canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

The thing with the A&M researcher is incredibly stupid. Possession of a small amount of marijuana is not a deportable offense (one time minor posession exception) but possession offense does cause inadmissibility. No equivalent exception.

In other words, you can't be deported for it, but if you travel and come back, you can be denied entry.

There are defenses but I'm not being paid to analyze this case and crimmigration gives me a headache.

Hopefully he has retained good counsel. The law needs to be changed.

---

Can cure Lyme but not smart enough not to do drugs ? These don't square. The law doesn't need to be changed.

---

Seriously, what are we talking about here? A single minor possession charge = removal from the country?

Do you also root for CSPD busting our players for minor possession charges?

The law absolutely needs to be changed. I'm not advocating for a crack addict exception here.

---

Consider your household. If your child brings drugs home, you would likely consider some form of discipline and reeducation (if you're against drugs). But if your kids' friend was doing drugs in your house, you're likely kicking him out (again, depending on your stance on drugs). No different than you would have different consequences for other kids than your kids, we can have different standards for citizens versus non.

Where that line should be drawn is another matter, as you point out in your last line, but the current law is one offense. To not enforce is makes the law meaningless.

Here's the rub: not kids. They're not wards of the state, and we are not in any way responsible or obliged toward them. It is the other way around. If they break the law, and not breaking the law is the terms of their immigration status, what is the objection?

I've somehow managed to live here without a "minor posession charge" my whole life. It's not a high bar. When you're a guest, behave yourself. That means at a minimum don't break the law.

canadiaggie said:

---

The Banned said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

The thing with the A&M researcher is incredibly stupid. Possession of a small amount of marijuana is not a deportable offense (one time minor posession exception) but possession offense does cause inadmissibility. No equivalent exception.

In other words, you can't be deported for it, but if you travel and come back, you can be denied entry.

There are defenses but I'm not being paid to analyze this case and crimmigration gives me a headache.

Hopefully he has retained good counsel. The law needs to be changed.

---

Can cure Lyme but not smart enough not to do drugs ? These don't square. The law doesn't need to be changed.

---

Seriously, what are we talking about here? A single minor possession charge = removal from the country?

Do you also root for CSPD busting our players for minor possession charges?

The law absolutely needs to be changed. I'm not advocating for a crack addict exception here.

---

Consider your household. If your child brings drugs home, you would likely consider some form of discipline and reeducation (if you're against drugs). But if your kids' friend was doing drugs in your house, you're likely kicking him out (again, depending on your stance on drugs). No different than you would have different consequences for other kids than your kids, we can have different standards for citizens versus non.

Where that line should be drawn is another matter, as you point out in your last line, but the current law is one offense. To not enforce is makes the law meaningless.

---

Did this hypothetical other kid live in my house every day from the age of 5?

---

No analogy is ever perfect, but I tried. If you want to add that caveat, we'd have to word it more like this:

Someone moves your child's friend into your house at the age of 5 and you are completely unaware. You don't find out until years after the fact that you have an additional person living in your home. Once you do find out, you allow them to stay out of kindness. You even tell them they can have a permanent home there if they agree to be adopted. They have to agree to become your legal child, but they don't agree. The never sign any adoption papers. But they still act as if they have the same rights as your child. Then after all this time of rejecting a permanent place in your family, they break one of your major rules.

Honestly I'm more bothered by the fact this individual had nearly 20 years to apply for citizenship and never did than the drug charge. It's not that difficult. Tedious, yes. But not difficult. It has an acceptance rate of 90%. Failure doesn't get you deported. You just have to try a little bit.

And no, none of this justifies the poor incarceration conditions she suffered, if true.

canadiaggie said:

---

The Banned said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

The Banned said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

The thing with the A&M researcher is incredibly stupid. Possession of a small amount of marijuana is not a deportable offense (one time minor posession exception) but possession offense does cause inadmissibility. No equivalent exception.

In other words, you can't be deported for it, but if you travel and come back, you can be denied entry.

There are defenses but I'm not being paid to analyze this case and crimmigration gives me a headache.

Hopefully he has retained good counsel. The law needs to be changed.

---

Can cure Lyme but not smart enough not to do drugs ? These don't square. The law doesn't need to be changed.

---

Seriously, what are we talking about here? A single minor possession charge = removal from the country?

