sir_eccles

California penal code not proposition.

CAL. PEN. CODE § 977 : California Code - Section 977

S Folinsky

Interesting. Wrong, but interesting. NIV holders HAVE been deported, perhaps not directly because of the drug misdemeanor, but rather for the violation of non-immigrant status caused by the misdemeanor. It may be rare, but it does happen.

p.s. Cochella is in Riverside County which is adjacent to Orange County -- non-citizens with any possible immigration problem do not want to get pulled over for anything in Orange County.

CluelessCarter

How come? Do they operate differently there?

crg

People have been deported for something as minor as disorderly conduct. It comes down to whether or not status is violated.

Be advised that the US is under no obligation to allow entry for your court appearance if you have to attend.

CluelessCarter

My Attorney is appearing for me.

Markie

What? So what happened to the right to a fair trial? If they don't allow you to attend such trial (and, presumably, find you both guilty and in contempt of court for not attending)?

crg

There is no such right to enter a foreign country. Sometimes the person is allowed in to attend depending on the circumstances, but if there is no ESTA,no visa issued and no significant public benefit parole, the person would be stranded at the ticket counter in London. It's not uncommon for federal authoriities to deport people who are out on bail and participating in their court case.

Let's say it took 10 years to finally remove someone but they have a drunk driving charge pending. Would it make sense to release them to attend a piddly case?

ian-mstm

The US Constitution protects everyone who is on US soil... citizens and non-citizens alike. However, the US Constitution is not binding on any other country, therefore there is no guarantee of protection for someone who is outside the US - quite simply, because it does not apply outside the US.

Ian

Markie

That's not only a US Constitutional right though, it's a UN right:

Right to Fair Trial - Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force

scrubbedexpat099

You have been accused of terrorism?

Like others have said US Constitution applies in the US.

crg

Is the UN going that invade the US to ensure this "right"? Perhaps they should start with North Korea first.

ian-mstm

First, since he hasn't been accused of terrorism, he has no right to a trial (let alone a fair trial) under the UN charter. Second, there won't be a trial in the US, because the situation is within the bounds of judicial discretion and doesn't require a trial. Third, you need to know that trying to make something out of nothing simply makes you look foolish.

Ian

Markie

1. The link I posted said nothing about needing to be accused of terrorism to be assured a right to a fair trial, rather it was about the concern that those accused of terrorism haven't been given a fair trial, which is their (and everyone else's) right under international treaties.

2. How am I making something out of nothing, much less looking foolish? Unless I misunderstand, not showing up to a trial makes you, at the least, automatically found guilty by default (though that may only apply to judgements in civil cases, I'm definitely not an attorney) and possibly guilty of contempt of court for not following a court order to appear.

3. On that note, if he is, in fact, found guilty of contempt and the original charges, that'll pretty much guarantee he never enters the US again, at least for the foreseeable future. Hardly making something out of nothing.

scrubbedexpat099

Often an issue with those deported for illegal presence, they may have a long rap sheet and why bother spending the money charging them etc, better to deport them.

Trying tome back in say with a waiver through a US Spouse then becomes interesting as with outstanding warrants a visa is unlikely.

Markie

And that's my concern for the OP, if he loses his right to a trial, then surely a minor, meaningless, victimless crime will mean that he is de-facto banned from ever entering the US again? Seems wildly disproportionate to the crime.

Furthermore, it won't just affect him in the US - for example, Australia, if I remember correctly, has a blanket ban on people with drugs convictions.