States have the power to prevent stupid deportations

[bythoughts]

I just read my daily ICE sob story. Yeah, it's kind of a beaut - a grandmother with permanent residency goes to visit a funeral in Ireland, finds out she isn't a permanent resident any more because she wrote a $25 bad check ten years ago.

I spent a while asking an AI about it - I can't swear to its facts - but it seemed to point me at a big issue here. Her state, Missouri, makes it a class A misdemeanor to write ANY bad check. There's a "10-day letter" that is sent, but maybe she missed it? Beyond that, it's a deportable offense, punishable by up to a year in jail. She got probation.

But in other states, like Pennsylvania, a bad check under $200 is a summary offense, like a traffic ticket. And at least according to the AI, you can't lose permanent residency over a summary offense.

Now yes, I know, the whole country is going to argue "ICE bad" versus "ICE good". But out in the state legislatures, there is a possibility to get rid of crazy prison terms for minor nonsense. If it sounds too stupid for anyone to go to jail for (or, if they're luckier, Ireland) then let's not have "jail" or "misdemeanor" in the law.

 

[SkyChief]

ICE has the power (and the duty) to deport people who have entered our country illegally, OR have overstayed their visas.

Not one state in the Union has the power or authority to sidestep or override established Federal immigration statutes.

Only Congress has that power, and it will require a 2/3 majority vote in both Houses. (Plus the president's signature, of course.)

 

[Grand Mal]

ICE has the power (and the duty) to deport people who have entered our country illegally, OR have overstayed their visas.

Or have commited a certain category of crime, which, apparently, varies from state to state.

Not one state in the Union has the power or authority to sidestep or override established Federal immigration statutes.

See above.

Only Congress has that power, and it will require a 2/3 majority vote in both Houses. (Plus the president's signature, of course.)

 

[SkyChief]

Or have commited a certain category of crime, which, apparently, varies from state to state.

See above.

I don't pretend to understand immigration Law in Canada, but I certainly understand federal immigration law and statutes in the U.S.

Your post proves that.

 

[Grand Mal]

I don't pretend to understand the Law in Canada, but I certainly understand the law in the U.S.

Just sayin.

So you knew that the same offense in different states can get you deported or not, depending?

 

[bythoughts]

ICE has the power (and the duty) to deport people who have entered our country illegally, OR have overstayed their visas.

Not one state in the Union has the power or authority to sidestep or override established Federal immigration statutes.

ICE has the power to revoke permanent residency for "criminals" with "moral turpitude". But the state government can decide whether one $25 bad check makes you a "criminal".

Now I suppose ICE could avoid allowing states any influence over their operations, and quite easily. They could decide to only revoke permanent residency for people convicted of federal crimes.....

 

[NolanVoyd]

ICE has the power (and the duty) to deport people who have entered our country illegally, OR have overstayed their visas.

Niether of those os the case here.

Dodnt you read the OP?

 

[Fearandloathing]

I just read my daily ICE sob story. Yeah, it's kind of a beaut - a grandmother with permanent residency goes to visit a funeral in Ireland, finds out she isn't a permanent resident any more because she wrote a $25 bad check ten years ago.

I spent a while asking an AI about it - I can't swear to its facts - but it seemed to point me at a big issue here. Her state, Missouri, makes it a class A misdemeanor to write ANY bad check. There's a "10-day letter" that is sent, but maybe she missed it? Beyond that, it's a deportable offense, punishable by up to a year in jail. She got probation.

But in other states, like Pennsylvania, a bad check under $200 is a summary offense, like a traffic ticket. And at least according to the AI, you can't lose permanent residency over a summary offense.

Now yes, I know, the whole country is going to argue "ICE bad" versus "ICE good". But out in the state legislatures, there is a possibility to get rid of crazy prison terms for minor nonsense. If it sounds too stupid for anyone to go to jail for (or, if they're luckier, Ireland) then let's not have "jail" or "misdemeanor" in the law.

....which raises the question about the power of a state to determine NATIONAL residency.....

Is not national residency a FEDERAL issue as is nationhood, citizenship etc.?

It is unconstitutional in Canada for a province to deny residency; it is strictly a federal issue as are ALL criminal laws.

In fact, we have a few terrorists of note that we would LOVE to get rid of.

 

[SkyChief]

ICE has the power (and the duty) to deport people who have entered our country illegally, OR have overstayed their visas.

Not one state in the Union has the power or authority to sidestep or override established Federal immigration statutes.

Niether of those os the case here.

They are facts. Disputing facts always ends in a logical fallacy, and failure.

Dodnt you read the OP?

Yah, I read it. There is already a Constitutional Amendment which prohibits harsh and unusual punishment.

The fact is, deportation is not "punishment". It's policy.

 

[Jason Warfield]

They are facts. Disputing facts always ends in a logical fallacy, and failure.

Yah, I read it. There is already a Constitutional Amendment which prohibits harsh and unusual punishment.

The fact is, deportation is not "punishment". It's policy.

Still missing the point.

 

[NolanVoyd]

They are facts. Disputing facts always ends in a logical fallacy, and failure.

fact.

She didnt enter illegally or overstay her visa.

Try reading the op..

Yah, I read it. .

You clearly didnt read it well. Try again.

 

[mrjurrs]

ICE has the power (and the duty) to deport people who have entered our country illegally, OR have overstayed their visas.

Not one state in the Union has the power or authority to sidestep or override established Federal immigration statutes.

