In Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), the Supreme Court in a landmark decision held that noncitizens had a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel which involved competent legal advice regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. If a noncitizen did not receive competent or accurate advice in this regard, his plea of guilty may be vacated on constitutional grounds based on Padilla. Padilla, however, would not retroactively apply to convictions that became final before the effective date of Padilla(March 31, 2010) pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling in Chaidez v. the United States. Do you feel Padilla should have been made retroactive or not and why? If you feel Padilla should apply retroactively, should there be a cut-off date?