In a complete turnaround on immigrant policy, Obama administration supports unfavorable immigration laws

Amidst Trump receiving sharp criticism for his anti-immigration policies, the Obama administration toes the same line favoring tougher laws for immigrants. It was asking the Supreme Court to nullify a decision of the court that gave the privilege of standard hearing rights to the overseas migrants who were imprisoned on basis of immigration.

The media has all along dubbed trump of racial discrimination against the immigrants. Meanwhile Ian Gershengorn, the acting Solicitor General has expressed the view that the immigration rules were deformed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. The bench had ruled last year that those overseas migrants who were facing extended detention were entitled to hearings at the immigration court for every six months.

According to the argument placed before the Supreme Court by the Obama administration, the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court distorted the equilibrium created by the legislature. The court had given a universal ruling that ensured hearings for bail to all that was not endorsed by the lawmakers. Gershengorn frequently argued in the court that the verdict of the Congress was purposeful and definite.

It was quite unusual that the media is not criticizing the Obama administration for taking a tough stand in contradiction of the equal rights of the illegitimate immigrants, as quoted by the Armstrong economics.

For several years the Republicans had disapproved the Obama administration for disregarding and deforming the laws for immigrants and favoring the immigrants. The reversal of immigration policy taken by the Obama administration is quite significant in the wake of Trump winning the US Presidential elections.

Donald Trump had assured that he would take a tough stand against the unauthorized immigrants. In case the current position of the federal government is endorsed, things would be even more difficult for the overseas immigrants.

The current proceedings in the Supreme Court are apparently dividing the eight-member bench into the normal philosophical lines. This has given rise to the possibility that the bench will defer its decision until the time the ninth judge is nominated to the court’s bench by Trump and receives the approval from Senate.

The cases that are being heard by the court involve diverse sections of the immigrants. The judges, however, seemed to agree on the manner in which specific sections of the immigrants had to be treated, the criminals for instance.

In the year 2001 the Supreme Court had given a ruling that upon deliverance of the final verdict for expulsion, the immigrants could not be kept in jail for a period exceeding six months, provided the expulsion was close by. The court although did not clarify if the ruling would be applicable to migrants in the prolonged proceedings being heard in the immigration courts.