Current Events > ICE just makes up some bullshit in attempt to deport dreamer

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/federal-judge-accused-ice-of-making-up-evidence-to-prove-that-dreamer-was-gang-affiliated.html

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez shot down the federal governments efforts to strip Daniel Ramirez Medina of his DACA status. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement had arrested and detained Ramirez last year, then falsely claimed that he was affiliated with a gang and attempted to deport him. He filed suit, alleging that ICE had violated his due process rights. Martinez agreed. His order barred the federal government from voiding Ramirezs DACA status, safeguarding his ability to live and work in the United States legally for the foreseeable future. What may be most remarkable about Martinezs decision, though, is its blunt repudiation of ICEs main claimthat Ramirez is gang-affiliated. The judge did not simply rule against ICE. He accused the agency of lying to a court of law.

The facts of Ramirezs case are extremely disturbing. In February 2017, shortly after President Donald Trump unleashed immigration agents to amp up arrests and deportations, ICE agents went to Ramirezs fathers house in Seattle to arrest him. (The father is undocumented, and brought Ramirez to the U.S. illegally as a child.) While there, they encountered Ramirez and asked him whether he was legally here. He responded that he wasa truthful statement given his DACA status, which he had renewed the previous May. Yet ICE officers detained him anyway. They took him to a processing center, where, once again, he told them that he had a work permit.

It doesnt matter, an agent responded, because you werent born in this country.

ICE then interrogated Ramirez, fingerprinted and booked him, confiscated his work permit, sent him to a detention center, and placed him in removal proceedings. It also purported to revoke his DACA status, subjecting him to imminent deportation. Typically, the government may not rescind an individuals DACA status without giving the beneficiary an opportunity to contest its decision. But ICE claimed that Ramirezs DACA benefits could be terminated automatically because he presented an egregious public safety concern due to his alleged gang affiliation. (ICE routinely alleges that Latino immigrants with no indication of gang affiliation are members of a gang in order to detain and deport them.)

A group of renowned attorneys then stepped in to defend Ramirez, arguing that virtually every action ICE had taken against their client was unlawful. They also alleged that ICEs key claimthat Ramirez is gang-affiliatedwas a complete falsehood. One of his lawyers, Mark Rosenbaum, presented evidence indicating that ICE had doctored Ramirezs statement by erasing words he had written in the pencil provided to make it seem as if he had confessed to being in a gang. (The original statement asserts he has no gang affiliation.) During his initial interrogation, ICE officers asked him five times whether he belonged to a gang, and he repeatedly said no. Instead, he asserted that he had fled California [to Washington] to escape from the gangs.

There was no reason to doubt Ramirezs story, and good reason to believe it. If he had been in a gang, after all, the government wouldve already known. To renew his DACA status, Ramirez had to undergo two thorough background checks. Neither turned up any evidence of gang affiliation.

Yet ICE continued to press its case against Ramirez. In immigration court, agents rested their case on one piece of evidence: a tattoo on Ramirezs forearm that consists of a nautical star and the words La PazBCS, which represent his birthplace, the city of La Paz in Baja California Sur. Ramirez repeatedly insisted that this tattoo had nothing to do with any gang. But an ICE agent claimed that his tattoo actually proved he was definitely a gang member because it allegedly looked like the tattoo of the bulldogs gang.

---

They are illegals so they have no right to be here and should be deported
---

Lol slate
---

How angry do you wake up every morning TC? It's dark huh. I remember those days.
---

John_Galt posted...

Lol slate

Here's the court order
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4463428/Ramirez-Medina-v-DHS-Order-051518.pdf
---

Jaghave posted...

They are illegals so they have no right to be here and should be deported

---

Jaghave posted...

They are illegals so they have no right to be here and should be deported

Great sig dude.
---

We do have a right to be here under DACA. It's the law.
---

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

We do have a right to be here under DACA. It's the law.

Hey ICE. I found your next deportation.
---

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

We do have a right to be here under DACA. It's the law.

Legally because of an end around by democrats. Youre technically still illegal but allowed to stay because of DACA.

What confuses me is why are US laws for citizens applied to illegals with what is essentially a temporary visa?

Jaghave posted...

They are illegals so they have no right to be here and should be deported

This is the general sentiment that will allow shit like this to continue
---

HBKick18 posted...

Jaghave posted...

They are illegals so they have no right to be here and should be deported

This is the general sentiment that will allow shit like this to continue

When illegals are afforded the rights and protections of citizens but they are barely upheld for actual citizens you cant blame people for feeling that way.

Spooking posted...

DACA is unconstitutional.

Then change the law. Until then, this is a nation of laws. Go to a different country if you don't like it.

Cal12 posted...

Legally because of an end around by democrats. Youre technically still illegal but allowed to stay because of DACA.

