'Dire Consequences': Justice Gorsuch Sides with Liberals Against Justice Barrett's Majority Opinion
Source: Law & Crime
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against immigrants seeking judicial review of mistakes and errors made by immigration agencies. In a 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that federal courts are categorically barred from considering such issues.
It is no secret that when processing applications, licenses, and permits the government sometimes makes mistakes, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a passionate dissent. Often, they are small onesa misspelled name, a misplaced application. But sometimes a bureaucratic mistake can have life-changing consequences. Our case is such a case.
Joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Gorsuch castigated the sweeping nature of the majoritys decision and its fealty to the administrative state.
Today, the Court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error, one that will result in an individuals removal from this country, and nothing can be done about it, the dissent notes. No court may even hear the case. It is a bold claim promising dire consequences for countless lawful immigrants.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/dire-consequences-justice-gorsuch-sides-with-liberals-against-justice-barrett-s-majority-opinion-in-immigration-case/ar-AAXlvWH
bucolic_frolic
(43,044 posts)Deported. With Out Papers.
So all a civil servant has to do to keep them all out is to make clerical errors. Lot of devolution of power.
FarPoint
(12,287 posts)Just giving the appearance of no bias....it's bait!
Javaman
(62,500 posts)Im Italian and was called the endless times a kid. As the n-word is offensive to African Americans, WOP is in the same ballpark. Please consider editing your comment
littlemissmartypants
(22,569 posts)DU is full to overflowing with such. ICYMI. They're everywhere.
Celerity
(43,107 posts)The New York governor recently repeated a common, but dubious, explanation for the epithet.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/wop-doesnt-mean-what-andrew-cuomo-thinks-it-means/558659/
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently attracted criticism from immigration advocacy groups for describing himself as undocumented during a bill-signing ceremony in Albany. You want to deport an undocumented person, start with me, because Im an undocumented person, he said. What drew less attention was how he explained that provocative conclusion. I came from poor Italian Americans who came here, Cuomo said. You know what they called Italian Americans back in the day? They called them wops. You know what wop stood for? Without papers.
Cuomos attempt to express solidarity was a bit overheated, to say the least: He isnt really undocumented, of course, and as the son of a former governor, he wasnt exactly marginalized growing up. His historical justification for the parallel is similarly dubious. While his Italian immigrant forebears may indeed have had the epithet wop slung at them, there is no evidence that the word originated as an acronym for without papers. This misunderstanding of wops origins is fairly common, and it extends far beyond politics. But Cuomo isnt the only Italian American politician to make rhetorical hay out of the bogus etymology. In February, when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made a marathon floor speech in support of the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, she told much the same story about wop:
In my fathers generation and my grandfathers generation and my great-grandmothers generation there was a term. It was called wop, and people used that as a derogatory term to Italian Americans. Do you know what wop means, Mr. Speaker? Wop means without papers. That is what these people were called, without papers. And that is all that these kids are, without papers. In every other way, strong participants in our society, in our community, and in our country.
Cuomo and Pelosi arent alone in repeating the tale in a political context. As Jonah Goldberg noted in National Review last year, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, who is descended from Irish immigrants, made the same specious connection between wop and without papers in a 60 Minutes appearance.
Where did wop really come from? The best guess from etymologists is that the source is a southern Italian dialectal word, guappo or guappu, meaning dandy or swaggerer. That, in turn, is likely from the Spanish word guapo meaning handsome or bold, imported to Sicily when the island was occupied by Spain. Sicilian immigrants to the United States brought the swaggering word with them. It connoted arrogance, bluster, and maleficence entwined, wrote the music journalist Nick Tosches in his 2001 book Where Dead Voices Gather, in a historical exploration of the Italian-flavored pop-music genre once known as wop songs. Here is how Tosches describes (with some literary embellishment) the way that guappo and its variants became wop on American shores:
It was these Sicilian words that were commonly used to describe the work-bosses who lured their greenhorn paesani into servitude in New York City in the early years of the twentieth century. In New York and other American seaports, the lowly labor of the Italian immigrants servitudethe dockside toil and offal-hauling that others shunnedcame to be called guappu work; and eventually the laborer himself, and not the boss, was known as guappu. The peasant immigrants tendency to clip the final vowels from standard Italian and Sicilianas in paesan for paesanorendered guappu as guapp, which was pronounced, more or less, as wop.
