As others have said, and what you apparently do not understand, is not all judges can decide immigration cases. If the 2002 case was not related to immigation or national security, the judge had neither the authority nor obligation to refer to a Federal Court. This is how the system works.

There is no “unfairness” to the immigrant. He knew exactly what was expected of him and he was aware of the consequences if he was caught for lyng on the form.

It’s all about choices. He took a chance and he lost!

He did not violate his contract in the 2008 matter. The charges were dropped.

And if he violated his contract in the 2002 matter (and if he sentence was insufficient) it should have been dealt with years ago.

This matter (as related in the letter to the editor) shows great unfairness toward a legal immigrant.

To me, people who subscribe to the policy of opposing illegal immigration while supporting those who immigrate legally need to do two things. 1) Demand that political leadership enforce the borders and the law 2) Demand that political leadership provide fair an appropriate treatment for those who follow the rule and immigrate legally. I see the former from people on this blog. I do not see the latter. And that dichotomy calls everything into question.

Just as we check the box that we are insured when we renew our drivers license or tags, a Green Card Immigrant checks the box that (s)he has committed no crime prior to their Green Card Status.

If, during an ICE background investigation, it is learned (s)he lied on this form (a felony), (s)he loses all rights to ever becoming a citizen or remaining in the country legally.

Many Green Card Holders never apply for citizenship, not because they do not want to become citizens, rather because they have a skeleton or two in their closets. Living in the US as a legal Permanent Resident without citizenship rights is safer than revealing their past and risk being deported. They know how to work the system.

Now however, as ICE becomes more involved with local law enforcement, it may not be so easy to hide their past and some will be exposed and deported.

The bottom line is, when an immigrant accepts that Green Card (s)he knows it is with restrictions of the “contract”. Those restrictions are clearly defined in the contract, and as with any contract, when you sign on the bottom line, you agree to the terms. Failure to abide by the terms voids the contract and, in the case of a Green Card holder, legal residency.

Thank you for the explanation. I kind of understood the situation based on the letter to the editor but you have made it clear.

But the clarity you provided regarding the facts seems to open the door to some ambiguity regarding fairness - at least to me.

I have read many times on this blog that the issue is illegal immigration, not legal immigration. And I have read the posts of critics (so called illegal alien apologists) saying that the process is too long, hard and bureaucratic. Few on this blog argue about the extreme level of bureacracy to become a legal alien. Many say that the red tape should be thinned. All say that the law is the law and everybody who wants to be a legal immigrant must go through the process.

Yet, red tape is not the only issue. Even if you go through the buracracy to become legal, you still are at the whim of bureacrats. You can be deported even 6 years after you pled guilty to something and after you served the sentence. Shouldn’t the level of effort required to become legal entitle you to some level of fairness regarding how you are treated while in this country? Shouldn’t there be some limit as to when you can be deported based on a prior act? Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on such things? It seems to me that part of the problem is that the benefits of becoming legal are relatively small. You can still be deported for something that happened 6 years ago. You can be deported because you came to the attention of authorities through an arrest where the charges were dropped.

If the majority of people on this blog really cared about legal vs. illegal immigration they would champion the granting of more rights to those who are here legally. Instead, I hear the people who post on BVBL say that this guy should be deported because he was arrested and the charges dropped. You’ll understand if I begin to wonder whether this is really a question of legal vs. illegal. It sounds like “we don’t like Hispanics” and we’ll take any chance - fair or unfair - to get rid of them.

Sorry, but this incident of a preseumably legal alien and the comments it engendered from those on this blog has been very telling.

I guess I didn’t explain my thinking very well. June pretty much stated what I was thinking about the judge not having the power to do anything about a potential green card holder being deported, that would be up to INS (I believe they were called at the time).

I’ve read many a story about someone committing a crime and years later having immigration consequences whether they were an illegal trying to become a legal citizen or just a green card holder, or maybe someone who is/was a seasonal worker trying to become a citizen.

