Ruling Eases Way for Deportation of Illegal Immigrants

The Supreme Court closed the courthouse door Wednesday to thousands of illegal immigrants facing deportation, ruling that they have no right to challenge their removal even if they were singled out for their political views.

In the first test of the 1996 immigration reform act, the justices upheld the law’s so-called court-stripping provisions, which were designed to make it easier and quicker for the government to remove people who are here illegally.

“Deportation is necessary in order to bring to an end an ongoing violation of United States law,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. “An alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation.”

The ruling does not mean that the Immigration and Naturalization Service will seek to remove the many millions of people who are in the United States illegally. That task is far beyond the agency’s capacity or intent. And the decision gives the agency no powers to remove immigrants who have legal status.

It will, however, give immigration officials greater leeway to move against those illegal immigrants who come to its attention.

Conservatives have long complained that deportations, like death penalty appeals, can drag on for decades in the courts.

For example, the case decided Wednesday began in 1987 when the INS moved to deport eight Palestinian-rights activists from the Los Angeles area.

Repeatedly, however, federal judges in California have intervened to block the deportations because, they said, the Palestinians were targeted for unpopular political views.

But three years ago, in response to the conservatives’ complaints, the Republican-led Congress changed the law and stripped judges of their power to intervene.

“No court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by any alien” who is slated for deportation, the new law said.

Despite that stark wording, many immigration lawyers and some judges have maintained that the Constitution does not allow the government to punish anyone--including illegal immigrants--for the exercise of basic rights, such as freedom of speech.

Courts Find Violations of Constitution

Last year, both U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco continued to block deportation of the so-called “L.A. 8” on grounds that the Constitution shielded them.

But the Supreme Court’s conservative majority swept aside that argument Wednesday.

“When an alien’s presence in this country is in violation of the immigration laws, the government does not offend the Constitution by deporting him,” said Scalia for a 5-4 majority.

It is not clear how many immigrants will be affected by the ruling. Much depends on how the INS uses its bolstered power to seek deportations.

The number of people forcibly removed from the United States has risen sharply throughout this decade. According to the INS, 169,072 immigrants were deported last year, up from 43,525 in 1992. One-third of those deported last year were removed for criminal convictions.

Government lawyers applauded Wednesday’s decision and said it will prevent long court battles. “The effect of this opinion will be to channel the review of removals into one streamlined proceeding” before an immigration judge, said INS general counsel Paul Virtue.

But immigration-rights activists harshly condemned the decision and said that it overturns the long-understood American tradition that constitutional claims deserve special treatment.

“Justice Scalia’s opinion is nothing short of outrageous,” said San Francisco attorney Mark Van Der Hout, who represented the Palestinians on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild. “It relegates immigrants to a second-class status that is reminiscent of the political witch hunts of the McCarthy era.”

He and other immigration experts believe it important that an independent federal judge--not just INS officials and immigration judges--review the cases of those slated for deportation, he said.

“The government now has a free rein to target [illegal] immigrants for deportation based on their lawful political activities,” said Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigrant rights project.

Although relatively few illegal immigrants have alleged that they were being removed for political reasons, many others are trying to block their deportations in court.

Thousands of illegal immigrants with past criminal convictions are subject to deportation under a separate provision of the 1996 law. The measure specifically says these deportation orders “shall not be subject to review by any court.”

In November, the 9th Circuit also struck down that provision on grounds that the Constitution gives every person a right to file a writ of habeas corpus in a court.

That ruling came on behalf of 25-year-old Daniel Magana-Pizano, an illegal immigrant who was born in Mexico but has lived most of his life in Southern California. In 1995, he was convicted of a misdemeanor drug violation. On that basis, the INS wants to deport him.

The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision in the case (U.S. vs. Magana-Pizano, 98-836).

The justices delayed a decision on that appeal while they decided the Palestinians’ case. If they adhere to Scalia’s opinion and extend it to cover those who face deportation for past crimes, it will leave many thousands of noncitizens subject to deportation without court review, immigration experts said.

The government said it targeted the eight Palestinian activists because they were raising money for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist group that had taken credit for several airline hijackings and car bombings in the Middle East.

Khader Hamide, one of the leaders, had been recorded speaking at a fund-raising dinner in Glendale urging attendees to give money “for the combatants in Lebanon and on the West Bank. The revolution requires support.”

But the Los Angeles activists maintained that, despite its international reputation, the Palestinian front was not primarily a military-style organization. Most of its effort went to operating hospitals, youth clubs, schools and day care centers, the activists said, and they supported those peaceful activities.

Nonetheless, the INS wanted them deported. When they went to court in Los Angeles, the judges came to their defense.

The Constitution does not permit “guilt by association,” the 9th Circuit ruled. Its judges added that the deportation could not go forward unless the government could show that the eight Palestinians intended to support the “illegal group goals” of the Palestinian front.

A ‘Never-Ending Nightmare’ in Court

The Supreme Court, on an 8-1 vote, overturned that ruling and said that under the 1996 law, the judges in California had no authority to block the deportation proceeding from going forward (Reno vs. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 97-1252).

Scalia in his opinion went further and rejected the constitutional claim entirely. He was joined in this view by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Only Justice David H. Souter dissented. Three others said the court should have avoided ruling now on the constitutional claim.

Hamide described the 12-year court battle as “a never-ending nightmare for me and my family.”

“It is really scary for the Supreme Court to say you have no one to appeal to if your constitutional rights are violated,” he said.

In the mid-1980s, he said, he voiced support for the idea of an independent state for Palestinians. Since then, “the United States government has come around to basically say now what we said then. They have never accused us of criminal wrongdoing. All they say is we are guilty for expressing support for Palestinian rights,” Hamide said.