Kansas. Corte Appello federale. È una sentenza non una barzelletta. (In Italia mi pare sia già così)
Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
2019-04-20.
Quanto segue non è una barzelletta.
*
«The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case next term concerning Kansas’ prosecution of three undocumented immigrants for using stolen Social Security numbers in an effort to gain employment»
*
«Those convictions were overturned when the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the federal immigration law at issue preempts a state from prosecuting undocumented immigrants, when the basis of the claim comes from information that has been culled from federal immigration forms.»
*
«The case raises the question about the extent to which federal immigration law preempts states from also trying to enforce immigration law.»
*
«Now that the court has taken up the case, if it “overturns the Kansas court’s decision, all states could prosecute non-citizens for identity theft more easily»
*
«The Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts the state from using information to prosecute individuals if the information is on the federal I-9 form, even though the state did not use the I-9 form to gather the information for the criminal prosecutions»
*
«In Kansas, however, three immigrants were caught using other individuals’ Social Security numbers in order to obtain employment. »
* * * * * * * *
Il cuore del ragionamento è riassumibile in una frase:
«federal immigration law pre-empts the state from enforcing state criminal law»
ossia, che la legge federale sull’immigrazione impedisce allo stato di applicare il diritto penale statale, che si applica solo ai cittadini.
In parole miserrime: il codice penale deve essere applicato ai cittadini, ma non ai migranti senza documenti, che non siano cittadini.
È una tesi davvero stuzzicante.
Orbene: se un immigrato clandestino assassinasse Mrs Clinton, sarebbe o meno imputabile, sarebbe o meno processabile?
Secondo questa tesi, si direbbe proprio di no.
La imputabilità e la processabilità è legata alla cittadinanza, non alla qualità del reato.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case next term concerning Kansas’ prosecution of three undocumented immigrants for using stolen Social Security numbers in an effort to gain employment.
Those convictions were overturned when the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the federal immigration law at issue preempts a state from prosecuting undocumented immigrants, when the basis of the claim comes from information that has been culled from federal immigration forms.
The case raises the question about the extent to which federal immigration law preempts states from also trying to enforce immigration law.
Now that the court has taken up the case, if it “overturns the Kansas court’s decision, all states could prosecute non-citizens for identity theft more easily,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School said.
“The Supreme Court largely struck down Arizona’s similar efforts in 2012,” Yale- Loehr said, “given the change in Supreme Court members since then, it will be interesting to see how the court revisits the issue.”
The Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts the state from using information to prosecute individuals if the information is on the federal I-9 form, even though the state did not use the I-9 form to gather the information for the criminal prosecutions.
At issue is a federal law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which makes it illegal to employ unauthorized immigrants and establishes an employment verification system for employers. As a part of the hiring process, employees are required to fill out federal forms with their information.
In Kansas, however, three immigrants were caught using other individuals’ Social Security numbers in order to obtain employment. They were prosecuted under state law.
The Kansas Supreme Court overturned the convictions of three individuals for crimes like identity theft, holding that federal immigration law pre-empts the state from enforcing state criminal law.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento