How Immigration Law Magnifies the Injustice Inflicted by the War on Drugs
Every year, thousands of U.S. residents are deported for drug-related activity, including minor offenses and conduct that states have legalized.

More than two decades ago, Natalie Burke, a legal immigrant from Jamaica, was convicted of transporting and selling marijuana in Arizona. Although that is now a legal business in her state, and despite a pardon that Burke received from Arizona's governor last year, her life has been thrown into limbo by the federal government's determination to deport her based on her drug record. That attempt to exile Burke, which led to a year and a half of immigration detention and years of stress, has caused ongoing anxiety that may have contributed to a stroke she suffered while fighting to stay in the country.
Such cases are not unusual. "Thousands of people in the United States are being deported every year for drug offenses that in many cases no longer exist under state laws," Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) note. From 2002 to 2020, according to a new report from the two organizations, the U.S. government deported more than half a million immigrants whose most serious crimes were drug offenses. Such deportations peaked during the Obama administration but still happen 1,000 to 2,000 times a month.
Under U.S. immigration law, citizenship requires "good moral character," which among other things disqualifies anyone convicted of an "aggravated felony," a category that includes drug trafficking. The requirement also can disqualify green card holders who work in the state-legal cannabis industry. Even a marijuana possession conviction, except for a single offense involving no more than 30 grams, can lead to removal of legal immigrants. That last scenario accounted for more than 47,000 of the deportation cases identified by HRW and DPA.
"The uniquely American combination of the drug war and deportation machine work hand in hand to target, exclude, and punish noncitizens for minor offenses—or in some states legal activity," says Maritza Perez Medina, DPA's director of federal affairs. "Punitive federal drug laws separate families, destabilize communities, and terrorize non-citizens." The report recommends revision of immigration law to "match current state-based drug policy reforms" and "prevent the immense human suffering being inflicted in the name of the drug war."
Cocaine accounted for two-fifths of the deportations analyzed in the report, while marijuana accounted for a third. Cases involving sales represented 41 percent of the total, while 30 percent involved possession or use.
People who commit these offenses are presumed unfit to remain in the United States, and immigration judges often have no discretion to grant relief. That policy affects many people who have lived in the U.S. for years, developing strong ties to the country, raising families, and earning a legal living.
After moving to the United States, Burke obtained a green card, making her a lawful permanent resident. She pursued a career in social work, eventually earning a doctorate, and sent her son to college. But "it was never explained to me that you're really not permanent here," she says. Since 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been trying to deport her based on conduct that has been legalized by 24 states.
One of those states is California, where Oswaldo Barrientos, an immigrant from El Salvador who has been a lawful permanent resident since he was 13, works for a state-licensed business that grows marijuana. Because of that occupation, he was deemed ineligible for citizenship. Also in California, Maria Sanchez, another lawful permanent resident, was disqualified by an "aggravated felony" that involved growing four marijuana plants to treat her arthritis.
In New York, Paul Pierrulus, who has lived in the U.S. since immigrating with his family when he was 5, was detained for two-and-a-half years after he was convicted of selling cocaine to fellow college students. ICE has repeatedly sought to deport Pierrulus, who worked as a strategic consultant at a financial firm for 13 years, to Haiti, where his parents were born but he has never lived.
Miguel Perez Jr., a U.S. military veteran who lived in Chicago for 30 years and was twice deployed to Afghanistan, was deported to Mexico in 2016 because of a cocaine conviction. Three years later, Perez was finally able to obtain U.S. citizenship after Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker granted him clemency. But as Burke's case shows, even clemency is no guarantee of immigration relief.
The report tells many such stories of immigrants who were punished twice for conduct that violated no one's rights: first under the drug laws and then, often years later, under immigration law. That combination, HRW notes, "doubly penalize[s] immigrants by imposing civil penalties after they have served their sentences for drug convictions," thereby "subjecting them to often extended detention and ultimately deportation."
Despite local, state, and federal reforms aimed at reducing the harm caused by draconian drug laws, that double penalty remains in place. "Conviction of even the most minor drug offense—for example, possessing a small amount of a controlled substance, including marijuana, where that is illegal—carries devastating consequences that far outstrip the criminal sentence imposed," the report notes.
