Call me pedantic, but how exactly do you go about getting a "clean criminal record"? Surely you either have a criminal record or you don't. (No, I'm not an English teacher but ...)
Deportees
Meum est propositum in taberna mori,
ut sint Guinness proxima morientis ori.
tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:
"Sit Deus propitius huic potatori."
ut sint Guinness proxima morientis ori.
tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:
"Sit Deus propitius huic potatori."
- LTO
- The Internet is my Friend
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 6412
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:10 pm
- Location: Srok Khmer
- Contact:
No it isn't. Read the list.NedK wrote:so it is entirely possible that people were and are being deported for relatively minor offenses.
No they don't. Read the list again.NedK wrote:So, sure, drug possession and minor domestic disputes "amount to aggravated felonies"
No it isn't. The term is quite specific. It refers to the list of serious crimes on that list. And the list explicitly and specifically states what those crimes and categories of crimes are.NedK wrote:That list - and the term - are basically meaningless.
Aggravated felonies:
(A) murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor
(B) illicit trafficing in a controlled substance
(C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices
(D) offenses relating to "money laundering"
(E) offenses relating to explosive materials
(F) "crimes of violence" for which a term of imprisonment of one (1) year has been imposed
(G) a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) for which a term of imprisonment of one (1) year has been imposed
(H) offenses relating to ransom or demand for receipt of ransom
(I) offense relating to child pornography
(J) offenses relating to influenced corrupt organizations, or gambling
(K) offenses relating to: (i) owning, controlling, managing, or superivising prostitution; (ii) to transportation for the purpose of prostitution; (iii) slavery, and/or involuntary servitude
(L) offenses relating to: (i) gathering or transmitting national defense information; disclosure of classified information; sabotage; treason; (ii) protecting identity of intelligence agents; (iii) protecting identity of undercover agents
(M) an offense that involves: (i) fraud or deceit in which loss to victim exceeds $10,000; (iii) a relation to Tax Evasion in which loss to government exceeds $10,000
(N) an offense relating to alien smuggling as defined in section 274(a) of the Act, unless committed for an immediate family member and no other individual
(O) offense committed by an alien who was previously deported on the basis of a conviction for an offense described in another subparagraph of this paragraph (e.g., alien previously deported as an "aggravated felony" is automatically considered to be an "aggravated felon")
(P) an offense (i) which either is falsely making, forging, counterfeting, mutiliating or altering a passport or instrument or relating to document fraud; and (ii) term of imprisonment is at least 12 months, except in first offense where offense committed to aid immediate relative
(Q) an offense relating to a failure to appear for a defendant for service of sentence if the underlying offense is punishable by imprisonment for at least five (5) years or more
(R) an offense relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, or forgery, or trafficking in vehicles for the identification numbers of which have been altered and for which a term of imprisonment of one (1) year has been imposed
(S) an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury, subornation of perjury, bribery of a witness for which a term of imprisonment of one (1) year has been imposed
(T) offense relating to failure to appear before a court pursuant to a court order to answer to or dispose of a charge of a felony for which a sentence of two (2) years may be imposed
(U) an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above offenses.
Ok, dude. You are basically just being a bonehead now. Either you don't understand what I'm writing or you're intentionally ignoring it.LTO wrote:No it isn't. The term is quite specific. It refers to the list of serious crimes on that list. And the list explicitly and specifically states what those crimes and categories of crimes are.
The statute has been amended many times. The scope of what can be and is treated as an "aggravated felony" is far, far broader than the original list from 1988, and Wikipedia isn't a law library.
Wikipedia isn't a law library.
But if you're going to rely solely on Wikipedia, you should read the rest of what the wiki you linked to says. It mentions the amendments and the fact that some offenses that are NEITHER AGGRAVATED NOR A FELONY are being treated as aggravated felonies. You should read what you link first, all the way to the bottom of the page.
Read the report from Syracuse U that I quoted and linked to, it discusses this stuff in detail, how misdemeanors are sometimes being treated as aggravated felonies. How much more clear cut than that do you want?
If you don't get it, I'm sorry. You either aren't trying very hard or you aren't capable of it. I suspect the former. You know what you were told or heard however long ago it was, and you refuse to take in new information on the subject when someone offers you something more nuanced or detailed.
That's cool. Totally your call. I give you a detailed argument and you give me "read the list." I think I'll go edit that Wiki right now, add a few things to it.
- LTO
- The Internet is my Friend
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 6412
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:10 pm
- Location: Srok Khmer
- Contact:
What I posted was not the original list from 1988. It is the fully amended and current list and it is not from wiki, though it is not the full text of the law (omitting law references for sake of clarity.) I would have thought that clear from some of the obviously post 911 concerns and recent trafficking concerns mentioned in the list. All aggravated felonies. All serious crimes. No simple drug possession and minor domestic disputes as you claimed.NedK wrote:Ok, dude. You are basically just being a bonehead now. Either you don't understand what I'm writing or you're intentionally ignoring it.LTO wrote:No it isn't. The term is quite specific. It refers to the list of serious crimes on that list. And the list explicitly and specifically states what those crimes and categories of crimes are.