While theres no hard evidence for the oral transformation of the word, the end result, wop, began making its appearance in written English in the early years of the 20th century. In 2010, on the American Dialect Society mailing list, the word-researcher Douglas Wilson shared examples going back to 1906 in New York City newspapers. Heres one:
There was a time, not very long ago, when you couldnt find a Wopthat means an Italian in the latest downtown dialectin Dannys resort even by using a microscope. But to-day its different. The members of the Five Points gang, all dark skinned sons of Sicily, grew tired of flitting from place to place, with no set rendezvous for their nightly gatherings. A number of the Pointers used to frequent the place, and it wasnt long before the entire gang became regulars.
The Sun, Nov. 18, 1906
The story of wop standing for without papers is of much more recent vintage. It started showing up in print in the early 1970s, at a time when Italian American identity politics was on the rise. But it likely circulated orally before that. In a 1971 journal article titled A Study of Ethnic Slurs, the folklorist Alan Dundes wrote:
One folk etymology for the word wop, a common term of disparagement for Americans of Italian descent, is that in the early 1920s many Italians tried to enter the United States illegally. These would-be immigrants were rounded up by U.S. officials and sent back to Italy with documents labelled W.O.P. which supposedly stood for Without Papers referring to the papers needed for legal immigration.
Later that year, the without papers story also appeared in the sports pages of the Tucson Daily Citizen, in a quote from Cleveland Indians manager Ken Aspromonte:
If anyone called me a wop I was furious and wanted to slug the guy right then and there, Aspromonte said, but then one day my grandfather explained the origin of the word. He told me that in the early 1900s so many Italians were coming into the United States that many of them didnt bother to get visas. When theyd arrive on Ellis Island and didnt have papers with them the inspector would holler out, Heres another one, without papers. So somebody took the letters W-O-P for without papers and thats how it got started, Aspromonte said.
Also in 1971, the syndicated columnist Hy Gardner shared yet another folk etymology for wop. Wop reverts to the turn of the century when millions of Calabrians and Sicilians came off their ships holding a slip of paper with the name of the foreman they had been assigned to, Gardner wrote. U.S. immigration officials rubberstamped the papers W.O.P.meaning without passport.
Whether the imagined derivation is without papers or without passport, the wop story should set off alarm bells, because this kind of acronymic explanation is hardly ever historically correct. Acronyms became popular only in the mid-20th century (think radar, scuba, and laser), well after the time that wop and other words with supposed acronymic roots came into the language. Sad to say, cop doesnt stand for constable on patrol; golf isnt from gentlemen only, ladies forbidden; posh doesnt mean port out starboard home; and tip isnt from to insure politeness (or promptness). And please dont believe any of the made-up acronymic expansions for fuck. (For unlawful carnal knowledge and fornication under consent of the king are the most popular.)
Still, these acronymic accounts often work as a kind of storytelling in the service of what the Yale University linguist Laurence Horn has termed etymythology. Lawmakers like Cuomo and Pelosi are not so concerned with the actual origins of wop, because the without papers story works so well for their rhetorical purposes. It helps them draw a handy parallel between undocumented immigrants of the past and present, in order to further their political goals. But etymologylike politicsis in reality much messier, subverting such tidy explanations.
littlemissmartypants
(22,569 posts)I don't think bucolic_frolic is slinging an insult at javaman. If that were true I wouldn't be the one being attacked.
It's my belief that this is another case of acronym confusion. And people being obtuse via acronyms is what reduces the content value here frequently. I personally get tired of having to look them up to be able to decipher their meanings in posts.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If you or anyone else, truly believe bucolic_frolic is using a slur, alert on the post and leave me alone. ❤
Celerity
(43,107 posts)backgrounding to clear up an erroneous claim.
I cannot read intent, malicious or otherwise, into this part of the thread from any party involved.
littlemissmartypants
(22,569 posts)So who's claim do you claim is erroneous?
Celerity
(43,107 posts)If you want to get in accusations of other posters' intentions, then by all means, carry on, but I am not involved in that.
littlemissmartypants
(22,569 posts)If you don't have a dog in this fight why reply? Only bucolic_frolic knows what the intention is or isn't. If it is an insult to javaman it seems someone would have alerted on it by now, in particular javaman on his own behalf.
Instead I'm being pilloried and "reoriented" for complaining about acronyms. You can't claim "no involvement" while simultaneously posting a reply to a claim. It's an incongruous argument.
