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

    Join Date
    Jan 1970

    Immigrant Wins In Drug Deportation Case ... 169149.htm

    Immigrant wins in drug deportation casePETE YOST
    Associated Press

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for some immigrants convicted of drug possession under state law to remain in the United States rather than being subject to deportation.

    In an 8-1 decision, the justices ruled in favor of an immigrant who pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession of drugs in South Dakota for telling someone where to obtain cocaine.

    While such a crime is a felony in South Dakota, most first-time simple possession offenses are punished as misdemeanors under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

    The issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which says immigrants found guilty of aggravated felonies are subject to deportation.

    Conduct that is a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the Controlled Substances Act is not a felony for purposes of immigration, stated the ruling by Justice David Souter.

    Jose Antonio Lopez, a 16-year permanent U.S. resident, was deported to Mexico in January 2006, but could return to his wife and two children, who are U.S. citizens, one of his lawyers has said.

    Even then, Lopez, who had operated a grocery store in Sioux Falls, S.D., still could face deportation, but an immigration judge would have discretion to allow him to remain in the United States.

    In opposing the immigrant's legal position, the Bush administration said that Congress left the door open to counting state felonies as felonies under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which would make them a crime that could trigger deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    "We do not normally speak or write the government's way," Souter wrote, referring to the government's interpretation of the law. "Regular usage points in the other direction."

    Treating a misdemeanor under the federal law as a felony "would be so much trickery," Souter wrote.

    Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, declaring his colleagues' approach "unpersuasive."

    "Whatever else 'illicit trafficking' might mean" in federal law, "it must include anything defined as a 'drug trafficking crime," Thomas said.

    The court dismissed the case of another immigrant whose case had been consolidated with that of Lopez. The court said its decision to accept the case of Reymundo Toledo-Flores had been improvidently granted.

    Toledo-Flores is a Mexican national who objected to having his latest conviction for illegally entering the United States classified an aggravated felony. Toledo-Flores was contesting his prison term, not his deportation, and he had already served it.

    The cases are Lopez v. Gonzales, 05-7664, and Toledo-Flores v. U.S., 05-493

  2. #2
    Senior Member gofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    I'm speechless...even the Supreme Court trying to figure out ways to keep lawbreakers in the country.

  3. #3
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    I'm beginning to believe most members of the 3 branches of government are out of touch with reality in this country. Must be nice to live in their wealthy bubble world!
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

Posting Permissions

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