Image 01 Image 03

Cornell Student Faces Deportation if Convicted of Hate Crime

Cornell Student Faces Deportation if Convicted of Hate Crime

“He would thus be exiled from the United States, an extraordinarily harsh consequence”

The student in question is from Canada. The charge stems from an incident on campus last year during which he allegedly assaulted a black student and used a racial slur.

The Cornell Daily Sun reports:

Cornell Student Could Be Deported If Convicted of Hate Crime

The Cornell University student charged with a hate crime last semester could be permanently deported from the United States if he is convicted, and a federal immigration agency has already shown interest in the case.

John P. A. Greenwood ’20, who is facing three charges after being accused of a race-motivated assault, is a Canadian citizen studying at Cornell on a student visa, his lawyer confirmed in court documents filed on Thursday. The lawyer, Ronald P. Fischetti, said a conviction could lead to Greenwood being deported from the U.S. and being forbidden from re-entering.

“He would thus be exiled from the United States, an extraordinarily harsh consequence, preventing him from, among other things, ever pursuing an education at a college or University in the United States,” Fischetti wrote in a motion arguing that all charges against Greenwood should be dismissed.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official contacted the City of Ithaca after police arrested Greenwood in September, a city official with direct knowledge of the communication told The Sun.

ICE requested the date and location of Greenwood’s arraignment before the information was publicly available, according to the city official, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of antagonizing the immigration agency. Ithaca officials did not provide the information to the agency, abiding by the city’s sanctuary city legislation, the official said.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Screw the ‘race-based’ nature of the assault. Simple assault should keep him and any other ‘foreign national’ from entering the country.
Canada will not allow anyone convicted of DUI/DWI in the U.S. from entering the country (you can get that lifted but…). We should do the same for any criminal conviction, anywhere.

Paul In Sweden | March 7, 2018 at 11:40 pm

So late one night a handful of white students argued with several other students of which at least one was black on a porch, used a racial slur and then walked up the hill to their home. After arriving inside of their home in the wee hours of the morning a participant of the earlier verbal altercation, Solomon Shewit, apparently feeling empowered and justified in his actions because of the earlier racial slur burst uninvited into the home of the defendant and a short fight ensued. What was the motivation of Solomon Shewit a participant of the earlier verbal argument when he perused the plaintiff and without invitation entered the plantiff’s home? What transpired in the home of the plaintiff and why does Race matter here? I do not believe the law provides for the use of physical assault and trespass for a prior verbal offense in a different location at a latter time or the same location at the same time for a verbal assault.

This seems to be the thinking today: If someone calls me a racial slur and I beat them up, I should not be arrested and charged because the other person called me a bad name; and if I attempt to beat someone up that called me a bad name and wind up losing the fight, the other person should be arrested and charged because they called me a bad name.

Lawyer Urges Judge to Toss Student’s Hate Crime Charge, Contests Details of Collegetown Dispute
March 5, 2018

Fischett argued in the court filing that Shewit “had trespassed into Mr. Greenwood’s home in anger” before the altercation, citing a New York State Police bloodstain analysis that found traces of Shewit’s blood in the “interior entry area” of Greenwood’s apartment.

Shewit told the police that he had run after Greenwood and others who he said called him the slur. Once he got to the walkway leading to Greenwood’s house, Shewit told police, Greenwood and several other men punched him. Fischetti argues otherwise.

“If there was a physical encounter, it occurred inside the home where Mr. Greenwood and the others were permitted to defend themselves — with no duty to retreat — against an angry trespassing intruder,” Fischetti said, noting that none of the prosecutor’s witnesses report witnessing the assault.

“Shewit began bleeding inside the home, not on the pathway as he has repeatedly sworn,” Fischetti wrote.