Comments on: PUBLIC NOTICE — House session on Thurs; Retirement Fund report and PUTC (SNILD) mtg on Friday http://www.tinasablan.com/forum/2008/04/23/public-notice-house-session-on-thurs-retirement-fund-report-and-putc-snild-mtg-on-friday/ Citizen - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:33:56 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: oscar c camacho http://www.tinasablan.com/forum/2008/04/23/public-notice-house-session-on-thurs-retirement-fund-report-and-putc-snild-mtg-on-friday/comment-page-1/#comment-19836 oscar c camacho Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:27:48 +0000 http://www.tinasablan.com/forum/?p=85#comment-19836 Thank you for such insights with respect to issues relevant to cda...and thank you for your support. Carline and I agree that the audit may be a good start/ a work group could be established and questions regarding QC would be adressed by a third party reviewer rather than from CDA. oscar Thank you for such insights with respect to issues relevant to cda…and thank you for your support. Carline and I agree that the audit may be a good start/ a work group could be established and questions regarding QC would be adressed by a third party reviewer rather than from CDA.

oscar

]]> By: Jed Horey http://www.tinasablan.com/forum/2008/04/23/public-notice-house-session-on-thurs-retirement-fund-report-and-putc-snild-mtg-on-friday/comment-page-1/#comment-2782 Jed Horey Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:31:11 +0000 http://www.tinasablan.com/forum/?p=85#comment-2782 The provision disqualifying someone for long-term residence status if they have been convicted of a felony, more than one misdemeanor, or a crime of moral turpitude should be modified. There are many misdemeanors that are utterly inconsequential. Disturbing the peace is a misdemeanor. It is a misdemeanor to have a license plate on the back of your car but not the front. It is a misdemeanor to drive without your license in your possession even if you have a valid license. It is a misdemeanor to drive without a valid license even if you are driving it safely and carefully. Things like this should not disqualify anyone, even in combination with other, somewhat more serious, misdemeanors like DUI or assault (eg a fistfight). That is especially true if there is a wide gap of time between the offenses. What if you drive without a license at 17 and then get into a fistfight at 35? Should that result in permanent ineligiblity? If this restriction is going to be included, there should be at least be a time limitation for it, like "more than one misdemeanor within five years immediately preceding application for status," or something along those lines. (Indeed, even a felony should not be a total bar after, say, ten years -- people can reform, you know, and the law encourage them to do so) "Moral turpitude" should be eliminated completely, because no one knows what it means. It is completely in the eye of the beholder. To me it means something malicious and deliberately harmful, and should not cover a consensual, victimless "crime" like prostitution. However, I am aware that people have pled guilty to misdemeanor prostitution on the assumption that (as a single misdemeanor) it would not result in deporation, only to discover that the judge regarded it as a crime of "moral turpitude" and thus a deportable offense. Basically, anything that is bad enough to be a crime is going to be considered an act of "moral turpitude" by somebody, but you can never be sure who and when. Anyway, the category is unnecessary. If something is bad enough to be a felony, than it already falls under the felony provisions, so the only question on "moral turpitude" will be whether or not a particular misdemeanor is one of moral turpitide -- and since it's only a misdemeanor, how bad can it really be? So why do we even need to get into this? There seems to be no benefit to be gained from introducing this kind of uncertainty into the proceeding. Actually, not only should the draft bill be modified on these points, the existing immigration laws should be amended as well. The provision disqualifying someone for long-term residence status if they have been convicted of a felony, more than one misdemeanor, or a crime of moral turpitude should be modified.

There are many misdemeanors that are utterly inconsequential. Disturbing the peace is a misdemeanor. It is a misdemeanor to have a license plate on the back of your car but not the front. It is a misdemeanor to drive without your license in your possession even if you have a valid license. It is a misdemeanor to drive without a valid license even if you are driving it safely and carefully. Things like this should not disqualify anyone, even in combination with other, somewhat more serious, misdemeanors like DUI or assault (eg a fistfight). That is especially true if there is a wide gap of time between the offenses. What if you drive without a license at 17 and then get into a fistfight at 35? Should that result in permanent ineligiblity?

If this restriction is going to be included, there should be at least be a time limitation for it, like “more than one misdemeanor within five years immediately preceding application for status,” or something along those lines. (Indeed, even a felony should not be a total bar after, say, ten years — people can reform, you know, and the law encourage them to do so)

“Moral turpitude” should be eliminated completely, because no one knows what it means. It is completely in the eye of the beholder. To me it means something malicious and deliberately harmful, and should not cover a consensual, victimless “crime” like prostitution. However, I am aware that people have pled guilty to misdemeanor prostitution on the assumption that (as a single misdemeanor) it would not result in deporation, only to discover that the judge regarded it as a crime of “moral turpitude” and thus a deportable offense. Basically, anything that is bad enough to be a crime is going to be considered an act of “moral turpitude” by somebody, but you can never be sure who and when.

Anyway, the category is unnecessary. If something is bad enough to be a felony, than it already falls under the felony provisions, so the only question on “moral turpitude” will be whether or not a particular misdemeanor is one of moral turpitide — and since it’s only a misdemeanor, how bad can it really be? So why do we even need to get into this? There seems to be no benefit to be gained from introducing this kind of uncertainty into the proceeding.

Actually, not only should the draft bill be modified on these points, the existing immigration laws should be amended as well.

]]>