The U.S. Supreme Court delivered another significant immigration victory for the Trump administration on Tuesday, ruling 6-3 that federal immigration officials do not need “clear and convincing evidence” at the border before treating a lawful permanent resident accused of certain crimes as an applicant for admission.Justice Clarence Thomas delivers the hammer: Border officers making “quick judgments on the spot” do NOT need clear and convincing evidence of guilt at the moment of parole. Proof can come later at removal proceedings.The Court sided with the Trump administration in Blanche v. Lau, rejecting activist attempts to tie the hands of border officers and making it significantly easier to remove lawful permanent residents who commit serious crimes.The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a green card holder in 2007. In May 2012, while facing criminal charges in New Jersey for selling nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit clothing (a clear crime involving moral turpitude), Lau took a trip to China.When he tried to return through JFK Airport in June 2012, immigration officers did exactly what they were supposed to do: they paroled him into the country instead of formally admitting him as a returning resident because of the pending charges.That parole decision was critical. It allowed the Department of Homeland Security to later treat Lau as an applicant for admission rather than automatically being allowed back into the country as a green card holder.After he pleaded guilty in 2013 to trademark counterfeiting and received probation, DHS moved to remove him on inadmissibility grounds.After Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge, the federal government initiated removal proceedings. However, the Second Circuit intervened and ruled that border officials needed “clear and convincing evidence” that Lau had committed the crime before treating him as an applicant for admission.The Supreme Court rejected that argument outright.Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, was crystal clear:“The Government correctly regarded Lau as an applicant for admission, so it properly charged him with inadmissibility. Nothing in the [Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)] required the border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming him an applicant for admission.”Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the opinion. The three liberal justices dissented, predictably whining about “immigration limbo” and trying to protect criminal aliens over American citizens and the rule of law.The Court concluded that nothing in federal immigration law imposes such a requirement on frontline immigration officers making rapid decisions at ports of entry.This ruling is a massive win for law and order. It affirms that border officers can make reasonable, on-the-spot decisions based on pending charges when deciding whether to parole a returning green card holder.The full evidence of the crime can — and should — be presented later during removal proceedings, where it belongs. No more absurd technicalities shielding removable criminals.The post SUPREME COURT Sides with Trump Administration in Major 6-3 Immigration WIN — Makes It Far Easier to Deport Criminal Green Card Holders Accused of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.