As a first step toward addressing this situation, HRW and DPA urge Congress to eliminate immigration penalties based on drug-related conduct that states have legalized. They say Congress also should let immigration judges block deportation on a case-by-case basis after weighing "the harms of deportation and evidence of rehabilitation, family ties, and other equities." They recommend several other immigration reforms, including time limits on consideration of drug offenses, a narrower definition of "aggravated felony," elimination of "the controlled substance offense inadmissibility bar and deportability ground," and a ban on "unnecessary or prolonged" immigration detention. The report also suggests drug policy reforms, including decimalization of low-level possession and repeal of the federal ban on marijuana.
Even without legislative changes, HRW and DPA say, the Department of Homeland Security can use its discretion to ameliorate the interaction between drug prohibition and immigration law. Among other things, they say, the department should "refrain from immigration policing actions based on drug-related arrests, charges, or convictions"; "end enforcement actions based on expunged, vacated, and pardoned convictions"; "stop using pleadings or statements in criminal proceedings related to drug use as justification to deny immigration benefits"; and "allow individuals who have been deported due to a drug conviction to apply for reentry through an immigration waiver."
Without such reforms, the report warns, immigration provisions will continue to amplify the injustices inflicted by the war on drugs. "Until the federal government recognizes the discrimination in the enforcement of drug and immigration laws," it says, "the drug war will remain a leading driver of the criminalization of immigrants, as well as their separation from family and the country they often regard as home."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Holding immigrants accountable for crimes is unfair.
Had to double check the byline. Yeap. Sullum. Approves of all but one lawfare against Trump. Demands no standard application of law against immigrants. Amazing.
Why should immigrants be held to lower standards Sullum? Why should immigration law ignore criminal records Sullum?
She got a pardon, Jesse.
No one should be punished by these bullshit laws. The article suggests that immigrants are being held to a higher standard, not that they should be held to lower standards than anyone else. Here's a quarter, buy yourself some reading comprehension.
Hey. Biden’s the President and running the Federal Government so it’s all his fault. At least that’s the way it worked four years ago.
Anything that harms immigrants is good, right Trumpanzees?
Should immigrants be held to the same standard of criminal law as citizens dummy?
It is amazing watching you unravel into a sobbing leftist blob.
THE LAW IS THE LAW, AND NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW!
Cmon man. That only applies to Trump.
Situation: Americans loose freedoms and are subjected to heightened levels of crime and police corruption due to Drug Prohibition.
Reason: Illegal aliens hardest hit.
Textbook example of the fallacy of relative privation. You get ten points.
Poor hypocritical sarc. Please tell us about Trump and the J6ers again.
It's literally the point of the article.
Did we read the same article? They aren't denying that harms happen to Americans too. Are you trying to be a Jesse?
So many soft head pats from Jeff. So comforting.
We're not in your Grandpa's Drug War. Today, war is being waged against us by hostile foreign powers using drugs as weapons.
If only there were some way for people to stop taking drugs.
And Grandpa is still in the White House. It's literally his War on Drugs. He even picked a Drug Warrior as his VP.
What else would you expect? He's only been a diehard Drug Warrior for, what, his entire career of public "service"?
Yeah, it's terrible the way cartels go around shoving coke up people's noses. And I really hate it when they hold me down and shoot me up.
More than two decades ago, Natalie Burke, a legal immigrant from Jamaica, was convicted of transporting and selling marijuana in Arizona. Although that is now a legal business in her state, and despite a pardon that Burke received from Arizona's governor last year, her life has been thrown into limbo by the federal government's determination to deport her based on her drug record. That attempt to exile Burke, which led to a year and a half of immigration detention and years of stress, has caused ongoing anxiety that may have contributed to a stroke she suffered while fighting to stay in the country.
Would the amount and way of her transporting Marijuana still be legal in AZ?
Nope. And any citizen caught transporting that much would also be a criminal for the most part.
But if it's as illegal now as it was then, how was she to know that she would get arrested and her pardon wouldn't apply to the federal charges back when she originally committed the crime?
She got a pardon.
From the state.
Every year, thousands of U.S. residents are deported for drug-related activity
Too bad we can't get rid of the illegals AND the citizens on the basis of drug use. That sounds like the greatest win ever.
Deport the illegals AND the drug users! I am 100% for that.
has caused ongoing anxiety that may have contributed to a stroke she suffered while fighting to stay in the country.
I mean, the drugs might have caused that too. Just saying.
