4 ms·
This follows logically, in my opinion, from the idea that the federal government is solely responsible for matters of immigration law. This argument makes sens
by xyzzyz 7y ago
This follows logically, in my opinion, from the idea that the federal government is solely responsible for matters of immigration law.
This argument makes sense, but I think it proves too much: states already have plenty of laws that restrict certain rights or privileges to citizens only. Your argument, as I understand it, is that since immigration status is a matter of federal law, states cannot deny a right (to K-12 education) on the basis of immigration status -- but it is commonly accepted that they can and do deny such a right in other circumstances, e.g. to serve as a police officer, for example, which I'm quite sure state laws deny to illegal immigrants.
are largely seen out as soon as their sentence is served
What do you mean by "seen out", exactly?
- arcticbull 7y ago> What do you mean by "seen out", exactly? Committing a crime of moral turpitude as a non-immigrant (and even some green card holders) makes you eligible for deportation. [1] [1] https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/legal-reasons-immigrant-may-be-deported.html https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/legal-re...
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoSome years ago (as I remember this) it was allowed to deport any non-citizen who had committed a crime that could lead to a year or more incarceration - is that no longer the case?
- arcticbull 7y agoIt's probably more stringent now heh.
- ta0987 7y agoe.g. to serve as a police officer You can't legally work in any job as an illegal immigrant - it's a Federal law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a