We do if the system either doesn't work correctly, or there was a mistake made or overlooked (intentionally or otherwise) in how it operated. Yes, you said this the first time. And my reply still holds. If the process to provide a citizen the right to own a gun was flawed or wasn't followed, then there should be a way to go back and remove those guns and rights if they applicant either lied, cheated or got away with the background check through some mistake. Like this: http://fortune.com/2018/06/08/florida-gun-background-checks-nics-log-in/ Florida failed to conduct background checks on applicants for concealed carry for over a year because of an inept employee. And guess what? Someone should go back and review all those who got a CCW (concealed license) to see if any were done incorrectly. And someone is. Where is the cry of injustice from the left about removing people's rights?
Many will recall that article/event the other day where the pizza delivery guy was detained after trying to enter a military facility/base. The usual outrage etc. Okay fine. Goes with the turf. Many of his defenders vehemently argue that he has a green card/permanent resident application in process etc and was just a short way away from allegedly having it approved - hence a big injustice here. But I was thinking, WTF, the guy has resided here in violation of a court order to self-deport based on his own assertions that he would do so. So is he disclosing on his application on for permanent resident status that he is already in violation of immigration law while applying for a status that requires you to attest to the fact that you will faithfully comply with the laws of the country????? Not to forget that during that time when he did not self-deport, he cranked out two or more American citizens. Gets nutty. No way should he be given permanent residency or eventually citizenship if he did not disclose the deportation order. And yes, the feds would probably pick it up on the database anyway but I am talking about him, not the feds. The feds do their job on even numbered days, and not on odd numbered days.
And the proof that the current system for checking for fraud is where exactly? The 2500 or so people that have already been referred to prosecutors for not remembering to disclose where they lived for 6 months?
It's a bit hard to understand this latest Ricter Riddle. Are you saying, that since there is no proof that naturalization might have been given out incorrectly or to those that don't deserve it, we shouldn't take a look and see? I mean, with that philosophy, police officers should stay at the station until called on to prosecute a crime that has already happened. Cops have no right to be driving around looking for bad things. I mean, who do they think they are? Similarly, I should be able to tell all those external auditors I have visit our company once a year to sign off on our financials to piss off - there's no proof I've done anything wrong!
Been here for fifty years and never applied for citizenship. Might want to think about getting the citizenship before getting the violent crime on your record. Valid detention by ICE. He will get a hearing and the judge can determine whether the violent crime rises to the level of deportation within the statute.
I'd guess if the courts didn't see it fit to raise it to felony charges, it probably won't. As to why never apply for citizenship, as it's clear from this case, some immigrants are never made to feel welcome, not even after 50 years.
If they act like temporary visitors by never applying for citizenship, some may never treat them as more than temporary visitors. This is not your grandfather's type of immigrant. Lots of immigrants just come here to treat the country as an economic base to send money home without any interest in being a full American. He is entitled to raise any defenses he has at his hearing and I have no problem with that whatsoever. Deportable offenses include any crimes- misdemeanor or felony- that are considered to be "crimes of moral turpitude"- and domestic violence definitely falls under that definition and has been so treated by the courts. But there are different penalties/results depending on how long the immigrant was in the country before the crime occurred, and whether or not an immigrant failed to report such a crime during inquiry with an immigration officer or on an application for permanent residency or citizenship- even if a very minor crime. So on and so forth. He can make his case - not a problem- especially if he did not fail on any of the points I mentioned. But if he did, well, I am not going to fall over backwards being surprised about something that turns out to be more complicated than portrayed in the media.
The misdemeanor/felony standard which was loosely implemented until the Obama administration, has mostly focused on illegal immigrants. The standard for criminality has always been much higher for residents; I've never heard of someone getting booted over a misdemeanor offense. As to getting a fair trial, the problem is, there's no such thing in Trump's immigration courts, they've redefined violent crime, and left no room for gray areas. I won't even go into your rant about brown people not assimilating
What you have heard of is neither here nor there in regard to the disposition of the case. I stated that if he has defenses- and he may- that he will have a chance to present them- but your attempt to try the case with a bumper-sticker understanding of the law is uninformed. I made the point that his green card must be renewed from time to time and I do not have knowledge of whether he properly declared that crime and had it resolved or whether it was just picked up on a database run. You apparently know this but I don't. Nor are you able to understand that even if it turned out to be a lesser offense but he did not declare it, that alone is fraud on the renewal application - which the court will review- not you. And, again, you have a bumper- sticker understanding of how the law is applied and try to force fit it into your misdemeanor/felony model. In application, the statute speaks to a crime of "moral turpitude" - misdemeanor or not. If he declared the crime as part of his renewal application and it was resolved then he will present that as defense. If not- well- gets complicated right off from there. In practice, application of the law in federal courts is highly complicated because the immigration court/hearing is required to in interpret a jungle of state criminal statutes and intepret the level of severity of a state crime in light of the language of federal statute. In general, if a crime carries or could carry a maximum penalty of more than a year (even if the defendant did not receive that sentance) then the immigrant immediately falls into a category where it is going to take some legal work to get out of it. Many states- California included- have so-called misdemeanors that nevertheless allow for a maximum penalty of more than a year. As I said, gets complicated right off but would be easy for you based on your Dummies Guide to Immigration law. Unfortunately for many immigrants, they dont have you for a judge. And I dont disagree with your assertion that you have never heard of some categories of immigrants being deported. PERHAPS YOU HAVE NOT HEARD THAT THERE IS A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN. And if you and your ilk dont get your fingers out of your collective arses and reach a deal with the aforementioned sheriff on an immigration bill, you are also going to see yet another classification of illegals deported soon- They are referred to as DACA. In the meantime, don't kid yourself. A lot of these permanent residents did apply for citizenship because they did not feel welcome as you put it. Many did not apply because they got caught in a bind where they had a crime that did/might make them ineligible and they did not want to be subjected to the database run that would go with the application.