"Thousands of people in the United States are being deported every year for drug offenses that in many cases no longer exist under state laws,"
I am so tired of this bogus argument. It DOESN'T MATTER if it's not a crime anymore. It was a crime when they committed it, they committed it KNOWING it was a crime, and they did it intentionally. This is not a person who comes to America seeking to respect American rule of law. And THAT'S why they no longer qualify for legal immigration.
Immigrants are here at our sufferance. And no American should ever have to suffer junkies. Especially imported ones. If I invite you into my home and say, "Look, just don't do drugs while you're here," and you can't/won't respect that - then GET OUT. And I have EVERY right to grab you by your collar and THROW you out of my house and into the street over such insolence and insult.
If the druggies have so much solidarity with the illegals, you can and should BOTH find a boat elsewhere. GET OUT.
Once upon a time the word “criminal” meant someone who harmed the life, liberty or property of others.
Now it simply means someone who violates arbitrary legislation.
Sad what the country has become.
Even worse is people like you who cheer it.
Illegals and druggies don't harm the life, liberty, and property of others?
Do they make America a better place for Americans, or do they make it a worse place for Americans?
But even if you want to individualize it - if an illegal/druggie harms one hair on an American's head, curtails their liberty even slightly, or devalues in any way their property - you'd STILL be against holding them accountable, wouldn't you.
I say extreme prejudice. Deportation for life for the illegals, jail forever for the druggies. But you likely have a problem with that, don't you. Why? Why do you defend the dregs and slime of American society?
Vices are not crimes. Mostly druggies harm themselves. Some turn to crime to fund their drug addictions, but those are actual crimes they could be prosecuted for.
Due to the drug war, drugs are more dangerous and more expensive, and crime in general increases. Drug providers can't be sued for product liability for selling tainted drugs. Violent gangs fight each other for the drug trade, just as gangs did when alcohol was banned. Beer and liquor companies don't do drive-by shootings anymore, they advertise for our business and try to offer better products.
Remember Jefferson: "Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Due to the drug war, drugs are more dangerous and more expensive, and crime in general increases. Drug providers can’t be sued for product liability for selling tainted drugs. Violent gangs fight each other for the drug trade, just as gangs did when alcohol was banned. Beer and liquor companies don’t do drive-by shootings anymore, they advertise for our business and try to offer better products.
Don’t forget the perverse incentives that it gives to law enforcement. In my experience cops ignore crimes with actual victims, but they’re Johnny on the spot when it comes to drug crimes. Why? Investigating crimes with victims is work and there’s no profit. Crimes involving drugs are easy to prove and with asset forfeiture they get to steal everything the offender owns.
If cops bother to respond to a crime with a victim, first thing they do is run the victim for warrants and search them for drugs.
The war on drugs is one of the major reasons why so many people don’t trust the police. It’s a stain on the history of the nation. Much worse than Prohibition.
Vices are not crimes.
Of course they are! Drunk driving is a crime. Incest is a crime. If you take all your money and spend it gambling instead of taking care of your kids, that's a crime. These could just as easily be categorized as "self-harm" - but it's also a harm that impacts others. And impacts society in general. And I'm willing to bet you're not opposed to the legal curtailing of any of those activities.
Due to the drug war, drugs are more dangerous and more expensive, and crime in general increases.
Yea, so don't do them! Reject those who do, reject those who try to facilitate their use! Excise them from society. Get rid of those people - either by deportation, or by throwing them down a hole forever to be forgotten about and never considered again.
Yours is such pedestrian thinking. "I know, we can reduce crime by legalizing crime!" Calling a tail a leg doesn't give a dog five legs, CE.
You only bring up this “society” bullshit when you think it correlates with your own opinions.
As far as I can tell “society” wants to take our guns, have abortions, have us fund their own socialist pet projects, and make identity group rights more important that freedom. Obviously this isn’t the basis of what constitutes a legit crime.
You can’t bang on about individual liberty being a central tenant of our system but then treat individuals like children and pull the “society” card any time it creates outcomes you personally disapprove of. You can, but you’d be full of shit.
As far as I can tell “society” wants to take our guns, have abortions, have us fund their own socialist pet projects, and make identity group rights more important that freedom.
No, that's not true. That's what the media would have you believe, and what the politicians trade off of in exchange for power.
