Here’s some background: Salomon Ledezma-Cosino illegally entered the United States in 1997. Except for a couple brief departures, he hasn’t left the country. Currently, he has eight children. Only five are natural-born U.S. citizens. Ledezma-Cosino works in the construction industry.
In 2008, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detained him. After several hearings in front of an immigration judge, Ledezma-Cosino stopped fighting deportation and conceded to be removed from the country. However, he sought to cancel voluntary, or removal departure.
The request was denied.
According to the immigration judge, Ledezma-Cosino was ineligible for cancellation because, as a former alcoholic, he lacked good moral character. According to his medical records, for 10 years he drank an average of about one liter of tequila every day. In addition to the chronic alcoholic diagnosis, he’s also been diagnosed with acute alcoholic hepatitis. The condition destroys the liver. He’s had at least one DUI, conviction.
Ledezma-Cosino appealed the denial. His appeal was denied. He petition for review. His review petition was based on 1101(f)(1) violating of his due process or equal protection. In other words, he was being discriminated against because of his alcohol problem, not absence of good moral charter.
The government made a strong argument against cancelling the voluntary departure. Ledezma-Cosino is an illegal immigrant. Illegal immigrants aren’t protected by due process or the equal protection claim. On March 24, 2016, Ledezma-Cosino won. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed with his argument. The Court conceded the government’s point of illegals not having rights, but the Court determined the law the government used to deport him was illegal.
If the government doesn’t appeal the verdict, Ledezma-Cosino can petition to stay in the country or voluntarily leave.
For More Than 50 Years Immigration Law Associated Good Moral Character with Deportation
In a 2-to-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down part of 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(1). The law outlined the reasons why an illegal immigrant can be deported. One part of the statute focused on good moral character. Among the things considered immoral are things like:
- Participating in torture
- Participating in genocide
- Having a serious felony
- Convicted of a gambling offense
- Alcoholism
The court had a very simple rational for striking down the law. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote this question in the majority opinion:
“Is it rational for the government to find people with chronic alcoholism are morally bad people solely because of their disease?”
Reinhardt wrote the answer, “No.”
Was the Decision to Strike Down 1101(f)(1) a Good or Bad Decision?
Yes, it was a good decision, but a complicated issue. Let’s look at this 50-year-old bad law. The public connected alcoholism with morals, even though there is almost no evidence that alcoholism is a result of bad or lack of morals. Just because someone drinks doesn’t mean they are morally bankrupt. It means the person has an issue to overcome. Whether it is deemed a disease or temporary setback on a person’s life journey depends on a person’s view of alcoholism.
So the problem with the law is that it connects moral character with drinking. Judge Richard R. Clifton, who dissented, wrote the law was applied wrong. He claimed it should be upheld because the person with an alcohol problem doesn’t lack the free will or is susceptible to moral evaluation. He missed the point. Alcoholism doesn’t define a person’s moral, personality, or who they are. Thus, to deport some people because their “habitual drunkenness” makes them have bad morals is wrong.
The Moral Issue
Many people who disagree with the decision may cite the good moral character involved in immigration. According to the Immigration and National Act, or INA, to become a naturalized citizen one must have good moral character. Unfortunately, there’s no clear definition of good moral character. It’s just used to mean the person’s behavior meets the moral standard held by the average American citizen.
Bad, or poor, moral character can stop someone from becoming a naturalized citizen. It can also get an illegal immigrant or permanent resident deported.
It’s Not About Good or Bad Moral Character—It’s About Being Illegal
The complicated part about this entire legal issue is the government is deciding whether to deport someone based on an arbitrary list of moral behavior. However, when an individual enters the country without a visa, or proper documentation, he or she is an illegal immigrant. When an individual enters the country legally, but remains after losing legal status, he or she is an illegal immigrant. They’ve broken the law and is a criminal under immigration law.
Why does the country have to have a reason to deport them? The issue shouldn’t be about Ledezma-Cosino’s past drinking problem or what defines good moral character. Those issues just muddy the waters. Immigration should be overhauled to require those here illegally to return to their native country—no exceptions. Every year, those who enter the country legally and follow the rules are rewarded with citizenship. Those who can’t follow the law shouldn’t be rewarded with citizenship or allowed to stay in the U.S.
Authored by Taelonnda Sewell, LegalMatch Legal Writer
Great post. Thank you for sharing. Would the same hold true for other addictions, such as drugs or gambling?
Gambling addiction is just as big a problem as alcoholism, according to this video anyway -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcdNmKO_Xus&t=2s
Posted by: I Smith | January 29, 2018 at 04:25 PM