Lawyers have recently been instructed by the country’s highest court to make sure immigrants know that a guilty plea in a criminal case could lead to deportation.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 7 to 2 decision that the constitution’s Sixth Amendment, which ensures people accused of crimes will be given effective legal counsel, includes a need for lawyers to warn about the possible consequences of pleading guilty to a crime, including resulting in being deported.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the decision.

Stevens wrote further that lawyers have elevated responsibilities with immigrants due to recent congressional moves to punish immigrants more sharply when found guilty of crimes, even in cases involving comparatively minor incidents, according to the Washington Post.

“These changes confirm our view that, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part—indeed, sometimes the most important part—of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes,” Stevens wrote.

The case in front of the Supreme Court that led to this ruling involved a recent guilty plea of Honduras native Jose Padilla. (Padilla is not related to the Jose Padilla who was convicted of terrorist actions and considered an enemy combatant.)

Jose Padilla, a California-area truck driver, was facing charges of trafficking marijuana after he was arrested in Kentucky and asked his lawyer if pleading guilty would affect his legal status, according to the Post. Padilla, who has lived in the United States for almost 40 years and served in the Army during the Vietnam War, said his attorney told him that since he has lived in the U.S. for so long he did not have to worry about his immigration status.

Once Padilla pleaded guilty, he found out his lawyer was wrong. The marijuana trafficking charge is an aggravated felony, leaving him with little chance of avoiding deportation once he was released from a prison sentence.

The crux of Padilla’s subsequent appeal is that his lawyer deprived him of the right to effective counsel. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against him, saying a lawyer is only required to inform a client about direct consequences, which does not include immigration status.

But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.

Though, in spite of the majority vote in favor of Padilla’s argument, some judges remarked about whether the Constitution should be used to create legal requirements. Judges Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia voted against Padilla.

“In the best of all possible worlds, criminal defendants contemplating a guilty plea ought to be advised of all serious collateral consequences of conviction, and surely ought not to be misadvised,” Scalia wrote in the dissent. “The Constitution, however, is not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect world.”

With the economy in such turmoil, times are tough for everybody—even lawyers. Layoffs at law offices are rare but becoming somewhat of a trend as income dwindles.

A Chicago law firm laid off 24 defense lawyers out of its 680 staff and another firm let go of 21 defense attorneys out of their stock of 650, according to a Chicago Tribune story.

But don’t worry—if you’re looking for a lawyer, we have an extensive network and nobody’s going anywhere!

Total Lawyers can help you if you’re looking for a:

• Bankruptcy Lawyer
• Criminal Defense Lawyer
• Personal Injury Lawyer
• DUI Lawyer
• Divorce Lawyer
• Family Law Lawyer
• Estate Layer
• Lemon Law Lawyer

As the week comes to an end, check out the latest articles from Total Lawyers:

Appeals Panel Saves American Girl From Deportation:

This article highlights the case of a father who, despite allegedly sexually abusing his daughter, was trying to get the American-born child deported to his current country of residence.

GPS Tracking Law Raises Constitutional Questions:

In Illinois, judges are allowed to order any person considered to be high risk for domestic violence to wear a GPS system. Total Lawyers examines the constitutionality of this new law.

Non-Sex Offender Constricted By Child Predator Law:

How can a man who’s never committed a sex crime be forced to register as a sexual predator? Read this article and learn more about the people who are unfairly labeled sex offenders.

Old Law Prevents Rapists from Prosecution:

DNA evidence has helped close thousands of criminal cases; however, what happens when the statute of limitations expires? Read on…

Last week, Attorney General Michael Mukasey granted the petition of the Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall Law School to reverse a recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the federal agency responsible for the interpretation of federal immigration law), which denied asylum to victims of female genital mutilation.

Female genital mutilation is a traditional practice in some developing countries where girls and women are forced to cut or remove their genitalia. The practice has led to countless deaths and serious health problems.

Several bipartisan U.S. Representatives and numerous legal experts and medical professionals backed the petition, which called on the Attorney General to reverse the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision. The Attorney General agreed the ruling was based upon “flawed reasoning”.

The ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals said that women who’ve suffered female genital mutilation have no claim to asylum because they’ve already undergone the procedure and therefore have no reason to fear it happening again when they return to their country.

The Board does not apply similar interpretation to victims of other kinds of persecution.

Mukasey reversed that previous decision, to the relief of legal experts who worried that it would have resulted in the reversal of existing U.S. policy on the treatment of women in the asylum-granting process.

“The United States has an obligation to honor the rights of women who are fortunate enough to seek protection of their rights abroad,” said Jenny-Brooke Condon, assistant clinical professor at the Center for Social Justice. “The U.S. must not turn its back on these courageous women who seek protection and recognition of their right to autonomy and bodily integrity. Attorney General Mukasey has honored that obligation.”

Recent Immigration Articles:

· ‘Secret’ Marriages & U.S. Immigration Law

· Mexican Children Denied Human Dignity

Here at Total Lawyers, we’ve recently reported on possible constitutional rights violations perpetrated by public servants in the welfare industry in San Diego. Consider also the recent disclosure that NYC firefighters have been trained by the Department of Homeland Security in anti-terrorist tactics, some of which includes racial profiling and all of which can be described as “spying.”

