Supreme Court Hears Deportation Debate

"The Supreme Court wrestled with the question of whether convictions for minor crimes should force the deportation of legal immigrants, as justices heard the first oral arguments of the new term Tuesday."

Hhmm, let me see now. I'm going to attempt to see what the attourney from the New York State Defenders Association has to run with here--oh wait a minute; they don't have anything to run with. I think it's ridiculous that the case has gotten as far as the supreme court, and that they actually decided to hear it. I point out the majority of other countries and their policies on the issue to back my case. I'm studying in Italy under a student visa, so in effect I am a legal immigrant (for a year) under Italian law. However, since I am not a citizen, if I were to even forget to buy a bus ticket (the buses in Florence are state-run) and failed to present one after boarding a bus, they can legally drag me off of the bus, take me to the nearest ATM and have me withdraw the anywhere from € 70,00 (roughly $89.00) to € 240,00 ( $305.00). If I didn't have that much in my bank account, or refused to pay, etc. I, as well as any citizen, can be arrested and put in jail until I either pay up, opt out for community service, or serve time. In many EU countries, if you are arrested and you are a legal immigrant, they have every right to deport you. Another example: the Carabinieri (a form of police here) catch me publicly intoxicated, ask for identification, see that I am here on a student visa, and can immediately revoke my visa, and thus have me deported. It's that simple.

Now here we're not just talking about forgetting to buy a bus ticket, we're talking about drug possession. So the NY State Defenders want to make sure that the aliens can continue to possess drugs during their visit, because we want them to continue trafficking and feeding the supply lines that pump drugs into our schools and society. A little cocaine never hurt anyone, right? We should wait until they have multiple offenses under their belt, rather than nip the problem at the bud.

"...an immigration judge and review panel as well as a federal appeals court all concluded that his crime should be considered an aggravated felony, which severely limits immigrants' ability to fight off deportation, be granted asylum or become naturalized U.S. citizens."
[Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003288044_scotus04.html]

If they all concluded that this should be classifed as "an aggravated felony" then that's the least I would expect. But let's look at what Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said:

"Defending the government's approach, [he] said the law as Congress wrote it "looks to state law." If a drug crime is a felony under state law, it is a felony that leads to deportation under federal law."

Uh, what's the problem here boys? I say that precedent stands in this case. Deport them after their first offense. Period. We tend to have this forgiving attitude towards immigration and illegal acts relating to immigrants, including immigrants that are illegal themselves. I don't see the logic in forgiving someone who has broken the law. And that goes for both citizens and non-citizens alike.

Don't give me that BS that, "Oh, you don't know what it's like to try to get into the US, and how selective they are." I had to work my butt off my whole life in order to get to where I am now; in life, you get what you work for, and if you take all of that hard work for granted by breaking a law, then you should be punished accordingly. It's that simple.