If you’re not born here being allowed to be here should be a privilege not a license to commit crimes and even if you serve your time dependent on the crime losing your privilege to be here

==============

I just signed the petition - it’s up to 73,000 - but needs to be MUCH higher.

I am totally convinced if Americans are given back their jobs, they will take care of getting America back on track.

Both McCain and Obama said only illegal aliens who have committed no crimes will be considered for legalization. If they are true to their word (which is a rarity among politicians), any illegal alien who falsified an I-9 (committed a felony) will not be eligible and should be shown the door.

I do not believe there is a need for mass deportation - letting them know that any company that hires them will face steep fines and possible jail sentences = that will be followed through = should be sufficient to send them packing on their own dime.

Unfortunately, it was reported in the Boston Globe today that Obama’s aunt is not only still in the country, she is is now with relatives in Cleveland awaiting a new asylum hearing.

To his credit though, he has done nothing to give her preferential treatment. Unlike our Senator Webb who stepped in and “encouraged” ICE to waive deportation of a Springfield illegal alien just days before his deportation.

It’s true it doesn’t matter as June says. That creates some ludicrous situations. For example, if ICE authorities suddenly find out that a legal non-citizen immigrant committed a crime (felonies and some misdemeanors) in the United States 20 years ago, it won’t matter if the person was punished and has lived an exemplary life ever since. That person can be deported. It’s happened, especially when the person has re-entered the country on trip from somewhere. I don’t see this as justice or good sense, but I assume some people on this board would applaud it.

Green Card Holder Deportations are the result of background checks by ICE Agents or their designees for either a criminal or suspected criminal act, or a naturalization application.

There is no Statute of Limitation. The “rules” are spelled out quite clearly when an immigrant is given a Green Card.

So, you’d go back and add to a sentence he has already served because the climate in the country has changed? The charges on the current arrest were dropped. There is no current crime - legally speaking. If he’s alegal alien - that seems pretty harsh. Re-sentencing for old crimes because the climate has changed. I guess I am glad I was born here. I’d hate to deal with you guys after having migrated here legally. Maybe it’s a good thing that our forfathers didn’t face random deportation based on changes in political climate. I’d be writing this in Gaelic or Italian.

My party? Oh that’s rich and revealing. You think someone who objects to your use of insults against Greg has to be Republican? The issue is how Greg looks or doesn’t look has no relevance to his politics. You show yourself without class using such insults. You are at the same level as Chicko aka Elvis and others. It is not an issue of format, it is an issue of irrelevance, and it isn’t trivial. If you were actually an Obama voter you might have noticed that the candidate was far more civil in tone than his opponents. Grow up.

Protip: If you’re still trying to figure out why your party lost, it’s because of magical thinking like this.

If the letter is wrong then it is wrong. If it says he is legal but he is illegal, then the whole matter is changed.

He was convicted in 2002. If the judge wanted to deport him then, for that offense, why didn’t he/she deport him?

Who knows, perhaps he had a deportation order on him from 2002 after he finished his jail time?

Let me simplify. Even if you are here legally in this country, if you are convicted of a crime (the 2002 offense), the U.S. can then revoke your legal status and deport you.

Back in 2002, we didn’t have the 287g program so this guy wasn’t flagged and his situation wasn’t brought to the attention of INS (at that time).

With 287g, he was identified and DHS will revoke his legal status and deport him.

For now, convicted criminals are not allowed legal status and are deportable. That is the case with this man.

Just because the authors of the Letter to the Editor say he was legal doesn’t mean he actually is legal. The “Letter” is obviously slanted with liberal bias and is meant to render sympathy.