But now we’ve got EMTs on the lookout for terrorists? A recent Conde Nast Traveler blog post by a New York state EMT named Stephan Wilkinson offers an overview and a sound opinion on the matter. And you can find the original article to which he is referring online.

Isn’t this all getting a little out of hand? What’s next, elementary school teachers handing over names of students who draw stick figures with guns? Oh yeah, I forgot.

A Santa Ana woman has been sentenced to 37 months in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release, reports the San Jose Mercury News.  Tina Tran, the woman in question, apparently charged foreigners seeking U.S. citizenship up to $60,000 to participate in the scam.

According to reports, Tran’s scheme was elaborate and in-depth.  Those involved prepared fake wedding photo albums, love letters, and joint tax returns.  Authorities reportedly got wise to the scam when they noticed some participants were filing for green cards for multiple spouses.

At the time of her conviction, Tran was allegedly already in state custody for her participation in a far-reaching credit card fraud and identity theft ring.

CNN reports that the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has determined that removing the 12 million people it believes to be in the United States illegally would cost at least $94 billion. Julie Myers, head of the ICE recently, announced the figure in a hearing before a Senate committee.

A spokesman for the ICE said the $94 billion figure did not include the cost of finding illegal immigrants, nor court costs involved in removal proceedings. CNN says these costs are unknowable. It is apparent, however, that investigative and court costs could easily double the $94 billion estimate.

The ICE said they calculated the cost for removing illegals by multiplying 12 million people by an average 32 days in detention, at $97/day, plus $1,000 per person for transportation. They added the cost of ICE personnel to come up with their nearly $100 billion estimate.

By comparison, the annual budget of the Homeland Security Department is about $35 billion. Can we actually afford to deport all these hard working migrant workers? Perhaps, instead, we should finally join the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Almost eight years after a raid on a Miami, Florida home, another case involving divorce law, immigration law, and diplomatic relations with Cuba is being decided in a Miami courtroom.

The New York Times reports that Rafael Izquierdo is fighting for his four-year-old daughter. Izquierdo is a farmer in Cuba who allowed the girl’s mother to bring her to the United States in 2005. Several months after their arrival, the girl’s mother attempted suicide and the girl and her half-brother were placed in foster care. The children, who have different fathers, were placed with Joe Cubas, a wealthy real estate developer, in 2006. Cubas is well known for helping Cuban baseball players defect to the United States.

Lawyers for Florida’s Department of Children and Families have argued that Izquierdo is not a fit father because he allowed his daughter to immigrate to the united with her mother, who he knew was unstable. Izquierdo’s lawyers dispute this claim. His lawyer said: “We want to keep the focus on whether or not a dad has the right to have his child. D.C.F. has not proven any neglect by our client Rafael.”

This case reminds us of Elian Gonzalez, who’s Cuban father came to the United States to be reunited with his son. Elian’s mother had drowned during the crossing and he had been placed with relatives in Miami. Anti-Castro immigrants held daily protests at the home where Elian lived and tried to prevent federal marshals from removing him from the house.

Bernard Perlmutter, a family law professor at the University of Miami who has followed both cases, said that “this matter is appropriately being adjudicated in a family court.”

In the Gonzalez case, Elian’s relatives produced what I’ve called the Bill Gates argument: Rather than being reunited with his father, Elian should remain in the United States with his relatives because they have the financial resources to give him a better life. If the court had accepted this argument, Bill Gates would have the right to select any child he wanted to raise as his own because he has greater financial resources than anyone else.

On May 1, the Farmworkers Support Committee (CATA) held an immgrant rights march in Bridgeton, New Jersey.  This isn’t the first time the organization has sponsored an event in support of immigration reform, but this time the organization was in for a surprise, in the form of $1,800 in “police fees” and a $200 clean-up deposit.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ), the city ultimately agreed to waive the requirement that the fees be paid in advance,  but indicated that CATA would be billed after the march.  After the march, the rules changed once again, and CATA received a letter demanding an additional $1,500 in “additional police expenses”.

The ACLU-NJ lawsuit on behalf of CATA says that Bridgeton officials exercised “unfettered, arbitrary discretion” in billing CATA for police expenses.  The city does not have an ordinance allowing it to impose fees for marches or parades.

Frank Corrado, who (on behalf of the ACLU-NJ) serves as pro bono counsel to CATA, said, “Imposition of these fees will mean that only the wealthy will be afforrded the right to speak out on issues, and our Constitution thankfully prohibits that.”

Although some restrictions on free speech, such as permit requirements and location restrictions, are allowed, the limitations must be “content neutral”–that is, they cannot act to prohibit one type of speech or the opinions of one group while allowing others.

On Thursday the US Senate voted 46-53 against President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States and tighten up borders.

The President and other supporters of the bill expressed disappointment of it’s failure and say that this legal issue will be brought up again.  However, with election year fast approaching, it’s not likely to be any time soon.  Opponents of the bill consider the decision to be fairly final.

Democrats and Republicans are strongly divided on the issue, but when it came down to the vote Republicans turned on Bush and many voted it down.  Without the full support of his party Bush could not get this bill through the Senate, so the immigration bill has died there.