tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post2558424926535719218..comments2024-03-28T22:42:40.503-04:00Comments on Southern District of Florida Blog: It’s only too hard for you.David Oscar Markushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18386723948607633980noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-59789976357032931902010-04-01T10:39:29.731-04:002010-04-01T10:39:29.731-04:00I think as a practical matter, this opinion will h...I think as a practical matter, this opinion will have little day-to-day effect. Most criminal defense lawyers, especially in an area like Miami, already advise their clients about the potential immigration consequences of a conviction; some going so far as to consult immigration counsel. In most cases, this does not deter a plea because defendants are--not surprisingly--more immediately concerned with reduced jail time versus the greater exposure that usually occurs after trial. Further, most judges already inform defendants during a plea colloquy of the potential immigration consequences of a conviction. <br /><br />Unlike the right to vote and the right to possess a firearm, immigration status is a privilege not a right. As such it's a bit odd that the Court would view immmigration status, for all intensive purposes, as on par with firearm possession and the right to vote for purposes of the duty-to-inform on the part of defense counsel when representing a criminal defendant. <br /><br />Finally, EVEN IF a defendant is found not guilty that does not bar immigration proceedings to remove him or her for the alleged/ acquitted/dismissed criminal conduct based on a lower evidentiary threshold in immigration proceedings (this is what's usually referred to as the "reason to believe" ground for removal/deportation). <br /><br />What do you think Prof?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-73386978950098453702010-04-01T09:39:37.173-04:002010-04-01T09:39:37.173-04:00I gotta admit . . . I'm pretty dumb.I gotta admit . . . I'm pretty dumb.Jake Mosesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-62523387745975397822010-03-31T16:37:42.829-04:002010-03-31T16:37:42.829-04:00duh. of course they should get that advice, as in...duh. of course they should get that advice, as in fact it is commonly something that a plea colloquoy is supposed to address. The question here is whether the failure to do so constitutes such ineffective assistance as to violate the constitution. I think not, though reasonable minds may disagree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com