debate?
Does this mean that if I receive a 'reminder' of any official notification that it is null and void?
Just a reminder that SCOTUS had no interest in pursuing justice with regard to election integrity. In other words, SCOTUS has time to protect the best interests of illegal immigrants, but not legal citizens who have been disenfranchised by election fraud.
Bill Clinton and the definition of 'is'.
Projecting a false 'interpretation' of a law by SCOTUS is a problem.
Trespassing in this case also involves theft - using the infrastructure and contributing to the depletion of it while not paying for it through taxation. No mention of whether or not he was illegally employed and used false documents to obtain employment.
The abuse of language continues with this absurd interpretation of the law. This is about more than this ruling. This signifies that language can and will be abused even when it is to be taken most seriously by the SCOTUS.