Celerity
(43,107 posts)this what I replied to
I showed that the claim is in error.
littlemissmartypants
(22,569 posts)Celerity
(43,107 posts)Javaman
(62,500 posts)until you have been on the end of being denigrated with that insult you have no idea.
littlemissmartypants
(22,569 posts)Trying to insult you. But you do you. ❤
XanaDUer2
(10,497 posts)When my Italian. -American so was a kid in NY, their landlord slurred them with that all the time. Please reconsider your post.
oldsoftie
(12,489 posts)FoxNewsSucks
(10,417 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,271 posts)marmar
(77,053 posts)DoBotherMe
(2,339 posts)Kabuki theatre redux
dalton99a
(81,392 posts)dchill
(38,442 posts)mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)KPN
(15,635 posts)See, were all thoughtfully reasonable jurists.
Solly Mack
(90,758 posts)Hateful, hateful people.
The courts are for redress of wrongs.
elleng
(130,732 posts)My daughter asked why they're making such decisions, based on my telling her we can rely on them. I said "I was wrong."
Solly Mack
(90,758 posts)of the law and the court, itself, and in terms of what it has meant for you.
MontanaMama
(23,295 posts)He was asking what the checks and balances were for SCOTUS. I guess there are none.
elleng
(130,732 posts)not needed until now.
jaxexpat
(6,799 posts)Thus, for the sake of the status quo and Nazi fortunes, we avoid the tyranny of the majority. Voila!
and.....yes, it's
ThoughtCriminal
(14,046 posts)the victims of these errors were unlikely to be white, therefor not eligible for judicial intervention.
WestMichRad
(1,317 posts)Nt
Initech
(100,038 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)How many of their ancestors would have been barred because of a mistake by some government employee making a mistake. One would think the courts could arbitrate and send it back for review. What a shame. I see documents every day with genealogy that are goofed up. My own family included ,
mpcamb
(2,868 posts)Haggis 4 Breakfast
(1,453 posts)How is SHE writing anything ?
Rated as "unqualified" by the ABA, now she's writing opinions ??
former9thward
(31,936 posts)In roughly equal numbers over the term. It doesn't matter how long they have been on the court.
Haggis 4 Breakfast
(1,453 posts)I'm not doubting you, but I thought that the more senior, experienced justices wrote the opinions. So Schlitz Kavanaugh could be writing opinions, too ? Scary.
SunSeeker
(51,512 posts)Each justice gets to pick a team of law clerks who are ideologically compatible with his or her views. Some justices are more involved in the final crafting of the opinion so that it reflects their particular writing style, but they all rely on their clerks to some extent.
patphil
(6,150 posts)Practicing "safe dissent" in a 5-4 conservative decision.
Makes you look somewhat human, without having to actually do something that matters.
agingdem
(7,805 posts)the majority had it in the bag..he knew that so his sudden attack of feigned conscience had everything to do with Roe v Wade and public outrage and nothing to do with immigration agency errors...
RobinA
(9,886 posts)Not exactly what this country is supposed to be about.
dlk
(11,512 posts)Last edited Thu May 19, 2022, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)
They have no regard for the rights of the individual.
Cheezoholic
(2,006 posts)they sure as hell are spreading the fertilizer to help it grow!
vanlassie
(5,663 posts)dlk
(11,512 posts)Cheezoholic
(2,006 posts)AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)he is throwing a bone to rwnjs who will claim the court is legitimate and strictly ideological.
Martin68
(22,765 posts)Martin68
(22,765 posts)I hope so. Don't doubt that the leak and the public reaction affected many on the court. Not Alito, Thomas, or Barrett, but even Kavanaugh wants to be liked.
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
JudyM This message was self-deleted by its author.
LudwigPastorius
(9,104 posts)He's still a corporate conservative and a fetus fan, but he's not quite as committed to racist laws as the others are...a low bar indeed.
However, with every decision, it's becoming clearer that this Court would just about rubber stamp whatever a hypothetical president Trump and GOP congress could come up with.
The elections of 2022 and 2024 combined could either be the death of the American experiment, or a little bit of breathing room before the next fascist onslaught.
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Will now sabotage applications as a deliberate means of turning away immigrants and there is no recourse. Where is the due process promised in the Bill of Rights? The Constitution is now dead. Long live the Constitution.
KPN
(15,635 posts)Have you ever been to the Holocaust Museum in DC? This is exactly how it started. Well, this and at least the past 6-7 yrs of Trumpism/maga.