Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an appalling story of a Michigan man deported to Canada because he was arrested for pot possession a decade ago.
Charlie Castillo was born in Canada, the son of Maltese immigrants. The family came to Detroit when he was 1 year old and since then Castillo has spent his entire life in the metro area.Castillo, 54, was as American as they come. He spent 33 years working in the factories of General Motors. He bought a little house in the suburbs and raised three children there. He also was convicted a decade ago for growing two pot plants in his yard and possessing a quarter-pound of pot in his house. Both felonies.
He paid a fine and hasn't had any legal problems since then. However:
Castillo is not an American, technically. He never bothered to apply for citizenship and so lived his life as a permanent resident alien. According to immigration law, Castillo's marijuana convictions make him akin to a narcotics trafficker. And narcotics traffickers are supposed to be deported.But Immigration agents never bothered with Castillo because Castillo was small fry...
But then in 2006, Castillo took his wife to Cancun, Mexico, figuring the sun would be good for her multiple sclerosis. This was the post 9/11 world and when Castillo landed in Metro Airport he was red-flagged and charged with violation of immigration law.
"I didn't know," said Castillo who was calling from Windsor, looking out on the river, dreaming of coming home to Detroit. "I figured I had paid my dues and that I was all right. It was stupid to go to Mexico. I was stupid to grow pot and it was stupid that I never bothered to apply for citizenship. But I'm an American. I don't know anything else."
It took more than three years, but Castillo was ordered deported in October by an immigration judge. He was arrested on Dec. 15, spent the Christmas holiday behind bars and then dumped on Dec. 30 in Windsor by immigration officers. Castillo was dressed in a pair of thin loafers and a windbreaker and had $11 in his pocket.
He has been bouncing from motel to boarding house and paying for it with remittances from his wife.
Castillo may never return to America, the immigration judge said. This, despite his sick wife and a young grandchild with autism living back home in America.
I feel so much safer now. Don't you?
Politics
Comments
I'm not up on my immigration law, but if he's lived in the US for 53 years wouldn't he be a naturalized citizen?
Posted by: Alareth | January 21, 2010 9:18 AM
I am so envious of Americans right now. Hopefully once the general election here in the UK is over we'll have a government who's willing to crack down on these 1-year-old drug smugglers.
You see them on planes all the time, doped up to the gills, babbling incoherently.
Posted by: Mill | January 21, 2010 9:20 AM
Alareth,
No, time alone doesn't make one a naturalized citizen. You have to formally apply for citizenship and pass a test (a fairly easy test about the Constitution, etc., but, ironically, one that naturalized citizens--e.g., former "furriners"--are consequently likely to do better on than us here natural born citizens). Then you take the oath of citizenship, and only then are you naturalized.
Until then, as a permanent resident you get to pay taxes and can even be drafted, but god forbid you should try to vote.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 21, 2010 9:39 AM
This is not an unusual story in any way. Over the years there have been lots of public defenders and other lawyers who have urged their clients to cut a deal on a drug charge, not realizing that it made them eligible for deportation rather they were actually innocent of the charge or not.
Posted by: Alan B. | January 21, 2010 9:47 AM
Technically, even illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes and register for the draft.
Posted by: DaveL | January 21, 2010 9:52 AM
Why didn't the fact that he married an American change his immigration status?
Posted by: Jordan G | January 21, 2010 9:52 AM
It generally doesn't. You can travel overseas and marry anyone you wish, subject to the local laws, and the U.S. government can't say 'boo'. It does, however, have a legitimate duty to vet foreigners entering the country, so the two things are separate questions.
Being married to a U.S. citizen constitutes standing for that citizen to file an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative which, if approved, confers Permanent Resident Status. Naturalization is something he would have had to apply for after living in the U.S. for some period of time.
Posted by: DaveL | January 21, 2010 9:59 AM
Charlie Castillo, Charlie Castillo, in the stir for breathin' air... no wait that's John Sinclair.
On another note, is slang for jail Stir, still, stint or what? I could never understand that line in Lennon's song.
