Blake v. Carbone: Dangerous felons may not be deported.

[Don Corleone]

I'll be the first to admit that America is a nation of immigrants and we need immigration to keep vitality in our politics, our economy and our culture.

However, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. I'm sure by now, you all know my views on 'illegal immigration'. I do not agree that the best way to keep labor prices low is to set aside any enforcement of our existing laws. I've been labelled as a racist for this stance, which is okay, because in that I know my opposition has no arguments of merit.

However, I'm curious if anyone in the Org agrees with this (http://www.prnewsnow.com/PR%20News%20Releases/Government/Bretz%20Coven%20LLP%20Wins%20Immigration%20Appeal%20in%20Second%20Circuit) Now, I'm no legal scholar, but what I take from this is that a man convicted of aggravated sexual assault and a man convicted of second degree murder may not be deported upon the completion of their sentence, because their deportation is on the basis of comitting crimes of moral torpitude (in other words, you can't deport them for committing crimes while they're here, only for violations of the immgration laws, which as all enlightened people know, would be racist to do). Is that what some feel, that even dangerous felons have a right to permanent residence in this country?

Or am I just being a racist again. :laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

More detail, from Yahoo's news site: Also two other felons, a racqueteer and a 1st degree manslaughter (http://fe3.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20070609/bs_prweb/prweb532106).

[Odin]

Well you know im a little more extreme then you are, I think our forces in the middle east should be redeployed to our borders, armed with sniper rifles....

As far as these clowns well they benefit from definition of Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience. Offenses such as murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnaping, robbery, and aggravated assaults involve moral turpitude. However, assaults not involving dangerous weapons or evil intent have been held not to involve moral turpitude.

Moral turpitude may be a reason for deporting an alien.The alien must be convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after the date of entry, and sentenced to confinement or confined therefor for one year or longer. Although the conviction must occur within five years of entry, any entry into the United States may be used to support the charge of deportability. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a crime of moral turpitude is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to social standards of morality and done with a reckless, malicious, or evil intent. It is a broad and subjective term that can be used for any crime that USCIS considers offensive. http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-turpitude/.

Moral turpitude is ambiquous and it seems this court took the easy way out with the verdict, if the court chose to deport that would have set precident, it seems to me (assuming I am reading this correctly) that the court wanted no part of that.

[AntiochusIII]

Strange. One thing I always thought about in terms of my status as an immigrant is that I must not commit a crime. I got the impression that they can essentially deport me for speeding if they want to, though that is unlikely and rather against common sense; and if I somehow murder someone they'll almost certainly deport me.

Or so I thought.

I don't understand though: what does the legal term "exclusion" mean and what will happen to the criminals exactly?

[rory_20_uk]

So America is further on than the UK. Here we are still at deportation of illegal immigrants is against their human rights.

~:smoking:

[Don Corleone]

I'm not certain. I believe exclusion means your lack of desirability as an immigrant, i.e. they deny you entry in the first place. I 'think' what they're saying is that you can deny somebody entrance into the country for rape or murder, but you cannot deport them for it if they commit it here. Pindar? EA? Other lawyerly types? :help:

[Hosakawa Tito]

At the Shock Incaceration jail I work at now, the program is for first time (as in first time caught) non-violent felony offenders. It's a 6 month boot camp style program with intensified and stricter parole requirements upon release after successfully completing the program. We almost always have a few illegal aliens in each graduating class. The regulars go home. The INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service) sends a sercurity transport team in a van to pick up the illegal alien graduates and takes them to a holding center in Batavia, NY. Hearings are held on their status, and I presume that some, if not most, are deported, but I don't know that for a fact.

AntiochusIII, speeding is a minor offense, a traffic violation. Committing a felony is a much more serious crime that could warrant deportation in certain cases and circumstances. I'm not sure what "exclusion" means in reference to the criminals in this article.

[AntiochusIII]

AntiochusIII, speeding is a minor offense, a traffic violation. Committing a felony is a much more serious crime that could warrant deportation in certain cases and circumstances.Oh, I know. I'm just using a hyperbole to illustrate my confusion, I'd be quite outraged if a speeding ticket makes me eligible for a measure as big as deportattion. But since these criminals appear to commit serious crimes I don't see why the court says they can't be deported; the articles say something about the decision "extending" section 212(c) -- dealing with allowing immigrants to appeal for a "waiver" on deportation because of some crimes essentially -- but I don't know from where to where.

I might be having an opinion a little too fast here since I don't even fully understand the case but, in my personal opinion, though I support immigrants having lots and lots of rights, so that there's only a few key difference between us and the citizens (after all I'm "in" on the universal human rights concept) I believe that the State's ability to deport immigrants because of serious crimes is a very reasonable power to have...as long as they don't abuse it which I don't think they do.

[Blodrast]

AFAIK, if you get a criminal record during your application for permanent residence/immigration, you will fail in your application - and this is valid for both US and Canada. This applies both when you already have a criminal record at the moment you apply, and if you get one during the process (which takes years).
So, Antiochus, speeding tickets and such are ok, because you don't get a criminal record for those. But any offense that will get you one means you will be refused permanent residence/immigration.

It gets even more complicated because one may have a criminal record in their country of origin for something that may not be a crime (or have a completely different status) in the country where they are trying to immigrate to...

[Hosakawa Tito]

I don't understand all the legalities involved either, but I would think that illegal immigrants committing serious violent felonies in the US should disqualify one from visas and citizenship applications. I imagine that most illegal aliens that are committing serious felonies here aren't bothering to follow the immigration rules either.

[Blodrast]

I don't understand all the legalities involved either, but I would think that illegal immigrants committing serious violent felonies in the US should disqualify one from visas and citizenship applications. I imagine that most illegal aliens that are committing serious felonies here aren't bothering to follow the immigration rules either.

As far as I'm aware, it doesn't even matter whether it's a violent crime or not, just whether you have a criminal record or have been accused of something - here or elsewhere. Someone I know had been a journalist in his country of origin. He was once sued for libel (which I guess is not all that unusual for a journalist) - and found not guilty. However, because he went to court, he had to specify that on his immigration application.
At first, the immigration authorities called them for an interview and flat out rejected their application. Then, he started trying to obtain documents from the original country, to prove the relative significance of the offense he had been accused of, since the two countries had different views on the same offense.
I don't know the final outcome, I *think* I heard in the end they were refused, and that was that, but I haven't kept in touch, so I don't know for sure.