Do you also root for CSPD busting our players for minor possession charges?

The law absolutely needs to be changed. I'm not advocating for a crack addict exception here.

---

Consider your household. If your child brings drugs home, you would likely consider some form of discipline and reeducation (if you're against drugs). But if your kids' friend was doing drugs in your house, you're likely kicking him out (again, depending on your stance on drugs). No different than you would have different consequences for other kids than your kids, we can have different standards for citizens versus non.

Where that line should be drawn is another matter, as you point out in your last line, but the current law is one offense. To not enforce is makes the law meaningless.

---

Did this hypothetical other kid live in my house every day from the age of 5?

---

No analogy is ever perfect, but I tried. If you want to add that caveat, we'd have to word it more like this:

Someone moves your child's friend into your house at the age of 5 and you are completely unaware. You don't find out until years after the fact that you have an additional person living in your home. Once you do find out, you allow them to stay out of kindness. You even tell them they can have a permanent home there if they agree to be adopted. They have to agree to become your legal child, but they don't agree. The never sign any adoption papers. But they still act as if they have the same rights as your child. Then after all this time of rejecting a permanent place in your family, they break one of your major rules.

Honestly I'm more bothered by the fact this individual had nearly 20 years to apply for citizenship and never did than the drug charge. It's not that difficult. Tedious, yes. But not difficult. It has an acceptance rate of 90%. Failure doesn't get you deported. You just have to try a little bit.

And no, none of this justifies the poor incarceration conditions she suffered, if true.

---

For a permanent resident? That kid filled out paperwork and waited 2-3 years in line to move into my house

I agree with you on waiting too long to apply for citizenship.

---

To your first point: yeeahhh, no. I'm from south Texas. Based on what I've learned from my friends and their families, it's not all that hard. The article was very vague on how she "moved" here, and casually inserts that she has permanent resident status. I don't know this particular woman's plight, but where I'm from, some relative of some sort served as her anchor. Not that I blame her or her parents for trying to work the system. Lord knows I would try for my kids. But for the past several decades, gaining permanent residence as a minor can be very easy. And I would say this individual, based on the limited facts, did not fully understand just how blessed she was to have it.

Glad you can agree with me that she should have taken advantage of her potential blessing of US citizenship. Just like I'd agree with you that a minor drug charge is not an unforgiveable sin.

What are the conditions placed on lawful permanent residence?

All noncitizens are guests.

Sky is blue. What's your point?

Follow the law.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What are the conditions placed on lawful permanent residence?

All noncitizens are guests.

---

Noncitizens have rights.

---

And responsibilities

Captain Pablo said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What are the conditions placed on lawful permanent residence?

All noncitizens are guests.

---

Noncitizens have rights.

---

And responsibilities

---

Some would say it is responsibilities that grant privileges, and that the idea of "rights" irrespective of any context; is a liberal invention.

Zobel said:

---

Sky is blue. What's your point?

Follow the law.

---

Because a nation is not a family or a house. Just because someone doesn't behave in a manner you personally approve of doesn't mean you get to remove them. They have rights.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What are the conditions placed on lawful permanent residence?

All noncitizens are guests.

---

Noncitizens have rights.

---

And responsibilities

---

Some would say it is responsibilities that grant privileges, and that the idea of "rights" irrespective of any context; is a liberal invention.

---

Of course GNLS1488 is not a fan of individual rights.

---

Is this GNLS1488 in the room with us right now?

The "house" analogy wasn't mine, and nowhere have I advocated for this being up to me. I believe I said we should follow the law.

Every analogy has it's weaknesses, as I said before.

Yes, permanent residents have rights recognized by the government. Protection from deportation no matter what is not one of those recognized rights.

Champion of Fireball said:

---

I'm confused.

What's GNLS1488?

---

A long time poster who also used Bustupachiffarobe and a few other socks.

Him and Sapper have been online besties for decades .

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What are the conditions placed on lawful permanent residence?

All noncitizens are guests.

---

Noncitizens have rights.

---

And responsibilities

---

Some would say it is responsibilities that grant privileges, and that the idea of "rights" irrespective of any context; is a liberal invention.

---

Of course GNLS1488 is not a fan of individual rights.

---

Is this GNLS1488 in the room with us right now?

---

So now you're trying to deny it, GNLS1488?

---

I have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what you're talking about.