Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

There's a small, but not insignificant, problem with this statement: the man had not previously committed a felony. That's the whole point. Driving under the influence, in most states - and in the state in question - is not a felony. And, as the mayor stated, they check citizenship when a felony is committed, not otherwise. It would be terribly expensive to check citizenship for every single crime committed, and I would certainly hope no one would propose checking citizenship only for every single crime committed by a latino. So, we're left having to have a cut-off point. In that state, it is to check citizenship when a felony is committed, which it wasn't the first time he got a DUI. Not only do the mayor and governor understand this, the parents of both the victims do as well. That fact goes against the "broken heart, not xenophobia" argument as well. Neither of the people who did lose a loved one are wondering "why wasn't he deported the first time?"

If this man had killed someone once before and then killed again, then the outrage over him not being deported the first time would be completely valid. However, that's not the case. He was simply caught driving under the influence once before - a misdemeanor - and then got in the fatal accident the second time, killing two people. What was done was exactly what should have been done: when he committed the misdemeanor, his citizenship was not checked because it is simply not productive to check the citizenship of every single person that goes through the police department, but when he committed the felony, his citizenship was checked and he was caught.

In State v. Hamm, 577 A.2d 1259 (N.J. 1990), the defendant was charged with his third driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense. The possible penalties for a third DWI offense in New Jersey included 180 days incarceration, a$1,000 fine, 10-year driver’s license suspension, and up to 90 days of community service. Although the latter penalties could have been imposed in addition to the 180-day incarceration period, the court concluded that the legislature had not so "’packed’[the DWI] offense with onerous penalties"as to clearly reflect a legislative determination that DWI is a serious offense requiring a jury trial. Hamm, supra, 577 A.2d at 1267.