>

Unless you've edited,  I thought that was perfectly clear. And I'm particularly good at missing details and getting confused.  Lol
/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Your OP tramples all over the concept of federalism.
First let me get this out of the way. What happened to your friend sucks. It sucks big time for her, and it sucks for you too to possibly lose a friend in that manner. But I hope you can see that instances like this, sucky or not sucky, are not enough to completely rewrite how all of government works.
Simply put, immigration is a federal issue. The rules as to who may or may not enter and stay in this country are federal rules. If you think about this it makes sense. The borders between states are totally free. It is not the individual state's job to determine who can or cannot be there.
So when a state judge determines that the court won't push for deportation, this is a person who has absolutely no say in the federal government. No one in the federal government which has total control over immigration policy has vested any power at all in the state court. State courts simply cannot tell the federal government how to run immigration policy. >

Not a lawyer but having some experience with these issues it usually becomes a cross section of local laws, state laws, federal common law (which can vary wildly between circuits literal night/day on some issues), and actual immigration law. Strictly speaking, if you’re friend was not a full blown citizen the law requires that their admissibility be determined/redetermined every time they enter. The judge in her im assuming OWI (Wisconsin) literally has zero authority for deportation and could not make the decision on admissibility let alone a future determination. Further it would at the very least qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude, and possibly an aggravated felony (I remember one local difference being that in Georgia the way a shoplifting statue was wordered rendered even a stolen video game from walmart making someone immediately deportable with essentially no appeal or recourse). I do believe that this can be sometimes heavy handed, but I can spin this as the system working since they “properly” redetermined her admissibility as required and she was screened and held for being a criminal. >

To be clear, where is your friend a citizen and where does she live? >

Back then she was a citizen of Brazil and a permanent resident in the US, her parents moved here when she was 8. She lived in Oregon. She's now a full citizen. >

Are you sure she’s a full citizen?  Swearing in ceremony and all?  Are you sure that she didn’t fail to disclose her conviction on any immigration paperwork? >

Yes, I was at her swearing in ceremony. They knew about the conviction, but as a misdemeanor it didn't block it, especially given how old the conviction was and her record since then. >

You are correct, poor wording. He decided to not refer them, as it wasn't a mandatory deportation charge. >

The main problem with this situation is that she was not arrested and retried in the same case, but rather on a new case of breaking the immigration laws. So it's exactly a thing that once a case is done, it should be done for good. She was not re-trialed, it's just that her existence in US was based on permission that was granted based on following certain laws.
And when immigration officers will see that those laws were broken they will arrest that person and set up a hearing to validate if deportation would be necessary.
It can be discussed if Detention Centers are ran in good manner or if powers of immigration officers are abused or not, but ability to re-evaluate residence permits is necessary for any country and taking this power away due to judge being lenient in some other cased is not how immigration policy should work.
One question springs to mind, does your friend have permanent residency? It seems if that DUI/possession charge was the only thing that she has on record it would not result in risk of deportation. >

She didn't at the time, but she does now. As her lawyer explained to her, stuff like this is common in Houston - they look for any excuse to start deportation. >

So there is a very high chance that there will be no deportation as she can show that she was not committing any crimes since and she started procedure of naturalization and obtained a permanent residence.
But to get back at topic of your OP. What you suggest is that a federal law should be limited by rulings of state judges, which would create a big issue as most of problems that can be uncovered by federal immigration agency will be things that are summarized from many different cases from different states. If your idea was implemented than anyone who does have a record in several states, but was individually decided in each case to not have deportation case handed to federal level, is therefore unable to be deported on basis of those cases.
Which will create a major issue where state cases being closed mean that federal cases cannot be based on them, which can go one of two ways. Either we have unlikely situation that federal immigration laws are unenforceable (and thus giving various loopholes for actual criminals) or we have much more likely situation where there is push on state level to refer every likely deportation cause to federal jurisdiction. Which would mean that next person who gets a bullshit misdemeanor like your friend did, would get a deportation case immediately.
And what would be better - to have this deportation hearing later as an adult who already proven that this case meant nothing and can afford a lawyer, or to be immediately tried as a minior? >

This makes sense honestly. You're basically suggesting that we SHOULD be able to close the cases to further scrutiny, except doing so would likely create an issue where every case goes hard on deportation. While I still believe we should be able to prevent a non-referall from being picked up by another agency AND still use prior cases as examples and argument, that's simply not the system we have.
Δ >


You're basically suggesting that we SHOULD be able to close the cases to further scrutiny

Yep, we could make it so every case like this could result in notion from state judge to federal agency to void this case as non-applicable in deportation cases. But it is likely that agency would not be al lenient and this would result in the same thing that happened to your friend just in shorter timeframe.
Honestly, I think that situation as is should be maintained and state judged can just not notify federal level if they don't feel it's warranted. This gives time for person who committed crime to get everything straightened up and go through naturalization process to obtain citizenship. Ans as they receive citizenship, this case from back then becomes irrelevant.
Your friend had a misfortune of getting picked up by some pissy agent, but also got enough time to build up enough to actually have a good case. Any changes in those laws would mean that on average more people will be in worse situation than that.,

While I still believe we should be able to prevent a non-referall from being picked up by another agency AND still use prior cases as examples and argument, that's simply not the system we have.

And it is a system that is not possible to be implemented unless we have a major change in how US government works in general. Which would mean opening many other cans of worms. >

I would bring up the Jussie smullet situation. Basically his contacts and connections were going to get him off until public outcry.
If one prosecuter chooses not to bring a case others should be able to step up. 
Also see the Ahmad arbrerry case where the DA originally considered the shooting justified. Now 3 men are in jail for his murder. >

This is fundamentally not how the law works in any area. 
A case can be dismissed with prejudice, you can be acquitted, but there is no such thing as an idea that a particular sentencing for any future offense is forever off the table. You can't be acquitted for robbery and then have someone say 'geez that was hard for you so in the future you can't get jail time if you're ever charged with something again.'
She can't be retried for this drug offense. But if she does something else of course they could deport her in the future. Imagine how much more people would decide to deport if the first time they sentenced someone blocked them off from ever deporting them. >

That's not what I'm saying. Of course you should still be able to tried for a NEW offense. The problem is that isn't what happened - they saw that for an OLD offense, sentencing had been completed and the judge opted not to pursue deportation. They picked up the sentencing for the OLD offense, 8 years later, and attempted to deport her for that. >

What? They found her travelling with drug paraphernalia. That was the new offense. >

No? They found her with paraphernalia on the original offense, not in Houston. Apologies if that wasn't clear. >

I was confused by that bit too. >

Must've been wording on my part, my bad