High court rules non-U.S. citizens can be deported if convicted of minor crimes
The Supreme Court is making it easier for the government to deport or otherwise remove people who are not U.S. citizens if they are convicted of seemingly minor state crimes.
The justices ruled 5-3 Thursday that a man who spent 23 years living in New York as a lawful permanent resident can be barred from re-entering the country because of a 1999 conviction for attempted arson.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/20...cmp=hplnws
The fact of the matter is, there should be no restrictions on deporting and/or blocking re-entry of non-U.S. citizens.
Sounds like these aren't minor crimes, just major ones that fall under state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court even points out that the distinction between state or federal crime is negligible with regards to the crime committed.
Quote:The fact of the matter is, there should be no restrictions on deporting and/or blocking re-entry of non-U.S. citizens.
Except for that pesky concept called Due Process which applies to all people in US jurisdiction be it citizens, residents or aliens. (Yes, that includes illegal aliens.)
Quote:Except for that pesky concept called Due Process which applies to all people in US jurisdiction be it citizens, residents or aliens. (Yes, that includes illegal aliens.)
Grrrrrr!!!!! That dog gone constitution is at it again! DF seems to know more about the constitution than jib...
Not bad for a "undocumented moderator", eh jib?
Quote:Except for that pesky concept called Due Process which applies to all people in US jurisdiction be it citizens, residents or aliens. (Yes, that includes illegal aliens.)
I agree. However, I was way too general with my statement. There should be no restrictions to deport and/or deny re-entry to non-U.S. citizens
that have violated the law. That pretty much takes care of the illegal aliens.
Quote:Grrrrrr!!!!! That dog gone constitution is at it again! DF seems to know more about the constitution than jib...
Not bad for a "undocumented moderator", eh jib?
He/she does know quite a bit about our Constitution and laws, I'll give him/her that.
Quote:I agree. However, I was way too general with my statement. There should be no restrictions to deport and/or deny re-entry to non-U.S. citizens that have violated the law. That pretty much takes care of the illegal aliens.
Better, and I assumed as much when I first read your post but still felt the need to point it out. There's still a lot of gray area there though with regards as to what constitutes a violation of the law. Surely a traffic ticket should not be a reason to deport someone, even though it's a violation of the law. So in a sense that does place a certain amount of restriction on the government, though once an unequivocal violation has taken place they should have the choice to deport.
Quote:He/she does know quite a bit about our Constitution and laws, I'll give him/her that.
It. I self-identify as an F-35 Lightning II.
Quote:Better, and I assumed as much when I first read your post but still felt the need to point it out. There's still a lot of gray area there though with regards as to what constitutes a violation of the law. Surely a traffic ticket should not be a reason to deport someone, even though it's a violation of the law. So in a sense that does place a certain amount of restriction on the government, though once an unequivocal violation has taken place they should have the choice to deport.
As a resident of the us, let me translate what he meant by the part he bolded---
All undocumented immigrants are here illegally. Thus once a papers please law is enacted the mere fact that they are here breaks the law and thus they can be deported.
Right, jib?
Have fun never winning another national election with that policy...
Quote:Better, and I assumed as much when I first read your post but still felt the need to point it out. There's still a lot of gray area there though with regards as to what constitutes a violation of the law. Surely a traffic ticket should not be a reason to deport someone, even though it's a violation of the law. So in a sense that does place a certain amount of restriction on the government, though once an unequivocal violation has taken place they should have the choice to deport.
Not really. A law violation is either a felony or a misdemeanor. A traffic ticket is a misdemeanor crime and a violation of the law. Petty theft might also be considered a misdemeanor crime. Either way, both are a
violation of the law.
Quote:It. I self-identify as an F-35 Lightning II.
I figured as much. I think today I'll personally self-identify as the much superior F-22.
Although my body tells me that I'm more like a P-3C.
Quote:I figured as much. I think today I'll personally self-identify as the much superior F-22. Although my body tells me that I'm more like a P-3C.
Ain't nothing wrong with a P-3C! I'm more of an SR-71, myself these days...old but still fast as hell.
Quote:Not really. A law violation is either a felony or a misdemeanor. A traffic ticket is a misdemeanor crime and a violation of the law. Petty theft might also be considered a misdemeanor crime. Either way, both are a violation of the law.
Now it's my time to specify; what constitutes a violation of the law that's egregious enough to allow deportation? A speeding ticket should not be grounds for deportation, attempted arson should.
Quote:I figured as much. I think today I'll personally self-identify as the much superior F-22. Although my body tells me that I'm more like a P-3C.
A superfluous aircraft that costs more and somehow can do less than the F-35. Also doesn't use Dutch designed and built parts and is therefor inherently inferior.
Quote:Better, and I assumed as much when I first read your post but still felt the need to point it out. There's still a lot of gray area there though with regards as to what constitutes a violation of the law. Surely a traffic ticket should not be a reason to deport someone, even though it's a violation of the law. So in a sense that does place a certain amount of restriction on the government, though once an unequivocal violation has taken place they should have the choice to deport.
If you're an illegal citizen, why shouldn't it?
Quote:illegal citizen
That's a contradiction in terms.
Quote:Now it's my time to specify; what constitutes a violation of the law that's egregious enough to allow deportation? A speeding ticket should not be grounds for deportation, attempted arson should.
A superfluous aircraft that costs more and somehow can do less than the F-35. Also doesn't use Dutch designed and built parts and is therefor inherently inferior.
You can't put an "if" in there. It's binary (breaking the law). True or false. It doesn't matter which law.
The F-35 can not even come close the the capabilities of an F-22. What is the cost of an F-35?... and it still doesn't work right?
Quote:If you're an illegal citizen, why shouldn't it?
Would you mind not editing my posts you colossal knob jockey?
Quote:Better, and I assumed as much when I first read your post but still felt the need to point it out. There's still a lot of gray area there though with regards as to what constitutes a violation of the law. Surely a traffic ticket should not be a reason to deport someone, even though it's a violation of the law. So in a sense that does place a certain amount of restriction on the government, though once an unequivocal violation has taken place they should have the choice to deport.
aside from the unequivocal violation of immigration law itself?
What you describe is more a matter of prosecutorial discretion than an out and out restriction on the government.