Que viva El Diario!

I would like to see more editorials like this one from the press. It doesn't surprise me that the Spanish-language media may find this issue more compelling than the English-language media since one in every 36 Latinos in the U.S. is in jail. Nonetheless, it is an issue with which we should all be concerned.

The right to be heard
2010-03-30

El Diario NY
This week, the Supreme Court is expected to hear a case that will affect thousands of immigrants with legal status and their families. The Court should recognize that tying the hands of immigration judges pushes beyond the scope of Congressional intent and undermines our judicial system.

In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, the Supreme Court will consider whether immigrants with legal status, or those petitioning for asylum, with two or more drug possession offenses should be treated as “drug trafficking aggravated felony” offenders. This would subject them to a mandatory deportation statute—and remove judicial discretion in doing so.

Drug trafficking and minor drug possession offenses are not the same. But if the Court were to side with the federal government, immigrants with legal status, who barely know their country of origin, who have already paid their debt to society, would be swept into the harshest penalties of immigration law.

The Justice Department is pushing for an aggressive over interpretation of the mandatory deportation statute. Under this statute, we doubt that Congress intended to channel, for example, U.S. military veterans using drugs to cope with post traumatic stress disorder into deportation, especially without a hearing.

Yet, these are among the people with families here who are vulnerable to the government’s wrongheaded position.

Immigrant and legal advocates are raising more issues with this case. They say that the Board of Immigration Appeals and most federal judges have sided with their position and that the government’s position runs contrary to legal precedent. They cite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lopez v. Gonzales, where the Court rejected a claim that a single drug possession conviction could be treated as an aggravated felony under immigration law.

While immigrants with drug possession offenses are generally deportable, what this case stands to do is deny many lawful permanent residents the right to a hearing. This kind of gag is shameful. It grossly departs from Constitutional values and a history of legal precedents that have long established the right to a fair defense.

The Supreme Court should see through this attempt to escalate minor drug offenses into felonies and to strip lawfully permanent residents of the right to have their day in court.