Groups of cancer patients take marijuana, and also epilepsy sufferers,
to assist in their medical condition. Under this bill, those
individuals who are repeatedly using marijuana in groups of five or
above would be a criminal gang. Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill authorize DHS officers and
immigration judges to deport any immigrant, including lawful permanent
residents of the United States, without requiring a conviction or even
an arrest. Instead, the DHS would rely on evidence as minimal as the color of a
person's shirt, the neighborhood they live in, the individual in their
family, the belief of the officer. This is not just unreasonable, it is
probably unconstitutional. Now, Chairman Goodlatte had an amendment that apparently recognized
this fact, but it only fixes one part of the problem. His amendment,
which would be effectuated through adoption of the rule, eliminates the
extremely low reason-to-believe standard with respect to deportation,
which applies, of course, to permanent residents and other immigrants
in the United States. But even with this amendment, the bill authorizes the broad
deportation of noncriminals, including religious workers, and, as I
say, users of medical marijuana. And here is the other kicker: it could
deny admission, without any review, to anyone who is suspected of doing
a thing outlined in the bill, for example, using marijuana or a
religious worker harboring someone who is undocumented. How would that work? If you are a legal permanent resident of the
United States and you go visit your family in another country, when you
try to come back in, you are stopped, and you are denied readmission,
even if you have been here 10, 20, 30 years, and there is no appeal.
Keywords matched
immigration undocumented immigrants immigrant deportation