I am in dire need of accurate information regarding the Immigration laws of 1996.
Supposively, non-citizens who are convicted of a crime, are subject to reportation under the law. The thing is, even those people who commited their crime PRIOR to 1996 were included and deported. How can that be? Isn’t it unconstitutional for a law to be retroactive?
A friend of mine has a relative who was convicted of 4th degree assault and sentenced to 6 months probation. This event occured in 1991. Does the 1996 law apply to this individual? Apparently so, as his visa will not be renewed and he will be subject for deportation.
How can this be???
You and/or your friend need to speak with an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and expert in immigration law. Check here to find immigration lawyers licensed in Georgia.
The question at hand does not concern immigration or any specifics. My question is one about law and the constitution which prohibits laws punishing those who commited their “crime” prior to the law being established.
Well, yeah, your question very specifically concerns immigration. Your friend is being denied renewal of his visa (a change to his immigration status) because of a criminal conviction prior to the effective date of the law. An attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and knowledgable of immigration law is the best resource to answer your very specific question relating to a very specific set of facts.
To answer the question generally, yes, the law applies to your friend until such time as a federal judge says it doesn’t. Next question?
there are people being deported for convictions they had prior to the 1996 law (the law states that immigrants with convictions could be subject to deportation).
You are still missing my point. I am not talking about immigration. I am asking how a law passed after an offense can be retroactive and go back and punish those whose offenses were prior to the law.
by your “logic”
Bob likes to burn leaves. Two years from now, a law is passed which prohibits burning leaves. Bob obeys the new law and stops burning leaves but is arrested for his burning of leaves two years ago. That is unconstitutional. But by your logic, “the law applies to your friend until such time as a federal judge says it doesn’t.”
I don’t see the problem. IANAL, but according to general legal principles it’s completely proper.
The question is not about punishment. It’s just about the conditions on which the U.S. allows aliens in the country. AFAIK most countries can prohibit undesirable aliens entry in the country. The fact that make someone undesirable will have taken place beforehand doesn’t matter. Nor does it matter in principle if the law on which the decision to prohibit entry is effected after these facts. Aliens do not have a prima facie right to entry in another country.
It’s not that he is being punished for his previous transgression. Nothing was done to him when the new law was passed. However, the new law sets criteria for newly issued or renewed visas. He evidently previously met the conditions to gain a visa. Now he does not, and one will not be issued. Note that his existing visa was not revoked – they are simply not issuing a new (renew) one.
He is not being punished for breaking a law. Getting a visa is a privilege granted, like a pass into the closed portion of the White House. Just like the pass into the White House, the requirements one must meet may change occasionally. He simply no longer meets the requirements.
There is, AFAIK, no general prohibition against retroactive laws. There is a consitutional provision against criminal prosecution for an act that was not proscribed before the law was passed (ex post facto laws). But this is not a criminal case.