The statute has been amended many times. The scope of what can and is treated as an "aggravated felony" is far, far broader than the original list from 1988, and Wikipedia isn't a law library.
Wikipedia isn't a law library.
Ok, fair enough. That stuff isn't on that list. But one of the advocacy groups for the deportees does list those sorts of crimes as being among the offenses committed by them.LTO wrote: What I posted was not the original list from 1988. It is the fully amended and current list and it is not from wiki, though it is not the full text of the law (omitting law references for sake of clarity.) I would have thought that clear from some of the obviously post 911 concerns and recent trafficking concerns mentioned in the list. All aggravated felonies. All serious crimes. No simple drug possession and minor domestic disputes as you claimed.
There are crimes NOT specifically on that list that are being treated as aggravated felonies. That comes up over and over.
There are repeated references in various places to misdemeanors being treated as aggravated felonies. Read that Syracuse report, it's fairly brief, but it explains how the law regarding aggravated felonies has become so muddied that it is being applied haphazardly:
"1. The terms for categories of crimes are open to interpretation. There usually is little ambiguity that someone convicted of murder is guilty of a "crime of violence," but in many other situations, the designation is far less clear. Judges across the country, for instance, have disagreed as to whether those pleading to a drunk driving charge are guilty of a crime of violence. Such a distinction may be critical when it comes to determining whether someone is an aggravated felon. (NOTE: DUI is a misdemeanor / gross misdemeanor unless there are extraordinary circumstances - multiple offenses, causing injury etc).
2. Aside from the crime itself, other elements of crimes can be subjective. Whether a crime is an aggravated felony may depend, not just on the crime itself, but also on the length of the actual sentence and (for theft and fraud cases), the dollar value involved. We have seen that misdemeanors, usually meant to signify a less serious crime than a felony, can be considered aggravated felonies in certain situations.
3. Another complicating factor is that most offending immigrants are prosecuted under state laws while many of the aggravated felony provisions are defined in terms of federal criminal statutes. Required elements at the state level often do not parallel those at the federal level. The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering a case where a person was convicted as a felon for violating a state law against possession of drugs. But because this would only be considered a misdemeanor under federal law, there is disagreement as to which law should prevail.
4. Finally, there are disagreements among the 12 federal circuit courts on many of these issues. These inconsistent approaches to interpreting what crimes are – and are not – aggravated felonies is what motivated the Supreme Court to step into this complicated area of the law."
My apologies for calling you a bonehead, but I don't think this is as cut and dry as it seems. If it was simply a matter of referring to a list, none of the above issues would exist.
At the same time, I'm sure that plenty of the deportees were indeed guilty of serious or violent crimes and their categorization wasn't really up for debate. But I'm not going to assume that all of them are hardened criminals given the problems in this area. Some of them might have just messed up and then gotten a raw deal.
I doubt they didn't realize they weren't citizens. It's not unheard of (I remember reading one case of a Canadian woman who lived in the US her whole life but didn't know she was Canadian; she was married with kids but got deported anyway), but it's exceedingly rare for someone not to know their citizenship status.Jacked Camry wrote:However, my understanding is NOT that they "couldn't be arsed" to get their citizenship, they simply didn't know that they'd never been granted it. When you consider that something like only 1 out of 4 Americans has a passport, how would these people know? They can get driver's licenses and whatever else without having to provide evidence of being citizens. It was their PARENTS who were immigrants and didn't realize they needed to do the paperwork to get their kids citizenship.
Your example is a case in point: to get a driver's license you generally need to show proof that you are either a US citizen (US birth certificate or naturalization certificate) or a legal immigrant (permanent resident card). This depends on state law, and there have been proposals in some states to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses, but as far as I know it's not yet possible for an illegal immigrant to acquire a driver's license except through fraud.
For example, in California (which is the state with by far the most Cambodian immigrants; http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP):
And the same sort of issue comes up when you open a bank account, get a job or go to college. All these things require documentation, and your documents are going to indicate whether or not you're a citizen. In the case of the Canadian woman who didn't know, she never went to college, never had a job, and never even drove a car.State law requires every applicant for an original California identification (ID) card and driver license to show verification of birth date and proof of legal presence within the United States to help safeguard the accuracy and integrity of departmental documents.
I think what is more likely is that they didn't realize citizenship had any benefits they cared about. In their case, it's protection from deportation, and Obama has deported far more people than any of his predecessors have.