Posted by: Matt | January 21, 2010 9:59 AM
@6
Marriage isn't everything. You gotta do the paperwork too...
Posted by: Chris | January 21, 2010 10:07 AM
...and it was stupid that I never bothered to apply for citizenship.
What's happening to this guy is grossly unfair and has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's safety or reducing drug-abuse. But it's a gross unfairness he could have avoided rather easily. Really, how much brainpower does it take to think that applying for citizenship in a country you want to live in might be a good idea? This isn't a case of applying and being turned down, or being faced with a burdensome process; he didn't even TRY.
I know someone who emigrated to the UK with the intent of living there permanently. She got a work-visa before moving (a.k.a. "further leave to remain"), and a job soon after; she doesn't have prior convictions, she doesn't have an autistic kid or a spouse with MS, and she still applied for UK citizenship anyway, just because she wanted one less worry in her life. This isn't a wacky left-field idea; it's just common sense.
I sympathize with this guy, but I have more sympathy for people who try to do the right thing for themselves and still get screwed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 21, 2010 10:38 AM
This is happening to my son.
He has a greencard and is 30 years old.Three years ago he was pulled over in Oklahoma. 5 grams of pot and an unused pot pipe. Paid a $1000 admission of guilt as he was told that was just a traffic offense type deal. Went to renew his car tags and it was refused as his drivers license was revoked. Went to see why that was and in Oklahoma a traffic stop plus pot in a car is treated as DUI. He has to attend anti alcohol abuse training at massive cost at local religious group to get to a point where he could get his drivers license back. Cant afford that as he needs a car to get to work.But he cannot do it anyway, as he is now flagged by INS and going to get his license will get him cuffed and shipped out of the country. Possession of a pipe is considered the same as dealing by the INS. DUI is a moral turpitude thing that INS does not allow also. He will be deported as far as all legal advice tells us. I cannot say who is worse, Oklahoma state laws or the INS.
Posted by: Eljay | January 21, 2010 10:40 AM
I have to think there's more to this story. Why would a judge think it was worth the expense and trouble to deport this person that was otherwise a normal citizen?
Once it's found out, is the judge under some kind of mandate to follow the technicality of the law? It just doesn't make sense. (not that some judges aren't outright morons, that's always an option)
Posted by: FastLane | January 21, 2010 10:40 AM
Fastlane: there is no more to that story. Immigration judges are not what you think. You have no rights when you walk into any INS offices. Gitmo is hidden inside an INS black hole and we all know how well that is going rights and common sense or decency wise.
Posted by: Eljay | January 21, 2010 10:46 AM
We only found out about the problems when my son filled in the paperwork to get his citizenship and an immigration lawyer explained it all to him. After 3 lawyers the consensus opinion is use the remaining 5 years on his grencard to get his medical training finished then leave for Australia or Canada or wherever before deportation. There is no appeal that will work. The trouble is his wife likes living here near her family. The kids are also an issue. His sister is already a citizen but my wife and i have withdrawn our petition and even though i am 60 soon, we am re thinking it. Family is important to us.
Posted by: Eljay | January 21, 2010 10:54 AM
If you "never bother to become a citizen" then you're not an American, no matter how American you "feel."
This sounds like an irrational application of the law, but it's not even that. Possession of anything over 20 grams of marijuana is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, this guy had two such convictions. He was therefore ineligible for any of the many forms of relief available to people who have circumstances like his: sick family, dependents, long-term presence in the country.
He was deportable in the "pre-9/11 world" just the same as post, the reason he remained in the country for 10 years is that he never encountered INS/ICE at any point before his attempted re-entry into the country. Would anyone here care to argue that the guy would be better off had he been removed 10 years ago?
Non-citizens absolutely do have rights. They have all the rights of a citizen in daily life and during their criminal trials. They continue to have many of these rights during deportation proceedings. One's rights during a deportation proceeding are limited not because they are not citizens, but because of the nature of the hearing.
