Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Details of Immigration bill in senate...........

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So the argument is, since the House passed a mean-spirited, legally flawed bill the Senate should also come up with a poor alternative, but somewhat less mediocre so it can be passed?
    No, that's how you interpret it.
    The argument IS that under current political climate Senate measure is the BEST the bi-partisan coalition could come up with.

    We're talking a system that will regard 3 traffic tickets as a bar to adjustment.
    You seem to be the only one talking about it.
    Mind to quote particular Section of Senate Bill that says traffic ticket for speeding is a misdemeanor that would trigger the bar under "three misdemeanor" rule of the Kyl amendment?

    In fact, traffic tickets (not DUI/DWI though) are excluded from "past violations of law" questionnaire during AOS process (just read the isntructions).

    So, where in the Senate Bill does it say that currently held rule would be amended to the degree that each speeding ticket would now qualify as misdemeanor and three of those tickets would trigger inadmissibility under Kyl amendment?


    Even the definition of a conviction under INA only considers judicial adjudications of guilt but not an approach based on some "confidential" evidence the alien can't rebut, not an approach that establishes no clear standard to limit the application of a statute.
    This is not new in Senate Bill!
    INS had long been allowed to present evidence to Judge without disclosing it to defendant, because of National Security concerns.
    Supreme Court has held it to be in accord with US Constitution ( Under current INA National Interests ,when in conflict with individual rights of an alien, supercede Constitutional Rights that otherwise afforded to US born Citizens; in some rare cases[outside of Immigration proceedings] it may supercede individual rights of USCs as well).

    Why are you misleading readers?

    Comment


    • #17
      Excuse me, we're not discussing "national security" here because the statute DOES NOT mention national security as the ONLY reason not to disclose information. The fact is, that CIS has not an obligation to disclose any information regarding inadmissibility on unproven criminal grounds.
      Obviously you don't know much about criminal law. It's true that deportation is not a criminal penalty. It's true that a civil penalty can be attached to an existing conviction as part of a civil judgement. But lacking a conviction, there's no evidence of guilt, no adjudication of guilt. These provisions do not require a conviction, not even an indictment. The BIA has ruled on this, specifically, back in Areguin Rodriguez and recently that opinion was again confirmed by B.Tolosa v. Ashcroft by the Court of Appeals. In a nutshell, even an arrest, without a conviction, is nothing but prejudice and cannot be considered by an immigration judge. That is what I'm talking about when I say this new statutes deviate from all previous standards that were carefully crafted, debated and refined.

      Comment


      • #18
        And BTW... what is a "serious crime"? What is NOT a serious crime? Is a serious crime a misdemeanor? Then what misdemeanors are NOT serious crimes? Any standards?
        It may be a serious crime to me, but not you...

        Comment


        • #19
          Excuse me, but apparently you have some major comprehension problems.


          Regards,

          IE

          Comment


          • #20
            If you can't answer the question then don't. Calling names is not an answer to the question I presented.
            There's no clear standard here to determine what crimes are serious and what crimes are not. These issues will be decided not by a criminal judge with knowledge of the particular criminal statutes but by some CIS adjudicator with limited experience or knowledge. Best case scenario, an IJ would be involved, but an IJ is not a criminal judge.
            It took almost 20 years to come to the conclusion that an arrest is nothing but one party's side of the story. My comprehension problem is simple, I do not understand why somebody can be treated as a criminal lacking a a confession, conviction, arrest or even an indictment.
            It's enough already that INA includes "reason to believe" grounds when it comes to controlled substances, but those grounds usually result for convictions of offenses with "intent to sell and related criminal activities. Some adjudicators even consider dismissals when it comes to drug-related offenses with such intent because of technical reasons related mostly to the running of the statute of limitations. But we're talking convictions, indictments, legal proceedings with evidence presented by both parties... not an accusation.
            These are real human beings you're talking about, real families, not just numbers.

            Comment


            • #21
              If you can't answer the question then don't.
              You are the one, in fact, who habitually refuses to answer straight, plain questions, resorting instead to making even more vague and irrelevant statements.

              Comment


              • #22
                It does not matter what I believe, or what you believe, what we do or do not. What matters is that there's no clear definition or set standards to limit the application of a statute. The Courts have a policy of restricting the application of a statute to the "narrowest possible interpretation" when it comes to broad legislation without a clear set of parameters to guide its application. But that's what the courts do, this legislation will be applied by adjudicators and others in similar positions. It does not matter what we "say" or what they "say" the bill is all about, if it's not in the statute or recorded as intent of Congress it simply "does not count".
                Some in congress appear to be concerned with the integrity of other nations and their judicial system. That is a very valid concern. But at the same time legislation is also created compromise the standards of the U.S. system and the fundamental principles of common law. If a person can be rendered a criminal just because there's some "indications to support the guilt" then there would be no need for the criminal justice system at all. Common law protects the integrity of every person by granting a presumption of innocence lacking a finding of guilt. The Constitution also protects the very same principle by allowing a jury trial to every one in this country. A guilty verdict or a guilty plea are the only two mechanisms that will render a person a criminal. Why not follow those mechanisms now as well? Any crime can be a "serious crime", combine that with the fact that no conviction is required and what do you get? A comprehensive result or a system based on circumstantial evidence, prejudice and finger-pointing?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Why don't you fax your concerns directly to the office of Senator Arlen Specter, if you are so concerned about every tiny detail of the pending legislation that has slim if no chances to become law before the end of this year?

                  Good for you if in your wildest dreams you imagine yourself being a person of broader mind and intelligence than Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman is (who is also the author of S.2611) , but I personally trust the judgement and political intuition of this fine, distinguished Statesman and feel proud for America that it has Senators like him.



                  Regards,

                  IE

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I'm not objecting to the opinion of Sen. Specter, in fact, he's done more than many to make sure there's a bill that can be effective. I'm concerned about some "amendments" that are not well defined and could render ineffective the efforts of others, including Mr. Specter's, when it comes to comprehensive immigration legislation.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Some Senators made an attempt last month to block the introduction of certain amendments and we all remember where it ended up.

                      Comment

                      Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                      Home Page

                      Immigration Daily

                      Archives

                      Processing times

                      Immigration forms

                      Discussion board

                      Resources

                      Blogs

                      Twitter feed

                      Immigrant Nation

                      Attorney2Attorney

                      CLE Workshops

                      Immigration books

                      Advertise on ILW

                      EB-5

                      移民日报

                      About ILW.COM

                      Connect to us

                      Questions/Comments

                      SUBSCRIBE

                      Immigration Daily



                      Working...
                      X