Thread: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

Originally Posted by soot

Is that the case in Mass?

I know that in NJ DUI is charged as a motor vehicle violation, not a crime, and that even if it were charged under the criminal code there's a distinction made between a "disorderly persons" offence (violations for which the maximum jail time penalty is less than 6 months) and "crimes" (violations for which jail time maximum excedes 6 months).

If this had occured in NJ Mr. Obama would not have commited a crime nor would he have a criminal record as a result.

Is Mass different?

Almost all states treat DUI as a criminal offence. NJ is one of the extreme minority that do not. You are correct as to how NJ classifies DUI. Referred to as DWI in NJ, they classify DWI as a traffic offence under its Title 39 Vehicle Code rather than a criminal offence, and such offences are deemed a 'quasi-criminal' in nature. That's why a DWI offence in NJ is not placed on their criminal raps sheets or appear on the NCIC national database relating to criminal offences. They are, however, permanently recorded on NJ driver's licence abstracts and can be located on the National Driver Registry compilation for traffic offences and/or home state driving records of out-of-state DUI offenders convicted in NJ pursuant to the Driver's Licence Compact that most states have enacted.

Immigration law, however, does not concern itself and is not bound by how each state classifies its offences. Immigration law is a species of federal law, and they create their own statutes describing the kinds of conduct they deem serious enough to warrant exclusion and/or removal from the US.

The main two ways a person becomes a mandatory removable situation is when someone commits offences falling into what are deemed 'aggravated felonies' and/or 'crimes involving moral turpitude' (CIMT). Federal law contains definitions and scopes of how these kinds of offences warrant exclusion from and/or removal from the US.

Aggravated felony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Grounds for Deportation: Moral Turpitude - Lawyers.com
Moral turpitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speaking generally keeping in mind the routine ways DUI statutes are constructed, the SCOTUS held that a simple 'normal' DUI charge does not meet those criteria:

Leocal v. Ashcroft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's about applying the federal statutes languages to each case set of facts. That can and often does lead to situations where someone gets deported over less serious facts in a state or person's point of view whilst more serious ones in their view do not. It's also become a really big deal in criminal law practice and court procedures.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Edited for brevity: Immigration law, however, does not concern itself and is not bound by how each state classifies its offences.

Gottcha. Thanks for the explanation.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Actually, that's not the case. There was a relatively recent furor over the expose of workers in welfare offices counseling people posing as illegal aliens and so forth how to game the system to get benefits. It happened this year, I'll find it if you want.

I've also dealt with government agencies. They're quite good at enforcing the law if they want to, I agree. They're also, I assure you, quite good at following technicalities to ignore parts of the law they want to ignore.

I was meaning to refer to driver's licence agencies. The ones I've dealt with are pretty tough on applying their laws, and that's also because they are often constructed with little or no flexibility in how to apply them. I'm not as familiar with those outside the Mid-Atlantic area, but around this area where I am, they're pretty merciless and they don't have the flexibility to show much if any discretion even if they would like to do so given what they must do.

What you're also presumably referring to is the issue of fraud and the presence of corrupt employees, although if you have that link I'd like to see it to determine if it was lawful or unlawful advice given. That's a different matter than what I meant to suggest, namely honest employees performing their duties. Such employees exist on the public and private capacities and are criminals.

The new laws on banning illegal immigrants from getting licenced on the state level come with more problems than they are worth IMO insofar as an effective measure on illegal immigration and serve to harm the public moreso than assist them, e.g. the now massive number of unlicenced and uninsured illegal immigrant drivers on the road and its consequences. One reason amongst many is precisely the problem of public corruption. A criminal market has already arisen for illegally issued licences as well as 'breeder documents,' namely official-looking passports, forms, stamps, visas, cards and IDs with false data, to help illegal immigrants obtain licenses. That temptation and incentive to corruption has spread to some government employees, public notaries and others who are tempted by its lucrative offerings. Private criminals provide these incentives to public employees as well as produce their own breeder documents and other fake licences. Even for honest employees, the endless varying forms of foreign and domestic documents are difficult for state government and private employees to validate authenticity. Many fake documents are even 'scannable' including fake driver's licences, never mind real ones issued based due to corrupt and fraudulent acts. Around my area, a college student can easily get a scannable fake driver's licence for entering bars when under 21 years of age for around $30 and such fake licences are just as easily sold to illegal immigrants where a cop or bar bouncer would swipe them and get a reading that it's valid.

Originally Posted by soot

Gottcha. Thanks for the explanation.

You're welcome.