As this massive investigation unfolded, the concern of follow-on attacks was critical to our thinking and to our development of an investigative strategy. . . . [T]he Department of Justice, in conjunction with the FBI, determined that the best course of action to protect national security was to remove potentially dangerous individuals from the country and ensure that they could not return. Charges may have been withheld in such situations if, for example, they could have compromised ongoing investigations or sensitive intelligence matters.
[C]onduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. Moral turpitude has been defined as an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude.
Id. at 53 (citing Matter of Franklin, 20 I. & N. Dec. 867, 868 (B.I.A. 1994), affd 72 F.3d 571, (8th Cir. 1995)). However, noncitizens with multiple convictions for crimes of moral turpitude (not arising out of the same criminal scheme) were always subject to deportation regardless of the length of time between entry and conviction or the length of the sentence imposed. See INA § 241(a)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (2000); Pacheco v. INS, 546 F.2d 448, 452 (1st Cir. 1976); Nason v. INS, 394 F.2d 223, 22728 (2d Cir. 1968); Jeronimo v. Murff, 157 F. Supp 808, 815 (S.D.N.Y. 1957).
It has been obvious for some time that crime was casting a disproportionate shadow over what we primarily identify with governance, i.e., politicians and the electoral process of democracy. . . . Less obvious are the ways in which crime has become a linchpin of governance within the less celebrated but more primary settings of governance. In schools, prevention of crime and drug use has arguably been the most significant agenda item for the last two decades.