October 6, 2006
Domestic Battery Not a Crime of Moral Turpitude
In Galeana-Mendoza v. DHS (10/06/2006), the Ninth Circuit held that domestic battery under the California penal is not a crime of moral turpiture rendering an immigrant removable. For the opinion, click http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9E8404C6C5B25485882571FF0055C69A/$file/0473100.pdf?openelement
October 6, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Domestic Battery Not a Crime of Moral Turpitude:
Gee, another win for wife beating aliens. Just the kind of prospective citizens this country needs. Bet there are a lot of immigrations attorneys proudly celebrating their victories this week. It's a real shame that the people of this country are forced to tolerate the presence of these low-lifes. Guess we'll just have to await the next ruling when we find out whether moral turpiture includes murdering one's spouse.
Posted by: George | Oct 6, 2006 5:41:17 PM
Wife beating is an aggravated felony and the law, government and the courts rightfully identify them and deport them. But there are several edge cases where a very minor incedent is rectified and the couple live peacefully and happily married with children for several years forgetting that such an incident ever even happened. It is not the intention of the law makers, government or the court to punish them and separate such families causing more harm to the wife and dependents. If this opinion is read carefully including the concurring opinion, it would come to light that wife beaters and real violent people cannot escape.
Posted by: Midlife | Oct 9, 2006 12:07:31 AM
I don't see where this is an edge case at all. The man has multiple convictions and as a repeat offender, may very well commit battery in the future. How often must he commit the crime before the people are allowed justice, the fate of the family notwithstanding? This man is an illegal alien and the people shouldn't be subjected to has antisocial behavior when the alternative is to deport him after he's served his sentence. The ninth circuit court has a history of bad judgement and this case only reaffirms my belief.
Posted by: George | Oct 9, 2006 8:01:49 AM