Thursday, February 18, 2010

Immigration Rant of the Day

This is a dissenting opinion from the Honorable 6th Circtui Judge Boyce F Martin Jr.

He aupines

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en
banc. From 1994 until the government initiated deportation proceedings, Ibrahim Parlak operated a restaurant and raised his family in a small town in Michigan. There is no indication that he ever caused any problems here in the States. Why our government would elect to expend the time and money to rid our population of someone like Mr. Parlak is beyond me. As I acknowledged in my dissent to the panel opinion, however, “for the nation’s immigrants, past may always be prologue,” Parlak v. Holder, 578 F.3d 457, 471(6th Cir. 2009) (Martin, J., dissenting), and, in any event, it is the government’s prerogative to fritter away our resources as it sees fit. But one would assume that, if the government is going to expel a beneficial member of society for the alleged sins of his distant past, the government would go about its chosen folly correctly, in an above-board and dignified manner, and without over-reaching. One would further assume that those of us in the position of deciding Mr. Parlak’s case, in the agency and in the judiciary, would demand this
high standard of the government.

One would be wrong.

To read the rest of his scathing dissrnt please see
Parlak v. Holder 09a0425p.06 on the 6th Circuit website

No comments:

Post a Comment