News (Media Awareness Project) - US NY: Editorial: Justice for Immigrants |
Title: | US NY: Editorial: Justice for Immigrants |
Published On: | 2006-10-03 |
Source: | New York Times (NY) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-13 01:43:15 |
JUSTICE FOR IMMIGRANTS
The Supreme Court starts off its term today with arguments in a pair
of immigration cases that turn on a technical issue but could have a
considerable impact on the real world. If the court gives the words
"illicit trafficking" the wrong interpretation, as some lower courts
have, a significant number of legal immigrants could be unjustly
uprooted and deported, or given unduly harsh criminal sentences.
Federal immigration law, quite reasonably, imposes special conditions
on legal immigrants who are convicted of "aggravated felonies." The
law says that "illicit trafficking" in drugs is an aggravated felony,
and today's cases pose the question of what that means. The plain
meaning of "trafficking" in drugs is engaging in commercial activity.
But some courts have ignored this plain meaning and held that simple
possession of drugs can count, and therefore can be an aggravated felony.
That is the situation of the defendants in today's cases. Reymundo
Toledo-Flores was convicted of possession of cocaine, and Jose
Antonio Lopez was convicted of aiding and abetting possession of
cocaine. The courts that heard their cases ruled that their
convictions qualified as trafficking, and therefore as aggravated
felonies. This legal exaggeration has serious consequences.
Noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies can more easily be
deported and can be barred from becoming American citizens. They can
also receive substantially longer prison sentences if they commit
future crimes.
The legal climate is not particularly hospitable to immigrants right
now, and Mr. Toledo-Flores and Mr. Lopez have the additional
disadvantage of coming to court having been convicted of crimes. But
their crimes were minor ones that cannot properly be described as
aggravated felonies. As the American Bar Association notes in a
friend-of-the-court brief, treating the two men as if they had
committed worse crimes than they did "leads not only to individual
injustices" but also harms "the integrity and fair and regular
operation of the criminal justice system."
The Supreme Court starts off its term today with arguments in a pair
of immigration cases that turn on a technical issue but could have a
considerable impact on the real world. If the court gives the words
"illicit trafficking" the wrong interpretation, as some lower courts
have, a significant number of legal immigrants could be unjustly
uprooted and deported, or given unduly harsh criminal sentences.
Federal immigration law, quite reasonably, imposes special conditions
on legal immigrants who are convicted of "aggravated felonies." The
law says that "illicit trafficking" in drugs is an aggravated felony,
and today's cases pose the question of what that means. The plain
meaning of "trafficking" in drugs is engaging in commercial activity.
But some courts have ignored this plain meaning and held that simple
possession of drugs can count, and therefore can be an aggravated felony.
That is the situation of the defendants in today's cases. Reymundo
Toledo-Flores was convicted of possession of cocaine, and Jose
Antonio Lopez was convicted of aiding and abetting possession of
cocaine. The courts that heard their cases ruled that their
convictions qualified as trafficking, and therefore as aggravated
felonies. This legal exaggeration has serious consequences.
Noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies can more easily be
deported and can be barred from becoming American citizens. They can
also receive substantially longer prison sentences if they commit
future crimes.
The legal climate is not particularly hospitable to immigrants right
now, and Mr. Toledo-Flores and Mr. Lopez have the additional
disadvantage of coming to court having been convicted of crimes. But
their crimes were minor ones that cannot properly be described as
aggravated felonies. As the American Bar Association notes in a
friend-of-the-court brief, treating the two men as if they had
committed worse crimes than they did "leads not only to individual
injustices" but also harms "the integrity and fair and regular
operation of the criminal justice system."
Member Comments |
No member comments available...