Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. In addition, while due process requires that a guilty plea be made with knowledge of its direct consequences, In re Personal Restraint of Peters, 50 Wn. App. 702, 704, 750 P.2d 643 (1988), a deportation proceeding that occurs subsequent to the entry of a guilty plea is a collateral consequence of that plea. In re Personal Restraint of Yim, 139 Wn.2d 581, 588, 989 P.2d 512 (1999) (citing State v. Ward, 123 Wn.2d 488, 512-13, 869 P.2d 1062 (1994)). As such, Jamison need not have been advised, on due process as opposed to statutory grounds, of the immigration consequences of the plea. See Yim, 139 Wn.2d at 588 (citing Ward, 123 Wn.2d at 512). See also State v. Holley, 75 Wn. App. 191, 198, 876 P.2d 973 (1994) . But Jamison claims that the 1996 amendments
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that mere disagreement over the proper treatment does not create a constitutional claim
B. holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court
C. holding that rcw 1040200 does not create a constitutional right to be advised of immigration consequences therefore failure to comply with statute does not create constitutional harm
D. holding the failure to comply with the act does not bar defendant from raising a constitutional challenge to jury selection procedures
E. holding arkansas statute does not impose standards constraining discretion about granting clemency and thus does not create a constitutional right and invoke the due process clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.