Immigration Policy and the Rhetoric of Reform: “Deport Felons, Not Families,” Moncrieffe v. Holder, Children at the Border, and Idle Promises

This paper explores the symbiotic relationship between the criminal justice system and immigration law. The recent Supreme Court decision of Moncrieffe v. Holder illustrates the possible consequences of a state conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana with intent to distribute on the removal of a non-citizen, who had legally resided in the United States for over twenty years. While the possibility of minor crimes can result in non-reviewable deportation orders, children at the borders have also faced an uncertain future. Part II will discuss the reasons behind the influx of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) and the legal issues involved in their presence and pending deportation proceedings. Part III will discuss the facts, issues, and lower court decisions in the Moncrieffe case. Part IV will review the various approaches courts have applied in determining whether a state law criminal conviction results in removal without relief and how the Moncrieffe decision affects previous precedent. Part V will discuss issues and developments in deportation policies under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Obama Administration. Given President Obama's newly announced plan affecting deportation policy, this paper will conclude with a consideration of whether illegal immigrants' plight is improved at all with the latest Supreme Court decision and Executive Order.