If there is any injustice in this man's case, it is that he was likely not warned of the immigration consequences of the plea deal he obviously took on the drug charges. PD's and judges now make a habit of informing their defedants of that fact.
Still, I doubt anyone out there will suggest that a law making convicted drug traffickers inadmissible into the country is unjust. That's the law that got this guy removed (though not technically deported, he was not allowed back into the country). There is also a new initiative to keep better track of these cases so that they're removed immediately after conviction, rather than being allowed to stay. Though I'm sure that most of those "appalled" by this story will take little confort in this...
Posted by: Cam Mitchell | January 21, 2010 11:37 AM
If you believe as I do that the posession and trade in drugs (as oposed to associated violent crimes) should not be illegal it absolutely follows that any law imposing penalties for those things is unjust.
Posted by: Matty | January 21, 2010 11:40 AM
shorter Cam Mitchell: There's nothing wrong with breaking up a family based upon draconian, puritanical laws born out of the stupid "war on drugs not manufactured at Lilly."
Posted by: jws | January 21, 2010 11:41 AM
Possession of anything over 20 grams of marijuana is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, this guy had two such convictions.
Cam, you're mostly correct there. since the USSC opinion in Lopez v Gonzales a couple of years back, simple possession of any amount of dope with no element of "intent to distribute" is not an agg felony. so in TX, where they just charge MJ as possession, even 500 lbs isn't an agg felony. however, in another state where they have a "possession with intent to distribute" statute (they have different ways of defining how they prove "intent to distribute" but in some states it can be based on larger quantity), 20 grams could be. and no matter where it is, growing will be an agg felony. i see this guy's scenario (and even worse) all the time on the Mexican border but for some reason, no one posts these outrages on a national blog.....quien sabe. yes, US immigration law does suck a lot of the time. such is the result of knee-jerk laws passed in response to some perceived Public Threat.
Posted by: payaso del mar | January 21, 2010 12:25 PM
Deported for ten year old pot? I can see being unsatisfied at how stale it must've been, but deportation seems a bit harsh*.
* Note: I only read the title. It's the new millenium, where everything is fast like whatever "Twitter" is, and I'm on the information superhighway as well and simply don't have time to read anything more than the absolute minimum, lest I get runover by someone else whose also on the information superhighway.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 21, 2010 12:35 PM
Raging Bee:
What a boneheaded statement! I know plenty of smart people who have lived in the US for a long time and never applied for citizenship. Why is that anything but a personal decision? How is it different from a decision to wear a short skirt? How is your blaming the victim different from "she didn't have to dress like a whore" argument?Posted by: bullfighter | January 21, 2010 1:13 PM
Cam: "I doubt anyone out there will suggest that a law making convicted drug traffickers inadmissible into the country is unjust."
I doubt anyone out there will suggest that a law making convicted adulterers subject to public stoning is unjust.
Posted by: bullfighter | January 21, 2010 1:27 PM
This is just another example of how horrifyingly screwed up this country is on so many levels. Ironically, he may be better off being forced to live in Canada.
Posted by: Dean Austin | January 21, 2010 1:50 PM
Yeah, this guy was too lazy to apply for citizenship while caring for his wife with MS and autistic child.
And growing pot? Americans don't grow pot like you hippy Canuks.
I'd much rather have this guy as my countryman than you unsympathetic assholes.
Posted by: Twewi | January 21, 2010 2:36 PM
I know plenty of smart people who have lived in the US for a long time and never applied for citizenship.
Why not? If they intend to live here and hold permanent jobs here indefinitely, it seems to me the least they can do to protect their rights, in case they get in trouble with our stupider laws, or our on-again-off-again xenophobia.
Why is that anything but a personal decision?
It's a SMART personal decision -- one that could have covered his family's six -- without causing serious loss of freedom or opportunity -- had he taken it. His negligence is especially stupid given that he had a drug conviction at a time of absolutely ridiculous anti-drug hysteria.
