Objectively, I do not believe that it is permissible for the government to detain alien persons for deportation indefinitely without a bail release hearing. Historically, the US courts have an established precedent of allowing bail trails for foreigners during the removal process. For example, in Wing Wong v. the United States, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of detained alien persons to have a bail hearing, especially if the removal procedure was bound to extend for up to one year. Moreover, in Tod v. Waldmans, the Supreme Court also acknowledged the essence of the non-prejudiced application for release on bail for aliens awaiting expulsion.
Essentially, through various rulings in favor of bail proceedings, the US Supreme Court has already established a tradition that accepts the unalienable rights of the alien persons envisioned in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, the issue should not be whether the foreigners are entitled to a hearing or not, but if they are a flight risk or a danger to the US. If they are qualified, then their rights to a bail release hearing should be guaranteed.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Detention of Alien Persons for Deportation without Bail Release Hearings".
However, following the US Supreme Court’s judgment in Jennings v. Rodriguez detained aliens awaiting removal have no statutory right to bail hearings. According to Justice Samuel Alito’s analysis, the provision for the detention of foreigners with prior criminal offenses, misrepresentation, invalid documentation, and fraud does not entail their right to have bail release hearings. Rather, the Supreme Court (through the 5-3 majority decision) maintains that the statutory regulations only provide for custody before removal proceedings. In other words, the Court refused to include bail release hearings in the interpretation of “removal proceedings” and noted that the language used in previous cases signaled skepticism and not the confirmation of the rights of alien persons for deportation.
