SCOTUS: Chicago woman fighting deportation can't benefit from 2010 decision on lawyer duty to warn - ABA Journal

SCOTUS: Chicago woman fighting deportation can't benefit from 2010 decision on lawyer duty to warn - ABA Journal

One commenter responded:

"Why the kerfuffle?  At the end of the day we get rid of a criminal who engaged in fraud.  Immigrants like that we don’t need." 

My response:

At the end of the day, we get rid of a mother and grandmother and separate her from her family.  I don't think it should make a difference, but her children and grandchildren are all United States Citizens born in the United States.  Therefore, at the end of the day, we get rid of a 30-year permanent resident of the United States who is a mother and grandmother.  I should add, a law-abiding citizen for the first 30+ years that she was her.  You can read details about her at ImmigrantJustice.org:

Ms. Chaidez is a 55-year old woman who entered the United States in the 1970s and became a lawful permanent resident in 1977. She lives in Chicago, as do her three U.S.-citizen children and two U.S.-citizen grandchildren.  In the early 2000s, she played a minor role in a scheme involving insurance fraud. Ms. Chaidez claimed to have been a passenger in a car involved in a collision. The insurance company discovered the deception, and charges were filed. The entire scheme collected approximately $26,000; Ms. Chaidez personally received approximately $1,200. She took responsibility for her role in the scheme, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years probation.