Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    Appeals Court Rules ‘Habitual Drunkard,’ Illegal Immigrant Can Seek to Cancel Removal

    by CAROLINE MAY
    25 Mar 2016

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that chronic alcoholism cannot be a factor tied to the “moral character” of aliens the government seeks to deport — striking down a long-held facet of immigration law.

    In a decision handed down Thursday, the court in a 2-1 ruling determined that Salomon Ledezma-Cosino, a Mexican citizen who entered the U.S. illegal in 1997, should not be barred from canceling his removal order because he is a “habitual drunkard.”

    Under current law, aliens may seek to have their removal order cancelled by the attorney general, if the alien has “good moral character.” With “good moral character” difficult to ascertain, the law instead defines the qualities that imply a lack of “good moral character” and prohibits those aliens from eligibility for deportation relief. Included in that list of qualities that can cause and aliens to be denied relief is “habitual drunkard.”

    Despite Ledezma-Cosino’s past DUI conviction, the court found that “habitual drunkards” have a medical condition, which should not be reflective of an individual’s moral character.

    “We hold that, under the Equal Protection Clause, a person’s medical disability lacks any rational relation to his classification as a person with bad moral character, and that § 1101(f)(1) is therefore unconstitutional,” the majority opinion, penned by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, reads.

    “Like any other medical condition, alcoholism is undeserving of punishment and should not be held morally offensive,” he added.

    In a dissenting decision, Judge Richard R. Clifton criticized the majority’s ruling, arguing that Congress has the power to exclude any alien for any reason — “This is particularly true where the identified group threatens or even simply burdens institutions of public health and safety,” he wrote, noting that immigration law regularly excludes a broad range of aliens with medical conditions.

    “The majority prefers to focus on Congress’s manner of acting, i.e., its use of a moral character framework. But whether Congress chose the best method to do something that it undoubtedly has the authority to do is the stuff of narrow tailoring. In short, the majority opinion has applied heightened scrutiny by stealth, and in so doing, has usurped Congressional authority in an area where that authority is at its apex,” he wrote.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ancel-removal/
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    Fed Appeals Court Protects “Habitual Drunkards” from Deportation

    April 4, 2016

    In what may seem like a bad joke, a U.S. federal appellate court has ruled that an illegal immigrant convicted of drunk-driving can’t be deported because federal immigration law discriminates against “habitual drunkards” like him.

    The case involves an illegal immigrant from Mexico, Salomon Ledezma-Cosino, with at least one drunk-driving conviction, possibly more. Ledezma-Cosino has lived in the U.S. illegally since 1997 and has eight kids, five of them anchor babies born in America. He works in the construction industry and has a criminal record. Ledezma-Cosino drank about a liter of tequila every day for a decade, according to medical records cited in federal court documents, and has been diagnosed with acute alcoholic hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver. This man should be the poster child for deportation yet he remains in the country and is now further protected by a federal appellate court ruling.

    That’s because this particular court, the notoriously leftist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, believes the portion of federal immigration law that should get Ledezma-Cosino removed is discriminatory. For more than five decades a law enacted by Congress has stated that illegal aliens who are not of good moral character can be deported. This includes individuals with serious felony convictions, who have participated in genocide or torture, have two or more gambling offenses or have engaged in prostitution or drug-trafficking. Those who fail to pay court-ordered child support or alimony, smuggle aliens into the U.S., vote illegally or participate in religious persecution and are deemed “habitual drunkards” are also considered to lack the sort of good moral character that can get them removed from the country.

    The U.S. government is trying to deport Ledezma-Cosino under the provision that he’s a proven “habitual drunkard.” The removal case dates back to 2008, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained the Mexican national and began removal proceedings. He appealed for relief and the government determined he didn’t qualify because he lacked good moral character as a habitual drunkard. Keep in mind that the Obama administration has issued a widespread amnesty that protects practically all illegal aliens, so it’s revealing that the government keeps trying to remove this particular man. In its ruling the appellate court blasts the federal measure that associates habitual drunkards with poor morale character, writing that it violates the equal-protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution because alcoholism is a disease. “The theory that alcoholics are blameworthy because they could simply try harder to recover is an old trope not supported by the medical literature,” the ruling states. “Rather, the inability to stop drinking is a function of the underlying ailment.”

    The court further states in its decision that there is no rational basis for classifying persons afflicted by chronic alcoholism as persons who innately lack good moral character, writing that chronic acute alcoholism is itself a disease and a medically determinable physical or mental impairment. “Like any other medical condition, alcoholism is undeserving of punishment and should not be held morally offensive,” the ruling says. “Although people with alcoholism continue to face stigma, private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect. We are well past the point where it is rational to link a person’s medical disability with his moral character.”

    If the Obama administration doesn’t appeal this outrageous ruling, Ledezma-Cosino, and other illegal immigrant habitual drunkards like him, can probably stay in the U.S. In the past few years Judicial Watch has reported on—and investigated—cases that illustrate individuals like Ledezma-Cosino are ticking time bombs that can cause a lot of damage. JW sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records regarding an illegal immigrant, Carlos Martinelly-Montano, who already had multiple drunk-driving convictions when he killed a nun while driving drunk in Virginia. JW is also investigating a DHS cover-up involving an illegal immigrant with multiple drunk-driving convictions who slammed into a couple’s sports utility vehicle in New Mexico, killing their baby. He had been convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) at least three times yet was spared deportation.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...m-deportation/
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    Grassley, Sessions Blast Appeals Court for Opening Immigration Benefits to ‘Habitual

    Grassley, Sessions Blast Appeals Court for Opening Immigration Benefits to ‘Habitual Drunkards’

    by CAROLINE MAY
    26 Apr 2016

    A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down a law preventing “habitual drunkards” from being considered people of “moral character” in immigration benefit determinations was a “brazen display of judicial activism” that “endangers” communities, according to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

    “Because of this decision, countless aliens in Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and several territories, who abuse alcohol to the extent that they are habitually drunk – even those with multiple driving-under-the-influence convictions – will now be eligible for benefits under our immigration laws,” Grassley and Sessions, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, wrote Tuesday in a letter, obtained by Breitbart News, to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

    Last month the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the long-held statute, passed by Congress, rejecting aliens who are “habitual drunkards” from being defined as a person of “good moral character” when considering the alien for immigration benefits. The court specifically held that since alcoholism is a disease it does not have bearing on a person’s character.