And before you turn up the emotion and start calling me names, please try to remember that this guy already admitted his previous stupidity; and all I'm doing is echoing what he admitted. So does that make him a "victim-basher" too?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 21, 2010 3:39 PM
James Hanley, #3: No, time alone doesn't make one a naturalized citizen. You have to formally apply for citizenship and pass a test (a fairly easy test about the Constitution, etc., but, ironically, one that naturalized citizens--e.g., former "furriners"--are consequently likely to do better on than us here natural born citizens). Then you take the oath of citizenship, and only then are you naturalized.
You also have to formally renounce your citizenship to your former country. Some people might delay naturalization because of the emotional ties one might still have to the old motherland.
Many countries have a formal renunciation process for purposes of becoming a citizen in another country but don't necessarily take the renunciation serious themselves. One of my colleagues became a US citizen a few years ago, and when she went to her (now former) consulate to renounce her citizenship, the officials there told her that she can resume her citizenship should she ever want.
Posted by: Chiroptera | January 21, 2010 3:49 PM
what's wrong?
Guy worked at GM 33 years and is broke but can afford trips to Mexico?
Let's get Canada support a welfare bum! Problem solved.
Posted by: jokester | January 21, 2010 4:39 PM
See, I think this could be a blessing in disguise. If he can get a job (big if) then his whole family should move up with him. Then his wife will probably get better treatment for MS, and the weather can't really be worse, Winsor vs Detroit.
Was INS unreasonable and stupid? Duh, that's what they do. Could he have avoided it, yeah. Does it have to be the end of the world? Not necessarily.
Posted by: JustaTech | January 21, 2010 4:44 PM
Heck. Mexico kicks their riffraff up North. Why can't we?
Posted by: jokester | January 21, 2010 5:02 PM
Raging Bee:
I didn't call you names, but you are being incredibly callous. I guess you've always been an American and haven't had to deal with the issue yourself. Becoming a citizen is not costless - in terms of money, time, effort, hassle, and emotions. And most people don't expect to be convicted of a felony, so they quite rationally perceive voting as the only clear benefit of citizenship - and, looking at how many citizens don't bother to vote, voting can't be such a universally acknowledged great thing.
You also seem to assume that he could have avoided trouble by applying for citizenship after his conviction, although the legal background reported in the story and discussed in this thread seems to suggest that his application would have resulted in deportation.
And what does his admission of own stupidity have to do with objective reality? If you lost everything due to a minor mistake that some power-that-be blew out of proportion, wouldn't you also lament how stupid you were - even if your mistake was nothing uncommon?
Posted by: bullfighter | January 21, 2010 5:04 PM
It is puzzling why this guy never became a formal citizen after 53 years, but the legal response to cases like these is idiotic.
And while I don't drink nor touch drugs myself, it exposes a massive (and longtime) double standard on recreational drugs in American culture. That is, while alcohol (a depressant) is openly celebrated, and far more destructive than pot when abused, the latter is not even an addictive substance.
But of course, every time a national discussion of relaxing legal penalties on small amounts of pot is raised, the ghost of Harry Anslinger appears and screams bloody murder.
IMO, the smartest policy on pot is to legalize it, and make it subject to state and Federal taxation. Doing so would also neutralize the flow of pot into the US overnight by central American drug-runners, and save millions in cost and manpower for the DEA who could then focus on the big fish trafficking in hard opiates.
Posted by: CHV | January 21, 2010 5:19 PM
As a Canadian who had to deal with the INS BS in the post 9/11 world, I feel for the guy. Just marrying an American does not automatically make you a legal resident, and I learned that the hard way after being told by INS officials that I COULD move to the US while my visa was being processed in October of 2001. Sometimes the people in charge of things make stupid errors and screw things up...
At the same time, he KNEW he wasn't a citizen. He KNEW that growing and keeping pot around was illegal. Where has he been for the past eight years, under a rock? Everything has changed, and everyone is double- and triple-checked, American citizens or not. And he chose, albeit for the good of his wife, to travel through an airport. Anyone who has been caught doing anything illegal gets red-flagged. And, really, he should have known that.
