<p>while I really do have questions about this verdict, probably more about the actual charges than the verdict, I see no obligation on the part the government to give immigrants who have committed a felony time to become a citizen before they are prosecuted. This seems really ridiculous and outside of your normally impeccable logic, Xiggi.</p>
<p>The problem is not that this young man was not allowed all sorts of special options to “make sure” his ability to stay in the US was safeguarded, should he be convicted of the crimes, the problem is that he got himself trapped, through his own malicious actions, at the intersection of gay rights/electronic media/anti-bullying laws, much of which is currently in flux and not settled. The problem for Ravi, as it has been for others caught in a situation like this, is that he was caught breaking the law at a time when nobody is yet sure what the law really IS. </p>
<p>His attorney’s will appeal. But, I think, for all of our sakes, it is going to remain a felony to film us against our knowledge and without our consent in our bedroom, and surely to broadcast that, as well.</p>
<p>It’s a tragic story, absolutely, but he isn’t an innocent victim. Let’s not pretend he didn’t do something anyone would have known, from common sense, was flat out wrong, and to cause humiliation to another student.</p>
<p>Poet, your penultimate paragraph hit on part of the complexity of this situation. You talk about privacy in our bedroom, yet college freshman are frequentely required to give that up, being forced to room with strangers, and in Ravi’s case, strange older men being brought in. IMHO, we need to step back, and colleges must take more control, especially of Freshman dorms. The “work it out amongst yourselves” is easy for the colleges (through RDs and RAs to say), but it puts all the pressure on young people to work it out. Its time to cut down on unlimited overnight guests, especially in the first say 6 weeks of college. To say, if your roommate agrees, puts too much pressure on roommate relationships and it is clear they can’t always handle that, especially at first. We live in the crazy world where kids have to be 24 before they can be regarded as financially independent, yet the schools do not mandate any behaivoral rules (other than no alchohol or drugs) for even 17 YOs. Its time for a change.</p>
<p>That’s not the way our country…or practically any modern nation-state…including Western ones operate. </p>
<p>A permanent resident is still a non-citizen under the law…unless, of course, you are suggesting that there should be no distinction between privileges, rights, and protections given to citizens and non-citizens…even a certain portion within that group granted more rights than the rest(Permanent Residents). </p>
<p>One issue many US citizens/society has regarding the implications of what you’re calling for is…if permanent residents…or any other non-citizens are given the same privileges, rights, and protections as citizens…what incentive would they have of becoming citizens?</p>
<p>As I said in my previous post…the only folks I’ve known to advocate positions similar to yours are a tiny minute minority of extreme radicals that even few fellow radicals in the radical lefty or libertarian camps take seriously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College students have had to do that for decades…and it was certainly par for the course when I was an undergrad living in the dorms in the mid-late '90s. While I personally am not a big fan of shared bedrooms in dorm situations myself, I can see how these experiences can provide experiences and practices in learning how to deal with other people, learning how to negotiate/advocate for your needs, and learning certain problem solving skills useful in the adult world. </p>
<p>College students have been sexiling each other for around the same period judging by stories I’ve heard from classmates’ parents in high school and college. </p>
<p>Simply put, Ravi…who mind-you…was a year older than I was when he started college at 18…could have either said no or discussed this issue with Clementi so they could arrive at some sort of compromise. In any event…in filming his roommate and allowing some dormmates/friends of his to participate in what is a violation of expectations of reasonable privacy and thus…a prosecutable crime…Ravi crossed the rubicon well-beyond what constituted an “idiotic prank”.</p>
<p>That is because you are taking my statement without its full context. I addressed the incongruity and hypocrisy of the “deal” presented to Ravi. If they truly wanted to cooperate with Ravi to avoid deportation, they had the options that I outlined at their disposal. I do not believe the government should offer the time to become citizens to potential felons, but they should not pretend to cooperate to avoid deportation with unenforceable promises. Either they do or they don’t … Their call, but it has to be a honest one. </p>
<p>Again, the prosecutors in this case demonstrated how dysfunctional our judicial system truly is. First, seek outrageous charges to appease the zealots, and then try to mitigate the impact of the conviction. Just dishonest and misleading.</p>
<p>PS Fwiw, I have not written anything about Ravi being innocent or a victim. His actions deserved punishment. I believe his immigration status hindered a reasonable degree of punishment for such an offense.</p>
<p>This case will certainly bring awareness to permanent residents about the pitfalls of not becoming a naturalized citizen.</p>
<p>Most permanent residents think that the major difference is simply not being able to vote, and not being eligible for jobs with the Federal government.</p>
