>A federal judge benefits dreamers again

>A federal judge benefits dreamers again Immigration rights activists rally against repeal of DACA. (Picture from the Internet) [Qiaobao Comprehensive News] On Monday, a California federal...

Immigration rights activists rally against repeal of DACA. (Pictures from the Internet)

[Qiao Bao Comprehensive News] On Monday, a federal judge in California gave another generous gift to young illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States by their families when they were children. He ruled that day that the federal government cannot revoke the protected status and work authorization of "Dreamers" without prior notice and an opportunity to defend themselves.

Cable News Network (CNN) reported that federal district judge Philip Gutierrez made this ruling on Monday, marking the third time that a lower federal court has rejected the Trump administration's approach to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. However, unlike the previous two rulings, Gutierrez's latest ruling does not directly address Trump's decision to end the program last September.

What Gutierrez has to deal with is the other side of DACA, which is the procedural issue of the government revoking its decision.

DACA was launched by the Obama administration in 2012 to provide temporary protection to young illegal immigrants (i.e. "Dreamers") who were brought to the United States by their families as children if the applicant meets certain conditions, pays relevant fees, passes a background check, and does not commit a serious crime, allowing them to temporarily avoid deportation and can stay in the United States legally and work legally.

The Trump administration announced last September that it was ending the program, claiming it was unconstitutional.

However, a series of rulings by lower federal court judges frustrated the Trump administration’s efforts in this regard. They demand that the federal government must accept work authorization extension applications from DACA recipients amid legal challenges to government decisions regarding DACA.

The Federal Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would not intervene in this debate for the time being, allowing the lower circuit appeals courts to hear the relevant cases first.

At the same time, rights activists across the country have raised specific cases and increasingly criticized the Trump administration's decision to rescind DACA.

Gutierrez made the ruling Monday based on a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The lawsuit argued in specific cases that the government revoked protected status and work authorization from DACA recipients who had not committed serious crimes without giving them any chance to defend themselves.

The ACLU mentioned that the plaintiff Jesus Arreola was arrested on suspicion of smuggling illegal immigrants, but the immigration judge later found that accusation not credible. Arreola said he was an Uber and Lyft driver helping a friend pick up customers without knowing their immigration status.

The judge said that the federal Department of Homeland Security must restore protection for DACA recipients who had their protected status revoked without notification, opportunity for reasonable explanation and response, and to protect them from deportation.

Supreme Court: Immigrants awaiting deportation can be detained indefinitely

Trump’s harsh claims on immigration have been echoed by the Federal Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled to limit immigrants' access to bail hearings if they are detained for extended periods while being deported.

According to Reuters, the Supreme Court justices voted 5 to 3 that day, overturning a lower court ruling that required immigrants to attend bail hearings after six months of detention while awaiting deportation. This means that immigrants awaiting deportation may face indefinite detention without a bail hearing.

This will affect thousands of immigrants, including lawful permanent residents and asylum seekers, who may be held in detention for a year or more before being given a hearing while in deportation proceedings. Currently, the average length of detention is 13 months.

The five conservative justices of the Supreme Court rejected the objections of three liberal justices with a majority. Another liberal, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the ruling.

Justice Samuel Alito said when reading the court's opinion: "In the statutory text, there is no provision limiting the time of detention, nor is there any provision regarding the holding of a hearing."

However, the ruling only affects federal law and does not change the Constitution, so opponents still have a chance to win in lower courts. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the San Francisco Court of Appeals in 2015 ruled that the government must schedule hearings to measure danger and risk when detained for more than six months and every six months thereafter. The Justice Department under former President Obama appealed the ruling.

In its ruling, the court affirmed that the federal government has the authority to detain immigrants while deciding whether to allow them to remain in the United States.

Alito wrote for the majority: "In the course of immigration proceedings, immigration officials have the authority to detain certain aliens while they determine whether the aliens are lawfully in the country."

The lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit is a lawful immigrant who was convicted of possessing a controlled substance and taking a stolen car for a joyride. He was detained by immigration officials for three years without ever attending a bail hearing.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took over his case and filed a class-action lawsuit, challenging the U.S. government’s practice of detaining immigrants for months or years without a chance to argue for release. It eventually won the case and the government canceled his deportation order.

With the Trump administration deciding to step up immigration enforcement, more and more people may end up in detention awaiting deportation, making this case even more important.