Posted by: Duckball | January 21, 2010 5:22 PM
I didn't call you names, but you are being incredibly callous.
You deny calling me names, but then you call me a name -- and an incredibly stupid name at that. Since when was common sense "callous?" Would pretending he's blameless and powerless -- and ignoring any facts that indicate otherwise -- do him any more good? If someone had offered him this "callous" advice earlier, he might have benefitted from it.
Becoming a citizen is not costless - in terms of money, time, effort, hassle, and emotions.
So we can only take sensible precautions to protect ourselves when we can do so without cost of effort? Guess what -- his negligence wasn't exactly "costless." Not to him, and not to those in his care either.
And most people don't expect to be convicted of a felony...
Um...this guy was COMMITTING a felony. If he didn't have at least some inkling that he MIGHT get caught at it and get in some sort of trouble for it, then he's a fucking moron and doesn't deserve sympathy. If you're single with no dependents, then go ahead and grow weed on your property -- at least it's only you who will suffer the consequences. But if you have a sick wife AND a kid who needs special care, then you owe it to them to cover your ass better.
I'm with Duckball on this: he was stupid not to apply for citizenship, AND he was stupid to keep illegal substances around when he had a wife and kid (something that would have got him screwed even if he WAS a citizen, but got him screwed worse because he wasn't). Hey, I'm all for legalization, and there's no excuse for the laws that are now being used against him; but he could have chosen to avoid all that trouble, and chose wrong.
It's not your fault that life, and the law, is often horribly unfair; but if you know this fact and don't take certain basic precautions to protect yourself, that IS your fault.
And stop pretending I have to be a naive and sleltered idiot to say this -- plenty of people would give you the same advice, and act on it themselves, precisely because they're NOT sheltered from the unfairness of life; and because they know, from their own experience, that you have to cover your own ass because no one else is covering it for you.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 21, 2010 6:07 PM
Quote from Ed, edited for clarity:
To which any rational thinking person could only say "Duh!"
Reminder to all Green Card holders: ANY felony conviction can be used as an excuse to deport you. And each time you cross into the US, you run the risk that your name/passport# -- which SHOULD be flagged due to the felony conviction -- will be noticed by the immigration officials.
Look, there are legitimate reasons for not becoming a US citizen even though you've lived here for decades. I know several Thai women married to US citizens who could easily become US citizens but don't because they would have to sell their real estate in Thailand or risk the government taking it away from them. {Thai laws make it difficult -- near impossible when enforced -- for non-Thais to purchase (or acquire through a will after the death of their Thai spouse or parent) any real estate. Otherwise, virtually all rich properties, especially coastal and island properties, would be foreign-owned in just a few generations.}
So yes, I understand that some resident aliens have legitimate reasons for never becoming citizens. And this is a risk that they must balance carefully.
But this guy? ...here's his reason: "He never bothered to apply for citizenship and so lived his life as a permanent resident alien."
And I'm supposed to feel sorry for him? Because he didn't think it was important enough to educate himself about immigration laws? It's not like he was unaware he wasn't a US citizen. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse for breaking it.
By not becoming a citizen (which it appears he could have easily done before becoming a felon) he ran the risk that if he ever got a felony conviction that he'd be deported. In fact, I wonder if he never bothered to try to attain citizenship in the 10 years since because he figured his flagged name would be caught and lead to his deportation.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 21, 2010 6:13 PM
You also have to formally renounce your citizenship to your former country.
