Thread: Court blocks deportation over minor drug convictions

Court blocks deportation over minor drug convictions
June 14, 2010 | 3:06 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked the government Monday from routinely deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession convictions, a decision that immigrant-rights lawyers said will spare tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding residents from being sent out of this country.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said a Texas man who had pled guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, an anti-anxiety drug, had been wrongfully deported.

Jose Carachuri-Rosendo was taken into federal custody after he pled no contest to having the Xanax pill without a prescription. Both an immigration judge and the U.S. court of appeals in New Orleans ruled he must be deported because his second drug possession conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony."

His case illustrated the potentially harsh impact of a 1996 federal law that was intended to rid the nation of immigrants who were criminals and violent offenders. Previously immigrants could ask for leniency if they had a job, a family or other ties in this country.

The new law, by contrast, required the deportation of any non-citizen convicted of an "aggravated felony."

But Congress did not carefully define this term. Since then, immigration judges have been deciding which crimes fit the definition.

Monday's ruling marks the third time in six years that the Supreme Court has intervened and ruled that these judges have gone too far.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the government's view defies common sense. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony'," he wrote.

Because of its strict wording, the 1996 law had required deportation even for legal residents who have lived in the United States for decades and served in the U.S. military. And despite the high court's ruling, immigrants convicted of drug charges still could be deported.

They will, however, have a chance to seek leniency before an immigration judge.

"Today's ruling will affect tens of thousands of immigrants, but it is hard to get a specific number," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project in New York.

In 2009, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 139,188 so-called "criminal aliens," but this number included both lawful residents and illegal immigrants, officials said.

The U.S. appeals court in New Orleans and Chicago were among those that said a second drug possession conviction triggered the automatic-deportation rule. Had the Supreme Court agreed with that view, it would have allowed the government to move forward with thousands of deportations, immigration experts said.

Peter Spiro, a Temple University Law Professor and former clerk at the high court, said the justices acted after waiting in vain for Congress to fix the 1996 law.

"This is another in a long line of cases in which the Court is pushing back," he said. "They are giving very clear cues they want this law defined more narrowly."

Six years ago, the court rejected the Bush administration's view that a drunk driving conviction amounted to an aggravated felony. Four years ago, the court in an 8-1 decision rejected deportation for a South Dakota man who pled guilty to cocaine possession -- a felony under state law, but a misdemeanor under federal law.

In its decision, the high court said a second drug possession conviction was not an aggravated felony even if it was a repeat offense. Stevens said the common-sense use of the words "aggravated" and "felony" refer to a serious or violent crime that would be punished by more than a year in prison.

"Congress, like 'Humpty Dumpty', has the power to give words unorthodox meanings," he said, but there is no evidence that Congress meant to make minor drug offenses into aggravated felonies. He noted that drug trafficking does qualify as a felony requiring deportation.

Carachuri-Rosendo, 32, was born in Mexico and came to Texas with his parents when he was five. He became a lawful permanent resident, worked as a carpet installer, and has a wife and four children.

He served 20 days in jail for a misdemeanor marijuana charge. He spent 10 days in county jail for the Xanax pill before he was taken into federal custody and deported to Mexico.

Under Monday's ruling, he can seek to return.

Ken Dilanian contributed to this story from Washington.

Copyright © 2010, Tribune Interactive

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3153.story

Anyone care to guess how Sotomayor voted on this one?


This is why you have to make the act of illegal immigration a felony, like was passed in HR 4437. Re-entry is a felony but entry and visa overstay is just a misdemeanor.

Dixie

added to homepage
http://www.alipac.us/article5358.html

If they were legally here, they do fall under our jurisdiction. They are to pay fines and do time, just like our citizens.
It takes a lot more to get a legal immigrant deported, than someone illegal.
I think they put them in with the illegals and the court said that was a no-no.

I can understand that.

I think it depends n what standard we want to hold legal immigrants to compared to American citizens. The goal for legal immigrants is to strive and work their way to US Citizenship by proving they will be a model citizen which means the standards or the bar if you will is raised higher then those who are natural born citizens.

To many people want to be legal in the US and enjoy what comes with that but yet we can only allow so many in per year. That means we can be selective in this process and standard we hold them to. Yes, you have to walk a tighter rope then that of US born citizens. There is an ample supply of immigrants who want to come to this country and they wouldn't violate any criminal laws to maintain their legal status in the US and their prospects for citizenship.

I think the Supreme court got too hung up on the fact that one criminal act was a low level crime while other criminal acts are considered a high level crime. The fact is they committed a crime and jepordized their legal status. They already get one freebie card on the first low level crime by not being deported. That should have been their wake-up call that they used their one card up and a second crime will result in deportation and if they were stupid enough to do it a secnd time then they deserve to be deported.

Really, how many low level crimes will we say is acceptable. A legal immigrant can do 5, 10, 15? Where do you cut it off at? Where is the deterrent affect to not commit any crimes if you say if its low level you will still be able to maintain your legal status.

If you can't live your life crime free then maybe you don't deserve to enjoy the benefit of being legal immigrant status in the US. That goes for a joint, DUI, shoplifting, illegal prescription pill use, ect. After all, I am a natural born US Citizen and I have managed to live 45 years of my life so far crime free. Is their bar to match my bar of a crime free life unreasonable? I don't think so.

My Mother is 66 and has never been arrested for anything in her life. My Grandfather who is still alive is 96 and has never been arrested for a crime.

So what are we saying, that the value of legal status in the US is over two criminal convictions before its revocable? When he took possession of that joint he knew or should have known it was illegal and a violation of the law. He took his chances and he got caught. Maybe he did it 10,000 other times and never got caught, but he committed a crime and there are consequences.

To me it not about whether its a minor crime or a major crime, its not about whether he got 20 days in jail or 2 years in jail, its about the fact he committed a crime that he knew would jepordize his legal status and he did it anyways thus showing me that he placed little value on the legal status and more value on the effects he would get from smoking his joint. Risk versus reward he lost that gamble and now is being held accountable for HIS DECISIONS. Well now he can smoke all the pot he wants and not have to worry about losing his legal status. Thats the message we should be sending, if you value your legal status because it is so hard to earn, do not commit ANY crimes, work hard, and you will have a good life in the USA.

If they were legally here, they do fall under our jurisdiction. They are to pay fines and do time, just like our citizens.
It takes a lot more to get a legal immigrant deported, than someone illegal.
I think they put them in with the illegals and the court said that was a no-no.

I can understand that.

I think you are right and William Gheen misinterpreted what the article said.

We do not need more junkies in the U S. We have enough already sucking up resources and services.
Not to mention they also fuel the international drug trade with their demand for illegal drugs which Mexico has already complained about. We do not want to disappoint Mexico by having MORE demand for illegal drugs now do we?