Supreme Court OKS government’s quick removal of immigrants who cross border illegally

WASHINGTON –The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the government's power to arrest, question and quickly remove immigrants who are caught crossing the border illegally.

By a 7-2 vote, the justices rejected the claim that immigrants who seek asylum have a right to a full federal court review through a writ of habeas corpus, even if their claims are judged to be not credible.

The decision came in the case of Sri Lankan immigrant who was caught late at night 25 yards north of the border with Mexico near San Ysidro, Calif. He was interviewed by an asylum officer who concluded he did not have a "credible fear of persecution," which would trigger a further hearing. A supervisor and immigration judge agreed his claim did not deserve further review.

But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a broad ruling in his case holding that the federal law authorizing "expedited removal" of border crosses was unconstitutional in cases such as his.

Lawyers for Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, the Sri Lankan man, said in an appeal with a judge in

San Diego, that due to "communication problems," the asylum officer did not learn of his full story. It included his being detained and beaten by army officers for supporting a Tamil political candidate. The

9th Circuit ruled it would violate the Constitution's right of habeas corpus and due process of law to deny a federal court review for such cases.

The Justice Department appealed and argued the ruling could unravel the "expedited removal" process set by Congress in 1996.

The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the 9th Circuit, ruling neither habeas corpus nor due process of law gives those who cross the border illegally a right to have a full review of their claims in the federal courts.

"While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the court has long ago held Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien's lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights" beyond those set in the 1996 law, said Justice Samuel A.

Alito Jr. in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. He was referring to the right to be interviewed by an asylum officer and a review by an immigration judge.