    According to Grassley and Sessions, not only does the Court’s holding smack of judicial activism but is places the nation’s communities at risk.

    “There is a rational basis to deny immigration benefits to habitual drunkards, as distinguished from alcoholics who do not drink, in light of their manifest threat to public health and safety,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter to Lynch. The letter went on to say:

    Yet the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize this clear rational basis, and concluded that it was unconstitutional to deny immigration benefits to a Mexican national living in the United States illegally, whose medical records document a “ten-year history of alcohol abuse, during which he drank an average of one liter of tequila each day,” – and whose abuse of alcohol led to at least one DUI conviction. As noted by the dissent, alcohol accounts for up to 55% of fatal driving events.

    Grassley and Sessions further chastised the holding as a usurpation of Congress’s authority to determine who is allowed to remain in the U.S. and for how long, pointing out that the Supreme Court “has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.”

    “If Congress directs the Executive to deny immigration benefits to an alien because he is a habitual drunkard, the Judiciary must ensure fidelity to the plainly written direction of Congress – not to rewrite the law because it disagrees with the policy decision,” they wrote.

    Grassley and Sessions pressed Lynch and the Justice Department to defend the statute and explain to them by May 6 how it plans to move forward with the case.

    Read the letter:

    Dear Attorney General Lynch:

    As you know, an alien seeking immigration benefits in a variety of circumstances has the burden of demonstrating that he or she has been a person of “good moral character” for a certain period of time. Congress elected in section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), not to define who is a person of “good moral character” by articulating a list of altruistic qualities an alien should possess when making such a demonstration. Rather, Congress elected to define “good moral character” by articulating the circumstances under which an alien is precluded from making such a demonstration – including aliens who have convictions for aggravated felonies, aliens who have participated in genocide and acts of torture, aliens who have been incarcerated for six months, and aliens who are “habitual drunkards.”

    On March 24, 2016, in a brazen display of judicial activism, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held as unconstitutional Congress’ decision to preclude any alien who is a “habitual drunkard” from being considered a person of “good moral character,” because, in the opinion of the court, “[t]here is no rational basis for classifying persons afflicted by chronic alcoholism as persons who innately lack good moral character.”

    Because of this decision, countless aliens in Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and several territories, who abuse alcohol to the extent that they are habitually drunk – even those with multiple driving-under-the-influence convictions – will now be eligible for benefits under our immigration laws. This decision endangers our communities and erodes the constitutional power of Congress to determine which aliens should, and which should not, reside in the United States – a fundamental right of any sovereign nation.

    The Ninth Circuit failed to comprehend the clear danger that habitual drunkards pose to our communities. There is a rational basis to deny immigration benefits to habitual drunkards, as distinguished from alcoholics who do not drink, in light of their manifest threat to public health and safety. Yet the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize this clear rational basis, and concluded that it was unconstitutional to deny immigration benefits to a Mexican national living in the United States illegally, whose medical records document a “ten-year history of alcohol abuse, during which he drank an average of one liter of tequila each day,” – and whose abuse of alcohol led to at least one DUI conviction. As noted by the dissent, alcohol accounts for up to 55% of fatal driving events.

    Yet these events are not mere statistics. They are tragedies that affect Americans all across this country. A few months ago, an illegal alien who was driving under the influence of alcohol killed Sarah Root, a young woman from Iowa. In another recent case, an illegal alien driving under the influence hit Chelsea Hogue’s car in Louisville, Kentucky, resulting in serious injuries. These two examples alone show the dangers that drinking and driving, let alone habitual drinking, can cause to the safety and well-being of the public.

    The Ninth Circuit’s decision not only endangers the safety of our communities, but also the tears at the constitutional fabric of this great nation. The Supreme Court “has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.” Indeed, it has “long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”

    Moreover, Congress has explicitly given the Executive authority to deny admission to, remove, or deny relief from removal to an alien for a broad array of reasons, including for a medical condition. If Congress directs the Executive to deny immigration benefits to an alien because he is a habitual drunkard, the Judiciary must ensure fidelity to the plainly written direction of Congress – not to rewrite the law because it disagrees with the policy decision.

    We demand action by the Department of Justice to defend the laws duly passed by Congress. Please advise in detail, no later than May 6, 2016, as to how the Department of Justice intends to proceed with this case.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response
    .

    http://www.breitbart.com/immigration...ual-drunkards/
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Illegal aliens can have gun rights, appeals court rules
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-29-2015, 06:58 PM
  2. Appeals court denies appeals rehearing for illegal immigrant
    By Ratbstard in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-30-2011, 06:59 PM
  3. Federal Appeals Court in NY Rules Against ACORN
    By Texas2step in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-14-2010, 02:24 PM
  4. Appeals court: illegal immigrant charged in Bound Brook can
    By miguelina in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 09:48 AM
  5. Appeals Court Rules AGAINST SF Sanctuary City!!!
    By OCAngel in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 12:27 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •