Supreme Court hears case on immigration removal order

WASHINGTON -- After a 30-year struggle to live in the United States, Humberto Fernandez-Vargas said he thought he had finally earned his keep. \nNow he awaits the Supreme Court decision that will determine whether the government has the authority to send him back where he came from. \nImmigration and Customs Enforcement deported Fernandez-Vargas back to Mexico several times between 1970 and 1981, but in 2001 he married his longtime girlfriend, Rita, who is a U.S. citizen. He then filed to change his status from undocumented noncitizen to legal permanent resident, hoping that he could continue to run his trucking business and live his life in the United States legally. \nBut the day Fernandez-Vargas went to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services office for his visa petition, an ICE officer greeted him, arrested him and put him in detention. \nBecause his 1981 order of deportation was subject to a clause under the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE asserted that Fernandez-Vargas was not entitled to apply for any relief from deportation. \nAfter the Supreme Court heard oral arguments March 22 regarding the case, it will soon decide whether Fernandez-Vargas, and others in his same predicament, are subject to the removal order, even if he was removed and returned before the 1997 effective date of that provision. \nJustice Antonin Scalia was the first to respond during the arguments. \n"Do you really think Congress wanted to keep faith with these people who keep breaking the law?" he asked the petitioner's counsel. "That's touching."\nBut Fernandez-Vargas's position is that the new provision does not contain any indication that it is a retroactive statute. \nJustice Stephen Breyer had his own reservations about what the government's \nlanguage intends. \n"Wouldn't Congress have said, 'Leave, and when you can prove you married a U.S. citizen, you can come back?'" he asked. \nFernandez-Vargas' counselors said the provisions all pertain to "aliens" on the time in which they're supposed to be removed and that the statute simply does not provide language specifying the condition of the timing of removal. \n"Of course he is subject to being deported," Scalia said. "He must understand, (he's) here at the sufferance of this country." \nAlthough Breyer seemed sympathetic to Fernandez-Vargas's situation, he still seemed hesitant to overturn a 12-year-old policy.\n"So then you go back -- go back on the next train, and if you get across that border, you're safe," he said. "Or you can leave and apply for the admission of entry." \nWhile Scalia and Breyer were forthcoming with their opinions, the other seven judges remained silent -- some focusing intently on the petitioner's counsel, others rocking in their chairs, eyes darting around the room and up to the ceiling. \nIf the court opinion does not find in favor of Fernandez-Vargas, an even larger pool of people will be subject to the breadth of the statute.