He pled guilty in 2002. So, where did he enter that plea? It must have been a court, no? It’s not a matter of when “they catch up with you” here. They must have caught up with him when he pled guilty in court to the 2002 charge. Given that he pled guilty in court he must have been sentenced by that court. And now the tricky part - he served his sentence. If, and it is an if, he served his 2002 sentence he would still be on your informal “probation” as a legal alien. But he shouldn’t be subject to deportation - he should remain on informal probation (or even formal probation for that matter). However, as Me infers, if he was supposed to be deported for the 2002 offense but stayed in the country - that’s a different matter altogether. But let’s assume that in 2002 he did his crime and did his time (whatever punishment it actually was). In 2008, he owes no debt to society. He is arrested for domestic violence but the charges are dropped in court. Dropping the charges is the same thing as the charges never existing - legally speaking. There should be no basis in dropped charges for the state to take any action against anybody. So, we have a legal alien who committed a crime and served his sentence which did not include deportation. That’s it. Dropped charges don’t count for anything. Now, why should he be deported in 2008? What is the basis for deportation in 2008? The dropped charges? If so, I hope you are never arrested because you look like somebody else. You’d be charged but the charges would be dropped when the mis-identification was determined. However, you’d still be subject to various legal actions based on the dropped charges. Does that sound fair? Dropped is dropped.

My point isn’t whether he battered his wife by pulling her back into the car after she got out. If I had to guess he proably did that. But the court dropped the charges and that’s the “rule of law” that should count - legally speaking.

Greg contends that the man is an illegal alien. This would change everything but was not what was written in the referenced letter to the editor. In fact, if he is an illegal alien, I’d like to see the sentence handed down in 2002.

Virtually everyone on this blog contends that they are anti-illegal immigration, not anti-legal immigration. Maybe so. The letter to teh editor clearly states that this guy is a legal immigrant. Virtually everyone on this blog refers with near reverence to the “rule of law”. Yet, in the 2008 case, the charges were dropped. But somehow a legal alien should be deported based on charges dropped by the court. Do you see why people question the credibility of the people here who claim that they want to apply the rule of law to ILLEGAL aliens?

He pled guilty to a crime in 2002. Whether he did that on advice of counsel or because he was guilty or both - who cares? Guilty is guilty. If he served his sentence then his debt to society is paid. If he should have been deported for that crime then the judge should have deported him.And the “rule of law” is that the charges were dropped.

So, why should this guy be sentenced again for a 2002 crime?

—————-

Because the law says UNTIL you are a US Citizen, you are on probation. If you don’t behave while here, you’re subject to deportation. There is no statue of limitations - it’s whenever they catch up with you. This law has been on the book for years. To date deportations - several years later - have never been disputed.

The incident with the British woman (with a green card) who shoplifted when she was 19 and deported several years later, is just one of many justifications as to why this guy should be sentenced again for a 2002 crime.

The moral of the story is, a Green Card is not a free pass. There are strings attached.

===========

As for the Catholic Church, I can’t speak of it’s policy on domestic abuse today. I would hope it has changed from 20 years ago when it was not frowned upon and women were advised to be more submissive to their husbands and the abuse would stop.

It is for this reason I am no longer a Catholic or believe in its doctrines. With the exception a few “new generation” religious groups, I’m not terribly impressed with most “established” religions that adhere to doctrines mired in the dark ages when we were suppose to be unquestioning puppets.

Times have changed and despite the battering I’ve taken from some on this forum, I still contend the further religion is from government the better for Americans.

See below and then the link:

What kinds of convictions can lead to a lawful permanent resident being placed in removal proceedings?
Most kinds of criminal convictions can lead to you being placed in removal proceedings. It is easier to explain which kinds of convictions will not lead to a person being placed in removal proceedings. You should talk with an immigration attorney to find out for sure if your conviction can lead to you being placed in removal proceedings. But, the following are some examples of common convictions that generally will not lead to a person being placed in removal proceedings:
• Most kinds of traffic violations. But, some convictions for aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) can lead to you being placed in removal proceedings. For example, if you are convicted of DUI after having been convicted of an earlier DUI, or after your license has been suspended, the government may place you in removal proceedings.
• A misdemeanor conviction for “simple” battery. But convictions for domestic battery, or aggravated battery may lead to you being placed in removal proceedings.
• Misdemeanor assault
• A misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct.
Most other convictions can cause you to be placed in removal proceedings.

http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=5109