With the upcoming presidential election heating up, the issue of border security has been increasingly under a microscope. While it is understood that those seeking admission to the United States must be held to certain standards, when it comes to criminal issues, that standard is not always clearly defined. The criminal infractions that can render an individual inadmissible or even removable after he or she has been granted status to reside in the United States would be much more minor to those who were born here or naturalized to U.S citizenship. The interplay between criminal and immigration law is still evolving, and will continue to do so through the upcoming election.
Recent action by former Attorney General Eric Holder to vacate a 2008 opinion of his predecessor, Michael Mukasey, marks an important change to the way immigration courts analyze criminal infractions by foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens). Foreign nationals who commit crimes must face immigration consequences in addition to the criminal ones. Often at issue in the immigration proceedings is whether the crime committed by the individual is classified as one of “moral turpitude.” Such crimes are more serious offenses, and the immigration consequences are accordingly harsh, and at times permanent.
