Time to Cross the Line

Once again states are spearheading the path to comprehensive immigration reform.  However, instead of expanding federal law, this time states are offering up bipartisan solutions.  On December 9, 2012, a bipartisan group of Colorado leaders signed The Colorado Compact which presents a “common sense” approach to immigration reform.  Supporters of the Compact included not only democrats, such as Senator Michael Bennet and Governor John Hickenlooper, but republicans, including former Governor Richard Lamm and Senator Bennet’s campaign opponent, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck. 

Colorado was not the first state to sign such a compact.  Three other states, including Utah, Indiana, and Maine, have also published compacts on immigration reform.  A fifth state, Iowa, has drafted an immigration compact, but has yet to sign it.  The Utah Compact was signed in November 2010, under the direction of Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.  Upon the signing of The Colorado Compact, Attorney General Shurtleff remarked, “As more states and regions adhere to the principles . . . ultimately that will support brave members in Congress on each side by doing the right thing.”

This is also not the first time that Colorado leaders have come together to develop and publish suggestions on immigration reform.  In 2009, the University of Denver formed the Strategic Issues Panel on Immigration which collected information and opinions from leaders in government, business, labor, law enforcement, and education among many industries to develop a list of 25 recommendations for reform “grounded in creating economic and social benefits to the nation as a whole while maintaining national security.”  The six principles presented in The Colorado Compact is a “bipartisan and rational solution” to fix our “broken” immigration system.

The message is clear that citizens, regardless of political standings, want Congress to act now and pass comprehensive immigration reform.  Action will require that both sides cross the proverbial line in the sand.  Utah’s Attorney General Mark Shurtleff observed that the Republicans who “had to stick their neck out” and “stood up and fought for comprehensive reform were all reelected” despite the backlash they received at the time.  The “Gang of Eight” in the senate is a manifestation of the lessons learned in the last election regarding immigration reform.  Consisting of both democrats and republicans, including Senator Bennet and Republic Senator Mike Lee of Utah, the Gang of Eight began meeting to discuss immigration reform in 2013 in December 2012.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Immigrants Should Not “Break Out the Cheetos and Goldfish”

By Kim Tremblay, Associate Attorney

On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters approved amendment 64, a ballot measure that decriminalizes marijuana possession of one ounce or less for adults over 21 and regulates the cultivation and sale of marijuana.  However, it remains unclear how the amendment will work out in practice; the state must still issue regulations.  Currently, some jurisdictions in the state are continuing to criminally prosecute individuals for marijuana possession while others are not.  Federal law still considers marijuana a controlled substance and makes it a crime to possess it or to engage in its production or distribution.  Federal officials have yet to indicate what actions they will take to enforce federal controlled substance laws related to marijuana in Colorado. 

Of specific concern to immigrants is that immigration matters are regulated by federal law, which has not changed.   Under immigration law, there are many areas related to controlled substances that could be problematic for marijuana users, producers, and distributors.  

For immigrants applying for status, these areas can render a person inadmissible to the United States, which in turn makes obtaining immigration benefits either impossible or more difficult.  Merely admitting to marijuana possession could make a person inadmissible; a conviction is not strictly necessary.   A conviction for marijuana possession makes a person inadmissible.  In addition, a person who is a suspected drug trafficker or participant in drug trafficking is inadmissible.  Finally, drug abusers and addicts are inadmissible to the United States.  Again, discovery of any of these grounds of inadmissibility during the immigration process could be extremely problematic.

Moreover, immigration law contains consequences for immigrants with permanent residency status if they are involved with marijuana.  Permanent residents could have their status revoked and be deported from the United States for a marijuana possession conviction of over 30 grams, for any other conviction related to marijuana, or if they are considered drug abusers or addicts.  

Presumably, immigrants in Colorado possessing less than one ounce of marijuana for their personal consumption and legally involved with the production and distribution of marijuana will not be charged with a crime by Colorado law enforcement once amendment 64 is implemented.  Thus, the lack of marijuana related convictions makes it less likely that they will face immigration problems in the future.  However, the lack of a conviction is not necessarily determinative; immigrants involved in some form of immigration processing determined to be drug addicts or abusers or otherwise involved with marijuana could face difficulties.   Moreover, immigrants could still be prosecuted by federal law enforcement officials for marijuana related crimes and then face immigration problems.  As marijuana consumption, possession, production, and distribution are still federal crimes and related to grounds of inadmissibility and deportation, it is best to heed Governor Hickenlooper’s advice not to “break out the Cheetos and Goldfish.”

 

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•