Immigration Law
9th Circuit Bars Deportation for Sex With Minor
Posted Oct 11, 2007 5:52 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A federal appeals court has ruled that an immigrant should not be deported for having sex with a minor.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision (PDF) that the offense was not one of “moral turpitude,” the kind of crime that requires deportation, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
The statutory rape law bars conduct that "may be unwise and socially unacceptable to many, but it is not inherently base, vile or depraved," the court wrote.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
DABacker
Oct 11, 2007 10:43 PM CST
Please make the time to read the opinion of the court. Then please consider the following.
1. The conviction was for a person > 21 having sex with a person < 16. The court gives an example of a college sophomore and a 15 year 11 month old high schooler. The court is being disingenuous by giving this hypothetical example without stating the defendant’s age at the time of the offense.
2. Ask any of your non-lawyer friends whether statutory rape involves moral turpitude. To state that it does not strains credulity.
3. Civil procedure question - The court states that other States have age of consent less than 16. Why? Why do they reach out side of California? This may be dicta, but it seems like obfuscation. This statement seems to suggest they can disregard California law.
Flag this comment
JD
Oct 12, 2007 8:48 PM CST
The looking outside California law thing is PRECISELY how leftist judges work to destroy the will of the American people. Breyer on the Supreme Court continuously pushes the idea of looking to FOREIGN holdings on matters of U.S. law.
Why would he do that? Foreign law is full of holdings that are so far to the left. A U.S. judge unable to legitimize his opinion under U.S. holdings will have ample pickings elsewhere.
This bastardization of American law is troubling. Bastardizing the law in order to allow child rape is absolutely disgusting.
But that’s what you get when you combine immigration attorneys and the 9th Circuit!
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.