No, you don't. That MIGHT be the case if you came from an "Axis of Evil" country like North Korea or Iran; but generally (as I've said to the birfers, like they'd listen), dual citizenship is perfeclty okay in the US. I have a cousin who's a dual citizen (US & UK), and that friend I mentioned earlier plans to keep her US citizenship as well.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 21, 2010 6:17 PM
for a better doctorgoo @33, see Cam Mitchell @15.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 21, 2010 6:19 PM
I guess the problem I see with Raging Bee's and Duckball's opinion is that simply put, this law is unfair. We can talk about how "stupid" he is to be growing weed and whatnot, but the point is, this guy sounds to me to be a valuable American, citizen or not. Technically it's stupid to break ANY law, especially if you're not a citizen. Does it mean we should treat someone growing/possessing personal use amounts of pot as a narcotics trafficker? Of course not. This guy wasn't a threat to anyone, and we've just spend gobs of money and further clogged our legal system to kick him out. That's stupid no matter what your opinion of pot. Incidentally, to all you saying how stupid he was to grow weed when he had people to care for, I'm curious if he was actually growing the pot for his wife, i.e., for the treatment of her multiple sclerosis. It's associated with muscle spasms, which is one of the more common conditions to qualify for medical marijuana (which didn't exist in MI ten years ago).
Posted by: Rob Monkey | January 21, 2010 6:41 PM
The U.S. is okay with dual citizenship, but still requires that applicants for naturalization formally renounce their previous citizenship. In practice, however, some other nations may simply recognize that renunciation pro forma, then either pretend it never happened or allow the applicant to easily regain that citizenship.
Posted by: DaveL | January 21, 2010 6:51 PM
The US is ok with double citizenship, a lot of the countries of origin are not. My home country makes a huge stink about double citizenship, and routinely denies applications to keep your passport when taking a second. Which is why I'm still a green card holder and not a citizen. So cases like this might make me rethink that.
Posted by: Mu | January 21, 2010 7:27 PM
My bad. A person being naturalized as a US citizen has to take an oath to, among other things, renounce and abjure any allegiance to any foreign state or sovereign. That is it. And the government of the other country is perfectly free to take this oath seriously or not.
Interestingly, it seems that under recent changes to US law, the US government itself won't revoke a US citizen's citizenship just because he or she swears to a similar oath in another country's naturalization process.
Posted by: Chiroptera | January 21, 2010 8:42 PM
as numbers 37-39 have mentioned, the formal renunciation language isn't considered to bear any legal weight by the U.S. government any longer, although other countries may choose to think of it so. i held off naturalizing until my native country changed its policies to be more tolerant of dual citizenship, but i certainly didn't let the language of that oath carry any emotional load against me, no more than any of the folks who presided over the ceremony did.
after all, in the same breath i also swore to defend the U.S. constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. if i'd taken that literally, i would arguably have had to pick up a rifle and head for washington DC, yet nobody anywhere seriously expected me to do such a thing.
personally i've always thought it a petty and childish policy of some countries to revoke your citizenship there should you take on another elsewhere. but countries are free to act pettily and childishly, i suppose, as my native one did for many decades.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | January 21, 2010 9:57 PM
My mother lived in Canada for almost 30 years before applying for Canadian citizenship (she's from New Orleans). I don't know why it took her so long - I guess there just wasn't any pressing need to go through the process, and it's kind of a pain in the ass. We are all human, and we all procrastinate.
Whether or not this dude should have known better, it's still awfully harsh to send someone out of the land he's lived in for 53 years to another country and expect him to fend for himself. Though he certainly has a better chance of finding a job in Canada than he would in Detroit...oh, wait, they sent him to Windsor? That's rough. ;P
Posted by: KristinMH | January 21, 2010 10:25 PM
Also, since he moved here when he was one year old he may not have realized he wasn't a citizen until he was told he was being shipped back to Canada. One of my friends married a woman who was adopted from the Phillipines when she was just an infant. Well, the adoption agent screwed up her paperwork and no-one noticed until she tried to get married at 24 when she was then told she wasn't a citizen and the INS's response was to attempt to ship her back to the Phllipines. It took a lawyer, quite a bit of money and a sympathetic judge to keep her from being sent back "home".