Normal people don't go around preaching abortion or gun laws. How many times do you go to the grocery store and a random stranger starts trying you to have abortions and take away your guns? How often does it come up at work? How often do it come up when you're socializing in a public place? How many times in your life have you suddenly and unexpectedly run into a mob of people who started trying to chase you down and take your guns or commit abortion against your tiny human?
You're confusing "society" with "activists." And activists are (besides the politician/media's Useful Idiots) nothing but tiny dogs barking into bullhorns, trying to fool you into believing that they're bigger than they actually are. And you're allowing that misperception to be amplified by social media, which has clearly and long ago forgotten John Gabriel's Rule.
You can’t bang on about individual liberty being a central tenant of our system but then treat individuals like children and pull the “society” card any time it creates outcomes you personally disapprove of.
Sure I can. I just did, and you ignored it completely. Individual liberty is subordinated to the majority will in an ordered society. If you want to drive drunk or bang your sister, but everyone else doesn't want you to - well, nobody's got a gun to your head to make you stay within that local society. But so long as you do, said liberties will not be tolerated.
This is America in a nutshell. But apparently that's not good enough for you people, and you kick and scream and have a tantrum and scream, "Screw society!" when you don't get your way. Like overly-entitled toddlers who don't respect the fact that the world doesn't revolve around them.
I'm convinced that most people here would rather see total social collapse just so that they can get high. They would rather see complete anarchy just so they can be or buy a prostitute.
Reason.com folks don't seem to care about Individual Liberty at all. It's just a thin window-dressing for their own selfish hedonism.
What horseshit. Most things aren't (and shouldn't be) subordinated to majority rule. The whole idea behind liberal democracy is to leave as many decisions as possible up to the individual. The US system of government was founded on the idea that the legitimate purpose of government is to prevent people from harming others, not imposing your every whim on others any time you can get 51 out of 100 people to agree with you.
What the actual fuck? Last time I checked, all laws are ultimately backed by force, whether actual or merely threatened. So yeah, there's always a gun. Submit and obey and it will stay in the holster, but try to object and it always comes out sooner or later.
And I'm convinced you're an authoritarian slaver who's constantly attacking straw men. What on earth makes you think society would "collapse" the instant people are allowed to get high or pay for a blowjob? The evidence for that seems to be lacking, and you're certainly not providing any.
With projection skills like that you should be working at a cineplex. Then again, reading your posts suggests you have a truly bizarre and perverse definition of "individual liberty".
Most commenters here wouldn't recognize a libertarian principal if it walked up and bit them in the ass. Why the hell these statists even bother to visit this site is one of the universe's great mysteries. There are plenty of sites out there whose principles and policies I don't like, yet somehow I don't feel compelled to read them every day just so I can screech about how much they suck.
Pathetic; FOAD.
Drunk driving on public roads is a crime because it potentially endangers others who haven't consented to that risk. Driving drunk on private property where everyone involved consents to the risk is perfectly legal. Incest should be a crime when it involves abuse and exploitation, otherwise it's mostly only a crime because of the "ick" factor. (Fun fact: in two US states there's no legal penalty for incest as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.) Neglecting dependents is a pretty obvious case of harm to someone other than oneself. Any more straw men I can knock down for you?
If you don't want to use recreational drugs, that's 100% A-OK with me. But just where in the hell do you get off thinking you can tell other people they shouldn't? If drug users do commit actual crimes against the life/property of others I'm totally on board with punishing for those crimes. But as long as they're not doing that, it's none of your damn business.
The irony of your last paragraph is truly astounding. Calling an act that doesn't harm others a "crime" doesn't make it one either.
Due to the drug war, drugs are more dangerous and more expensive, and crime in general increases.
The last is correct. The first two are speculative at best. There isn’t a (or wasn’t) a war on gasoline and it was trivially easy to find times and places where prices were inflated several fold, if not orders of magnitude for completely legal reasons. Legal weed is expensive in Amsterdam as legal pineapple is expensive in Hawaii.
However, as you said, as you pass more laws and make more things illegal, yes, crime generally increases.
Beer and liquor companies don’t do drive-by shootings anymore, they advertise for our business and try to offer better products.
Hand-in-glove with my point above, in relative numbers you’re much more likely to be a victim of a drive by shooting in Chicago in the late 20th/early 21st century than the early 20th. Despite Prohibition and the availability of fully automatic weapons. Beer and liquor companies weren’t, by-and-large out shooting random people to death.