Only Congress has that power, and it will require a 2/3 majority vote in both Houses. (Plus the president's signature, of course.)

Every state in the Union has the ability to ignore ICE orders on immigration. Immigration is a federal domain. The general police power also resides in the states.

How do you figure this Congressional vote would require 2/3 majority?

 

[SkyChief]

Every state in the Union has the ability to ignore ICE orders on immigration.

Yes they do. But they cannot interfere with ICE operations. Many state officials have tried, and what happens to these people? They are arrested and jailed.

Immigration is a federal domain. The general police power also resides in the states.

Police are LAW enforcement. ICE is IMMIGRATION enforcement. Apples and oranges.

How do you figure this Congressional vote would require 2/3 majority?

OK, I was wrong about that. It would take 60 votes in the Senate to pass new immigration statute.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I just read my daily ICE sob story. Yeah, it's kind of a beaut - a grandmother with permanent residency goes to visit a funeral in Ireland, finds out she isn't a permanent resident any more because she wrote a $25 bad check ten years ago.

That's not how it works. ICE doesn't have the authority to revoke anyone's status as a permanent resident. Such a revocation must come from an immigration judge. What they've done is set her up to see one so he can make a determination of her status.

I spent a while asking an AI about it - I can't swear to its facts - but it seemed to point me at a big issue here. Her state, Missouri, makes it a class A misdemeanor to write ANY bad check. There's a "10-day letter" that is sent, but maybe she missed it? Beyond that, it's a deportable offense, punishable by up to a year in jail. She got probation.

There's got to be more to the story. Even if writing a bad check for such a trivial amount is considered a CIMT, the fact that she faced no more than a year in jail and was sentenced to serve less than six months means she qualifies for the petty offense exception. If this is all there is, she's not even subject to revocation of status or removal.

What else is going on, I wonder?

 

[Visbek]

I just read my daily ICE sob story. Yeah, it's kind of a beaut - a grandmother with permanent residency goes to visit a funeral in Ireland, finds out she isn't a permanent resident any more because she wrote a $25 bad check ten years ago.

I spent a while asking an AI about it....

sigh, please don't.

Yes, deportations suck. But I'm sorry, there are limits to what states can do. It'd be illegal for them to overtly interfere in any legally conducted ICE operation.

ICE also isn't going to care if someone's record is cleared. They are desperately searching for any excuse to bounce people.

States don't have to cooperate with ICE, they can try to regulate ICE's misbehavior, but I'm pretty sure that clearing minor offenses off of criminal records won't help.

 

[bythoughts]

There's got to be more to the story. Even if writing a bad check for such a trivial amount is considered a CIMT, the fact that she faced no more than a year in jail and was sentenced to serve less than six months means she qualifies for the petty offense exception. If this is all there is, she's not even subject to revocation of status or removal.

What else is going on, I wonder?

This is a fair comment. I asked the AI and the best it could come up with was "The fact that ICE pursued removal may reflect a misinterpretation, maximal enforcement, recent changes in immigration policy, or—less likely, given all reported info—the existence of other offenses not mentioned in the articles. All public records indicate only the solitary bad check case. Her situation has become a flashpoint for debate over immigration enforcement and exceptions for minor, old convictions."
It would not be the first time or the hundredth that the press coverage was uniformly slanted. But ICE isn't very predictable either.

 

[bythoughts]

Yes, deportations suck. But I'm sorry, there are limits to what states can do. It'd be illegal for them to overtly interfere in any legally conducted ICE operation.

ICE also isn't going to care if someone's record is cleared. They are desperately searching for any excuse to bounce people.

States don't have to cooperate with ICE, they can try to regulate ICE's misbehavior, but I'm pretty sure that clearing minor offenses off of criminal records won't help.

States can certainly clear off offenses going forward. There's no reason at all they can't change the law, now that they see that putting someone through the process like this has real consequences.

It's not clear expungement would work, but really, why not try? States certainly have the right to expunge misdemeanor convictions for $25 in value. Whether ICE cares if the offense is expunged is a different, subsequent question.

 

[mrjurrs]

Yes they do. But they cannot interfere with ICE operations. Many state officials have tried, and what happens to these people? They are arrested and jailed.

Police are LAW enforcement. ICE is IMMIGRATION enforcement. Apples and oranges.


OK, I was wrong about that. It would take 60 votes in the Senate to pass new immigration statute.

Never said they did. But how many of the early warnings come from state government and local police? How many arrests there?

That's just ridiculous. ICE is enforcing immigration law.

 

[Visbek]

States can certainly clear off offenses going forward.

Meaning what, they're not going to arrest or charge any minor offenses?

And ICE can cite expunged convictions.

 

[bythoughts]

Meaning what, they're not going to arrest or charge any minor offenses?

I mean Missouri can make a bad check under $200 a summary offense like Pennsylvania does, without jail time. Why the heck you have to threaten somebody with jail over having a $25 check bounce and not reading the mail before 10 days passed? I'm not sure how many times I should repeat the same simple notion before I drop carrier.

 

[Bodi]

ICE has the power (and the duty) to deport people who have entered our country illegally, OR have overstayed their visas.

Not one state in the Union has the power or authority to sidestep or override established Federal immigration statutes.

Only Congress has that power, and it will require a 2/3 majority vote in both Houses. (Plus the president's signature, of course.)

The point is that the law can be changed so that she, and others, are not overstaying their Visa because they would not lose their Visa over something so stupid in the first place.