Posted by: Unistrut | January 21, 2010 10:29 PM
I think that in some ways people are missing the real point here. Most of us seem to agree that possession of marijuana should not be a crime at all, or not treated as a serious crime. If that is so, no serious consequences are fair. But let's suppose that he had committed an offense that we can all agree is a serious crime - grand larceny, say, or assault and battery. I would argue that even in this case he should not be deported because it simply isn't fair to deport someone who has lived in the US for decades, has a family in the US, and has no ties to any other country. If somebody commits a serious crime within a few years of immigrating, fine, send him home. He can have a reasonable life in his home country. Deporting someone who has lived in the US for so long is cruel and is a penalty added to the nominal penalty for his crimes by a fluke of personal history.
Posted by: Bill Poser | January 21, 2010 10:51 PM
For a better doctorgoo @ 33, see jws @17.
Posted by: jws | January 21, 2010 10:55 PM
Bill Poser: I agree at an abstract level, but there is a difference between victimless crimes and typical crimes that have a victim. I can at least see a rational argument that grand larceny or assault and battery cause such damage to society that they should result in automatic deportation of non-citizens who commit those crimes. The difference between such cases and, on the other extreme, people who were convicted for having consensual oral sex with their spouse, is too striking not to be relevant. So I am not sure that people are missing the real point.
Raging Bee: You are indeed being callous, and unreasonable. Many millions of Americans (and immigrants) use cannabis, I don't know how many grow it, but in any case, only a relatively small fraction of those people end up with felony convictions. More generally, most Americans break the law, I think it's likely that most commit a felony at some point in their life, but most of those are never convicted of a felony. So the fact that he committed a felony does not mean that he had much reason to expect that he'd be convicted of one.
Most of all, you are arguing against a straw man. No one is denying that the guy's own actions were poor risk management. But Cam and you are saying he shouldn't complain - and we shouldn't be outraged - because he knew what the risks were. But that argument makes no sense at all; by your logic, no law is unfair enough to cause outrage unless it is secret. And we should not feel compassion for victims who took unwise risks that contributed to their situation.
So, once again, I want you to explain how your argument differs from typical "blame the victim" arguments. Would you consider it OK if Social Security denied disability benefits to people who suffered a car crash when they weren't wearing seat belts? Or if Medicare denied claims to people with a history of smoking? Surely, those people can only blame their own stupidity, right?
Posted by: bullfighter | January 21, 2010 11:47 PM
longer jws@44 (well, it can't get much shorter than 44, right? lol):
I think it's okay for people to commit felonies without facing consequences as long as I personally think the law is bad.
If you want to break the law, you should know the potential consequences of your actions. He knew bad things might result, and he went ahead and did them anyway. And I'm not 'blaming the victim' or anything, either... he admits himself that he "was stupid to grow pot", which he did because he "liked smoking pot".
He isn't a victim, he knowingly broke the law, hoping to avoid the consequences. If you disagree with the law, then use legal means to change it. But if you aren't forced by circumstance to break the law, then you have much less sympathy from me when you get caught and must face the consequences.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 22, 2010 12:03 AM
Well hell, it's too late at night to get caught up in this, but I'll just respond to this one absurdity:
By this 'logic' (scarequotes intentional), if there were more unsolved murders (a felony), then does it hold that one shouldn't expect to get a felony conviction for murder? At what percentage of unsolved murders is the tipping point? ;-)
Dude... by all means, fight to make drug laws more sane... but this isn't the core issue of this story here. He knowingly flaunted the law for really lameass reasons. If there was a legitimate reason for needing to break the law (medicinal purposes for himself or a loved one)... and if there was a legitimate reason for not taking care of his immigration status... then absolutely I would feel more compassion for him.
But sorry, he doesn't get compassion (or a free pass) from me just by merely admitting his "stupid" and depending on those who fight for legalized pot to help him out of the situation that he created by his own means.
I also wanted to point out that he wasn't deported because of a drug conviction, he was deported because he had a felony conviction. The article is, in the very least, misleading, if not downright lying when it states:
If the marijuana conviction was a misdemeanor, then that would be very unlikely to be sufficient grounds to be flagged for deportation.
