冷藏的疯狂

Zachary Ford
{"title":"冷藏的疯狂","authors":"Zachary Ford","doi":"10.37419/lr.v6.i3.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the past twenty years, the United States has witnessed over half of its states create marijuana laws that expressly contradict the federal government’s complete ban of the drug. Nine states have completely legalized marijuana for recreational use in the past five years alone. Meanwhile, much of the country remains staunchly opposed to legalization in any form. This difference between state and federal law has the largest negative impact on noncitizens, namely lawful permanent residents whom reside in states that follow the federal government’s complete ban. Congress’s Immigration and Nationality Act broadly defines “conviction,” so even minor drug convictions under the Controlled Substances Act—like simple possession of marijuana—render lawful permanent residents deportable.\n\nThis problem is a constitutional violation because lawful permanent residents found possessing marijuana in a legal-regime state suffer no consequences; whereas one found possessing marijuana in an illegal-regime state is arrested and immediately taken to an immigration detention center to await potential deportation. This disparate treatment results from a sole difference between the two noncitizens: their geographic location. Thus, the federal government’s failure to uniformly enforce its marijuana laws constitutes a violation of lawful permanent residents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Although Congress has traditionally been afforded great deference when constructing the country’s immigration laws under the plenary power doctrine, such a disparate result supports the argument that the government’s failure to act has no rational basis in its own laws, which demands action.\n\nThis Comment argues that the federal government is depriving lawful permanent residents of their Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to equal protection by refusing to uniformly enforce its marijuana laws. Thus, lawful permanent residents experience disparate treatment and face potential deportation based solely on their geographic location.","PeriodicalId":316761,"journal":{"name":"Texas A&M Law Review","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reefer Madness\",\"authors\":\"Zachary Ford\",\"doi\":\"10.37419/lr.v6.i3.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the past twenty years, the United States has witnessed over half of its states create marijuana laws that expressly contradict the federal government’s complete ban of the drug. Nine states have completely legalized marijuana for recreational use in the past five years alone. Meanwhile, much of the country remains staunchly opposed to legalization in any form. This difference between state and federal law has the largest negative impact on noncitizens, namely lawful permanent residents whom reside in states that follow the federal government’s complete ban. Congress’s Immigration and Nationality Act broadly defines “conviction,” so even minor drug convictions under the Controlled Substances Act—like simple possession of marijuana—render lawful permanent residents deportable.\\n\\nThis problem is a constitutional violation because lawful permanent residents found possessing marijuana in a legal-regime state suffer no consequences; whereas one found possessing marijuana in an illegal-regime state is arrested and immediately taken to an immigration detention center to await potential deportation. This disparate treatment results from a sole difference between the two noncitizens: their geographic location. Thus, the federal government’s failure to uniformly enforce its marijuana laws constitutes a violation of lawful permanent residents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Although Congress has traditionally been afforded great deference when constructing the country’s immigration laws under the plenary power doctrine, such a disparate result supports the argument that the government’s failure to act has no rational basis in its own laws, which demands action.\\n\\nThis Comment argues that the federal government is depriving lawful permanent residents of their Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to equal protection by refusing to uniformly enforce its marijuana laws. Thus, lawful permanent residents experience disparate treatment and face potential deportation based solely on their geographic location.\",\"PeriodicalId\":316761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Texas A&M Law Review\",\"volume\":\"114 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Texas A&M Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37419/lr.v6.i3.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas A&M Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37419/lr.v6.i3.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的20年里,美国有超过一半的州制定了与联邦政府完全禁止大麻的法律相抵触的大麻法律。仅在过去的5年里,就有9个州将娱乐用大麻完全合法化。与此同时,这个国家的大部分人仍然坚决反对任何形式的大麻合法化。州和联邦法律之间的差异对非公民,即居住在遵循联邦政府完全禁令的州的合法永久居民产生了最大的负面影响。国会的《移民和国籍法》宽泛地定义了“定罪”,因此即使是在《管制物质法》下的轻微毒品犯罪——比如简单的持有大麻——也会使合法的永久居民被驱逐出境。这个问题是违反宪法的,因为在一个合法的国家,合法的永久居民被发现拥有大麻不会受到任何后果;然而,在一个非法政权的州,一个被发现持有大麻的人会被逮捕,并立即被带到移民拘留中心,等待可能的驱逐出境。这种差别待遇只源于这两位非公民的唯一区别:他们的地理位置。因此,联邦政府未能统一执行其大麻法律,构成了对合法永久居民享有平等保护的第十四修正案权利的侵犯。传统上,国会在根据权力至上原则制定国家移民法时得到了极大的尊重,但这样一个截然不同的结果支持了这样一种观点,即政府未能采取行动在其自己的法律中没有合理依据,这需要采取行动。本评论认为,联邦政府拒绝统一执行有关大麻的法律,剥夺了合法永久居民根据宪法第十四条修正案享有的平等保护的权利。因此,合法的永久居民会受到不同的待遇,并可能仅仅因为他们的地理位置而被驱逐出境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reefer Madness
In the past twenty years, the United States has witnessed over half of its states create marijuana laws that expressly contradict the federal government’s complete ban of the drug. Nine states have completely legalized marijuana for recreational use in the past five years alone. Meanwhile, much of the country remains staunchly opposed to legalization in any form. This difference between state and federal law has the largest negative impact on noncitizens, namely lawful permanent residents whom reside in states that follow the federal government’s complete ban. Congress’s Immigration and Nationality Act broadly defines “conviction,” so even minor drug convictions under the Controlled Substances Act—like simple possession of marijuana—render lawful permanent residents deportable. This problem is a constitutional violation because lawful permanent residents found possessing marijuana in a legal-regime state suffer no consequences; whereas one found possessing marijuana in an illegal-regime state is arrested and immediately taken to an immigration detention center to await potential deportation. This disparate treatment results from a sole difference between the two noncitizens: their geographic location. Thus, the federal government’s failure to uniformly enforce its marijuana laws constitutes a violation of lawful permanent residents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Although Congress has traditionally been afforded great deference when constructing the country’s immigration laws under the plenary power doctrine, such a disparate result supports the argument that the government’s failure to act has no rational basis in its own laws, which demands action. This Comment argues that the federal government is depriving lawful permanent residents of their Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to equal protection by refusing to uniformly enforce its marijuana laws. Thus, lawful permanent residents experience disparate treatment and face potential deportation based solely on their geographic location.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信