<p>I doubt that many permanent residents are aware that they must carry their green card on their person at all times.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure most PRs know all the rules, but the thing is, people prefer keeping their precious GCs in a safe place, rather than carry them at all times. In all my 5 years as a PR nobody ever asked for my GC, but of course I am clearly an Eastern European, rather than Hispanic.</p>
<p>In my opinion it is really not a hard decision. He made a choice to ridicule and harm someone to have some laughs. Throw him in jail and then deport him. But, only deport him if there is precedent.</p>
<p>Cobrat, may I suggest to do a bit of reading on the background of the current law that was passed in 1996, and before portraying me as a radical or lunatic, perhaps understand that our laws USED to work in a different manner. What IIRIRA accomplished is to take away the rights of immigrants and permanent residents to have a day in court and an immigration judge review the IMMIGRATION case on its merit. </p>
<p>Fwiw, you might be surprised that the position I “presented” is widely supported by the legal profession and especially the attorneys who deal in immigration matters. The radicals such as FAIR, are actually on the other side.</p>
<p>Putting aside the immigration issue (for a moment), Ravi might have wanted to take a plea deal for the same reason any other felon might choose to - to spend less time in prison. Witness tampering is a pretty heavy charge, and he might get as many years for that as for any of the other felonies. And, yes, witness tampering is a much bigger deal than a DUI.</p>
<p>I think he didn’t take the plea deal because he and his parents were clueless, and really expected the jury not to convict. The immigration thing was just added risk.</p>
<p>Not being an expert on any law let alone immigration law, it is still not clear to me that deportation would be automatic or that the prosecution could not successfully work with immigration authorities to prevent it. Xiggi, could you please provide some support for your statements? I am getting confused about when you are stating fact or opinion. </p>
<p>It is my understanding from the -very limited, mind you - research and readings I have tried to do on this that generally the felony must be an aggravated felony (Would it have been an aggrevated felony if Ravi had accepted the second deal? Is it even an aggrevated felony now?). Also, decisions to deport are often appealed and determined by the courts.</p>
<p>Here’s one cite I just came across on deportation that suggests both, perhaps not the best source but without further evidence to the contrary, it may possibly be better guidance than Xiggi’s more black and view of the laws and practices relating to deportation. </p>
<p>For the black on white position, here is the short and sweet version: </p>
<p>Conviction for an aggravated felony is an absolute bar to one type of waiver (Cancellation of Removal) and a virtual bar to a waiver of inadmissibility.</p>
<p>ABSOLUTE BAR TO CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL is all that matters to ICE.</p>
<p>My family was perfectly aware of the law and the adults did keep our green cards, which are cards similar to driver’s licenses, in our wallets. However, before we were permanent residents our official documentation was only our I-94 cards. (That’s all Canadian L-1 and L-2 nonimmigrants get). Those were stapled into our passports, and we didn’t feel comfortable carrying them on our persons at all times. So we kept them in a safe at home and tried to always remember to take them out and bring them with us if we traveled domestically (e.g. road trips).</p>
<p>According to the law, our child should have been carrying her I-94 and later her green card on her person to school every day. I confess we completely failed to do this.</p>
<p>I am not well versed in laws and statutes. But the comparison of Dharun Ravis conviction on bias/intimidation charge with robbery just seems, strange. It is hard for me to imagine convicting someone of robbery or attempted robbery not by his intention and action to rob, but rather by the level of fear experienced by the victim. If this kind of logic holds in our courts, how can anyone defend against charges of hate crimes, or even attempted robbery?</p>
<p>In case of an attempted robbery, we are allowed to defend our properties. Some states even allow the use of deadly force. Can anyone justify my beating up or even shooting someone, just because I have a genuine fear that he would rob me?</p>
<p>Like several posters on this thread, I find the idea of crime of thought quite troublesome. But making the feelings of the alleged victim, rather than the action or intention of the alleged perpetrator, as proof of such a crime, should scare everyone. Because no one can defend against such a charge.</p>
<p>Mini, it’s okay for parents to be clueless. That’s why they hired lawyers for goodness sake. Fact is, the lawyers allowed their client to go to trial, rather than take the plea. Were the lawyers that clueless, or were they greedy figuring they’d make more $$$ if their client went to trial? Did they figure that if they lost, they’d appeal (and therefore make more money)?</p>
<p>When all is said and done, it’s the lawyer’s job to advise the client. While they might not know the end result, they usually weigh the possibilities and understand what could happen. I wasn’t the least bit surprised Ravi was found guilty. Why didn’t the lawyers anticipate that?</p>
<p>I think it is a combination. What about cases of date rape where the perpetrator believes it is consensual, similarly, in some instances of discrimination, harassment, stalking, etc, the perpetrator can still be found guilty even though they often do not intend to discriminate, harass or stalk (and may not even realize that their actions could be construed as such)</p>
<p>In all such cases (date rape, harassment, stalking), the perpetrator’s action matters. But in Dharun Ravis case, the bias crime is his thought of hate even when jury found no proof of him harboring such thoughts.</p>