Skip to comments.Court Says Kidnapping Not Serious Enough to Warrant Deportation
Posted on 01/10/2013 11:34:31 AM PST by jazusamo
In what may seem like a bad joke, a U.S. federal appellate court has spared an illegal immigrant convicted of kidnapping from deportation ruling that its not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude.
The decision, issued this week by the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, rambles on for 27 pages and is almost comical. This undoubtedly appears to be a difficult question at first glance, it reads. Kidnapping is a serious crime, and our instincts may be that it would meet the moral turpitude definition. Even for serious offenses, we must look to the specific elements of the statute of conviction and compare them to the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude.
The case involves a Mexican man named Javier Castrijon-Garcia who entered the United States illegally in 1989 and incidentally has three American-born anchor babies. He has twice been convicted for driving with a suspended license (yes, California gives illegal aliens drivers licenses) and in 1992 pleaded guilty to attempted kidnapping. He received a suspended sentence of 300 days in jail and 36 months of probation.
Years after the kidnapping case, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finally earmarked Castrijon-Garcia for removal. He appealed but an immigration judge found that he was deportable because the kidnapping conviction is a categorical crime of moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals, the governments final authority on immigration matters, agreed noting that it had previously listed kidnapping as an example of a crime of moral turpitude and that Californias penal code also defined it as involving moral turpitude.
But the 9th circuit, the most overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, disagrees writing in its decision that precedent dictates that non-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affects a protected class of victim. The type of simple kidnapping that this illegal immigrant committed doesnt necessarily involve such evil intent and harm therefore it doesnt constitute moral turpitude, according to the San Francisco-based court.
The ruling orders the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Justice Department, to conduct a modified categorical analysis of the illegal immigrants crime. Keep in mind that the BIA has already determined that kidnapping is a serious enough crime that merits deportation, so the court is essentially ordering it to make an exception or change the criminal code.
Over the years the 9th Circuit Court has been kind to illegal immigrants with criminal records. In separate 2010 rulings it spared an illegal alien from Mexico and a gangbanger from El Salvadorboth convicted of serious crimesfrom deportation.
A few years earlier the 9th Circuit reversed a lower court ruling calling for the deportation of a Mexican immigrant convicted of having sex with a minor. In that ruling, the 9th Circuit claimed that while the crime violated state law and was unwise and socially unacceptable, it wasnt base, vile or depraved enough to warrant deportation.
Come to America! Trash our laws and trash our country! Our “courts” don’t mind!
Well, it goes to show you that liberals, who want to destroy this country, are depending on illegal Mexicans to accomplish the task.
jazusamo ~~:” (from the article) But the 9th circuit, the most overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, disagrees writing in its decision that precedent dictates that non-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affects a protected class of victim. The type of simple kidnapping that this illegal immigrant committed doesnt necessarily involve such evil intent and harm therefore it doesnt constitute moral turpitude, according to the San Francisco-based court.”
Recall the entire 9th circuit court.
Obviously the 9th circuit court doesn’t know what moral turpitude actually is !
We don’t know what the original chagre was , or what the original charge got plead down to .
The criminal convitions obviously don’t have any meaning to the 9th circuit court .
If the ruling is insanity put into words, it’s almost always a 9th circus decision.
Why does no news rag publish the addresses of judges?
I guess the law has changed but I thought after the Lindbergh
case, kidnapping was auto life in prison?
Maybe not. I know there is a provision for parents that kidnap there own children?
Sorry just saw the charge was attempted kidnapping.
I promise to read the entire piece before commenting in the future.
This Reinhardt turkey is proud they're the most overturned by SCOTUS, go figure.
shhhhheee. We are truly living in a lawless country now. Gun grab or not (incentive), we need to throw these people out- physically carry them out & lock the door behind them if necessary. Now. It *can* get a *lot* worse & it will.
And yet, here in Georgia today, a man got FOUR YEARS
in prison for handcuffing a coworker trying to get her
to go out with him.
Maybe “kidnapping” meant not returning a child to the custody of its mother on time.
Maybe “kidnapping” meant preventing a wife or girlfriend from leaving during an argument.
Maybe “kidnapping” meant locking up someone until his family paid a debt.
Maybe “kidnapping” meant ransom for profit, or attempted rape, or rape plea-bargained down to kidnapping.
Now if he’d refused to served dinner to a homosexual couple celebrating their anniversary, THAT would be moral turpitude.
“Recall the entire 9th circuit court.
Obviously the 9th circuit court doesnt know what moral turpitude actually is !”
They see it every time they shave
This ruling by the 9th circus is a crime of moral turpitude!!!!
Where’s the outrage?
“Obviously the 9th circuit court doesnt know what moral turpitude actually is !”
They ARE Moral Turpitude!