Court Rejects Interpretation of Immigration Drug Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Digitonomy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Digitonomy

Guest
The Immigration and Nationality Act contains a list of aggravated felonies that includes “a drug trafficking crime.” This phrase, in turn, is defined not in the immigration law, but in the criminal code as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act,” the basic federal narcotics law.
The Justice Department and INS have been applying this Act to deport immigrants convicted of a felony drug offense, whether at the state or federal level. The Supreme Court ruling means that unless the federal government has made the crime a felony, a felony trafficking conviction under state law will not subject an immigrant to automatic deportation.
Thousands of immigrants every year might benefit from the ruling, according to Jayashri Srikantiah, a law professor who heads the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School and who filed a brief on behalf of Jose Antonio Lopez, the immigrant whose Supreme Court appeal led to the decision
Source
 
The Justice Department and INS have been applying this Act to deport immigrants convicted of a felony drug offense, whether at the state or federal level. The Supreme Court ruling means that unless the federal government has made the crime a felony, a felony trafficking conviction under state law will not subject an immigrant to automatic deportation.
Thousands of immigrants every year might benefit from the ruling, according to Jayashri Srikantiah, a law professor who heads the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School and who filed a brief on behalf of Jose Antonio Lopez, the immigrant whose Supreme Court appeal led to the decision
Source
It sickens me that people like professor Srikantiah fight for the rights of felony drug traffickers to stay in the country.
 
It sickens me that people like professor Srikantiah fight for the rights of felony drug traffickers to stay in the country.
Worse yet, some folks are sickened by the prospect of a lawyer fighting for the rights of a thief or robber or rapist or even murderer. But, we’re all entitled to representation by an attorney in any criminal proceeding, whether guilty or innocent.
 
Worse yet, some folks are sickened by the prospect of a lawyer fighting for the rights of a thief or robber or rapist or even murderer. But, we’re all entitled to representation by an attorney in any criminal proceeding, whether guilty or innocent.
Completely different issue Richard. I have no problem with a lawyer representing a criminal in court. I also have no problem with someone fighting for the rights of immigrants, even though I don’t always agree with them.

I do have a problem with a professor fighting for the overall immigration rights of known drug traffickers. The professor is not representing them in court. He’s trying to get the law changed. Are you saying you support his efforts?
 
I think this is a bad thing. DUI, Manslaughter, Armed robery, rape all all offensies which fall under state law, generally. There are a few exceptions, using based on who the victim is.

So a man who rapes a child, or sells dope to school kid who is also an immigrant cannot be deported? I am sorry, but that taking the rights of the accused too far.

Richardols’ opinion does not recognize that such people remain ongoing threats to society as recitivism (sp?) is very high for these offenses. It is not justice if innocent people are not protected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top