Which isn’t to say we should ban weed or alcohol or automatic firearms. Just that by social and market forces you should recognize yourself, legalizing a product doesn’t mean suppliers just sit there and eat smaller profits. And by physical and biological laws that you should probably understand outside the socio-economics; more concentrated, effective, and deadly product have inherent logistical advantages over less potent alternatives.
Illegals and druggies don’t harm the life, liberty, and property of others?
Some do, some don't. And they should be held accountable for those acts. Not for lack of papers or consuming unapproved chemicals.
Why do you defend the dregs and slime of American society?
Because they are human beings.
Late edit:
And
theythe ones who do should be held accountable for those acts.Deporting criminal migrants is holding them accountable retard.
I'm fine with that if they commit real crimes with actual victims. I'm a lot less fine when their "crime" is working a productive job without playing an elaborate game of "Mother, may I?" or selling a dime bag to a willing buyer.
Criminal human beings.
Lack of papers is a crime.
Drug use is a crime.
Look, it's fine to say you think those things shouldn't be crimes - stupid, but fine - but as it stands they ARE crimes, or were at the time of their commission. And those who commit them are CRIMINALS. Why do you have such a problem with acknowledging that?
For you, clearly the label ‘criminal’ is not just a legal term, but a type of moral condemnation. A ‘criminal’ is part of the ‘dregs and slime’ of American society after all. While for many if not most criminals, moral condemnation is very appropriate, for others, it is not. That is because some criminals are convicted for violating unjust laws, and in a just world, they would not have been convicted in the first place because the law would not have existed.
So I agree that the guy who was busted for smoking pot, is a ‘criminal’ according to the letter of the law, but I do not share your use of the term as a moral condemnation when applied to this person.
So I agree that the guy who was busted for smoking pot, is a ‘criminal’ according to the letter of the law
Glad you agree. Lock him up. Or, if he's illegal, get him out and never let him come back.
How about this instead. For an illegal immigrant, or a guy busted for smoking pot, if they have not committed any crimes that harm the life, liberty or property of others, instead of locking them up, instead, set them free, give them amnesty, and for the illegal immigrant, give him a work permit and a goodie bag with swag saying “Welcome to America”. What do you think?
Okay, I’d be willing to compromise on the goodie bag.
Does the letter of the law meaning anything, or doesn't it?
Trafficking is still a crime on Arizona and most of the US.
Why do you have such a problem with acknowledging that?
Because I don’t submit to the authoritarian notion that everything against the law is a crime. Often times the law is just plain wrong. Then what?
To quote one of the slogans of my youth, “Skateboarding is not a crime!”
Often times the law is just plain wrong. Then what?
Apparently you think the answer is "break it with impunity and complain about the consequences."
No. More like keep your head down and keep your moral sense.
Good night.
Why are you so opposed to the system of government the founders created for this nation?
You are an imbecile and thank you for making it clear you are worth not more than FOAD, asshole.
He wasn't tried for lack of papers you dishonest shit. He committed a crime. Crimes void visas and pathways.
How dishonest are you?
Doubt AT is smart enough to be dishonest. "Stupid", yes, "dishonest" requires enough intellect to tell the difference.
What about those who list legal expenses as legal expenses? I have the bookmark of you saying the jury was right, Trump is guilty. Want me to link it?
Most citizens feel that if we're going to allow immigrants that we should be inviting and retaining the best ones. Drug dealers and even users don't fit that bill. I get that the legal position of weed does make that more complicated, but it's stupid to argue that we shouldn't deport an illegal immigrant coke dealer.
Until drugs are legalized at the federal level (and they should be) holding people accountable for breaking the law is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is granting illegal aliens and legal immigrants rights and privileges not allowed to citizens. I would love to be able to pick a category of laws and say "These laws don't apply to me because!"
If the states have legalized it, then why were these people arrested?
“Punitive federal drug laws separate families, destabilize communities, and terrorize non-citizens.”
Destabilizes communities you say?
NB: The reason Perez Jr. says “started using on a daily basis” and not “started using” is because the service that was supposed to confer Perez Jr. naturalization status, was terminated after a general discharge over a drug infraction and, supposedly, Perez Jr. was never naturalized because of ‘administrative oversight’ that failed to notify him.