>

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