>

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.
/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. >


Since it was just paraphernalia, it was up to the judge whether to pursue deportation over it,

That's not how it works. State judges do not have authority over federal immigration proceedings. 
I suspect the state Judge decided not to notify the federal authorities, and immigration made their decision as soon as they were aware of the situation. >

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