And immigration. In its continueing saga of the sinless deportee, the NYT's has another sob story, this time about a two-time drug criminal who doesn't want to go back to Haiti. The big debate is how State drug convictions are reconciled with their federal equivalent. Of course, this is foolish. Previously convictions were convictions, but now they have to be reconciled with equivalent federal convictions with a similar conviction in different states treated differently depending on the federal court they are in. The obvious solution is the just view any conviction as a conviction and the alien removed depending on whether the crime is drug related, a crime involving moral turpitude, an aggravated felony or multiple convictions. It doesn't really matter, but in the case of Jerry Lemaine he was clearly not a dealer, but he was a user. And there as the bard says, lies the rub. He is deportable for being a drug user as well, not just for his criminal convictions. See this:
Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]
(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.-Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
(1) Health-related grounds.-
(A) In general.-Any alien-
(iv) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to be a drug abuser or addict, is inadmissible.
Why are we wasting time to find out how the Supreme Court deals with this case? It is irrelevant how it should be treated depending on which Circuit the case is in. He is removeable because he is a drug addict as well. And how could he take care of a child if he was in jail for three years? That story line is clearly fabricated.