My point is that the fact that the felony conviction was drug related is an unrelated issue for why he was deported. So by all means, fight to make drug laws more sane, but don't let this guy off the hook for knowingly making bad decisions without wanting to face the penalties. Be a man... take accountability for your actions.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 22, 2010 12:24 AM
The problem I see with that is the idea that having been born in another country and moving to the US when you're a year old, and later taking a vacation abroad, can transmute the crime of growing and possessing pot within the US into "drug trafficing".
Posted by: Morgan | January 22, 2010 9:08 AM
Windsor is a border city, there are people who can help him get on his feet.
Can his wife come across the river? She'd get excellent health care.
Canada is a world leader in the treatment of MS.
Can his grandchild not visit him?
A draconian US law may work to this families advantage.
There are Canadian groups who will help him/them and a lot of Americans living in Canada who can befriend him.
Posted by: Bene D | January 22, 2010 9:20 AM
goo: Be a man... take accountability for your actions.
By which you really mean, "be a man: cheer when little guy X has to take disproportionate accountability for his actions because the powerful guys Y like it that way."
Posted by: bullfighter | January 22, 2010 9:53 AM
Bloody 'ell, bullfighter, are you really incapable of understanding the basic concept of personal responsibility? Do you really think we can't fight an unfair law AND expect ourselves and others to behave responsibly and protect ourselves? Or do you think we shouldn't be expected to take precautions against unjust laws and policies?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 22, 2010 12:28 PM
For fuck's sake that judge is dumb. Judges are meant to interpret the law and should use their position to best apply the law in the given circumstances. This 50+ year old was obviously clean for 10 years and not trafficking drugs. Fuck the United Stets and its stupidity.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | January 22, 2010 2:05 PM
Yeah, that's showing those muslim commie terrorist weedhead canucks who's boss! I hope he was waterboarded first. When will the government steal all his property under the guise of "proceeds of crime"? I might get a good deal at the auction ... I wonder if part of the problem is that most of the security stuff post 9/11 is just such bullshit that people believe they need to kick people like Castillo to pretend that they're doing something worthwhile? Quick - gas and manacle that old lady, SHE'S GOT A KNITTING NEEDLE! It's all posturing and only Joe Ordinary gets screwed over. The TSA reminds me of that joke about the bum in Central Park selling a tiger repellent. Hey, there are no tigers in Central Park, so it must work!
Posted by: MadScientist | January 22, 2010 8:37 PM
While I agree this is bullshit, I can't bring myself to feel to much sympathy for the guy. If being an American (As opposed to simply living in America) were that important to him, he would have sought citizenship a long time ago. I hope he does get let back in, but only under the condition that he immediately start working on that. Heck, I think there ought to be a strict time limit for _everyone_ who's not a citizen. 10 years and you haven't even made the attempt? Away with you!
Posted by: Mike Crichton | January 31, 2010 2:30 PM
In some states one can expunge ones record(clean)so there won't be anything there for any immigration judge to see and proceed to deport you!
Posted by: william | April 4, 2010 9:05 AM
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this about my father. Let me clear up some things...My dad was a permanant resident alien...something he had since he was two. He thought of that as permanent. He was always helping our family the best he could and worked overtime for most of my childhood. I am still fighting to save him and bring him home. He is currently homeless and alone most of the time now. It is sad.
Posted by: Tina Schroeder | September 29, 2010 6:56 PM
Charles Castillo is a great man...It hurts to read some of these comments after all I spend several hours a day trying to help him. He has spent his life surrounded by handicapped people...which would drive anyone to want to smoke something..lol Seriously though..he did try to join the military but was told that she shouldnt because of us kids by a recuiter. The government is sending people away that even had charges 30 years ago for something minor. When does this end? Immigration Judges are unable to listen to any pleas or reasons why someone should stay. Its just go and thats it. My mother qualifies for medical mj now and so technically its okay in the home he owns and still pays taxes on now. He made a good point to me recently...they let drunk drivers back after being deported for 5 years and that is not legal...but someone like him who it is legal in their home can never return...
Posted by: Tina Schroeder | September 29, 2010 7:07 PM