Incorrect. DACA changes our status from illegal to temporarily legalized.
---

ITT: Lying is okay so long as it gets an illegal immigrant out of the country.
---

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

Incorrect. DACA changes our status from illegal to temporarily legalized.

eh, not really. in terms of federal law, DACA recipients don't count as legal immigrants for most purposes. don't qualify for federal financial aid, don't qualify for health care through medicaid or CHIP, etc. again, some states allow them to be covered through their state medicaid and CHIP programs, but they bear the full costs of the program (whereas most of the time the federal government reimburses them a percentage of the costs)

it does allow, in some states, DACA recipients to be granted legal status in those states, but that varies, too.

though I'm not sure why the distinction matters here.
---

Cal12 posted...

What confuses me is why are US laws for citizens applied to illegals with what is essentially a temporary visa?

Why wouldn't they?

Balrog0 posted...

eh, not really. in terms of federal law, DACA recipients don't count as legal immigrants for most purposes. don't qualify for federal financial aid, don't qualify for health care through medicaid or CHIP, etc. again, some states allow them to be covered through their state medicaid and CHIP programs, but they bear the full costs of the program (whereas most of the time the federal government reimburses them a percentage of the costs)

it does allow, in some states, DACA recipients to be granted legal status in those states, but that varies, too.

though I'm not sure why the distinction matters here.

We have legal residency. It's that simple.

The reason why the distinction matters is to rebuke the post that said we don't have a right to be here, which we legally do until the deferment period is over.
---

Conservatives: but hes brown!!!
---

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

Balrog0 posted...

eh, not really. in terms of federal law, DACA recipients don't count as legal immigrants for most purposes. don't qualify for federal financial aid, don't qualify for health care through medicaid or CHIP, etc. again, some states allow them to be covered through their state medicaid and CHIP programs, but they bear the full costs of the program (whereas most of the time the federal government reimburses them a percentage of the costs)

it does allow, in some states, DACA recipients to be granted legal status in those states, but that varies, too.

though I'm not sure why the distinction matters here.

We have legal residency. It's that simple.

The reason why the distinction matters is to rebuke the post that said we don't have a right to be here, which we legally do until the deferment period is over.

It's not that simple, but okay.
---

The trolls certainly didn't waste any time here
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

The trolls certainly didn't waste any time here

hoth has a lot of free time
---

Jaghave posted...

They are illegals so they have no right to be here and should be deported

---

Balrog0 posted...

It's not that simple, but okay.

The guy said we don't have a right to be here, but we do if the law is giving us a temporary right of presence. So it is.

If you wanna change that to we shouldn't be here, that's fine because it's your opinion. Whether we are legally here or not is not up to opinion.
---

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

The guy said we don't have a right to be here, but we do if the law is giving us a temporary right of presence. So it is.

So, I was responding to this exchange:

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

Cal12 posted...

Legally because of an end around by democrats. Youre technically still illegal but allowed to stay because of DACA.

Incorrect. DACA changes our status from illegal to temporarily legalized.

He is correct, and you are not.

Q1: What is deferred action?
A1: Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer a removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. For purposes of future inadmissibility based upon unlawful presence, an individual whose case has been deferred is not considered to be unlawfully present during the period in which deferred action is in effect. An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be present in the United States, and is therefore considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period deferred action is in effect. However, deferred action does not confer lawful status upon an individual, nor does it excuse any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence.

Under existing regulations, an individual whose case has been deferred is eligible to receive employment authorization for the period of deferred action, provided he or she can demonstrate an economic necessity for employment. DHS can terminate or renew deferred action at any time, at the agencys discretion.

as I said, for the purposes of this conversation, I don't see the relevance, but there are plenty of contexts in which this distinction does matter. I named a couple above, but I can name more if you'd like. For another instance, DACA recipients do not have the same protections from deportation that lawfully residing immigrants do. Lawfully residing immigrants can only get deported under some enumerated rules of particular kind of laws broken, whereas a DACA recipient that has three misdemeanors can be deported fairly quickly and with fewer legal protections.
---

That's what I said, that we are "authorized by DHS to be present in the United States". It's a strawman to argue we don't have the same rights as fully legal immigrants or citizens.

We can get into the semantics of "status" if you want. The USCIS website is saying our status doesn't change as in we're legal because this is is just a temporary action. But a DACA recipient's status is obviously a legal one passed by the law. They are legally afforded a status of being in this country, that's undeniable.
---

Balrog baby what is you doing?

Also pow pow you have any new shirtless pics?

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

That's what I said, that we are "authorized by DHS to be present in the United States". It's a strawman to argue we don't have the same rights as fully legal immigrants or citizens.

So, here is what I was responding to:

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

Cal12 posted...

Legally because of an end around by democrats. Youre technically still illegal but allowed to stay because of DACA.

Incorrect. DACA changes our status from illegal to temporarily legalized.

His take is essentially correct, and you are disagreeing with him. DACA doesn't even really grant 'lawful presence' except with respect to admissibility, which is an immigration term. That clause is in there so that someone who receives DACA protections isn't barred from legally becoming a citizen, because typically entering the country illegally is grounds for inadmissibility. So actually that clause is further proof that DACA does not grant any kind of legal status, it's specially written because DACA recipients are not legally present for most purposes.

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

We can get into the semantics of "status" if you want. The USCIS website is saying our status doesn't change as in we're legal because this is is just a temporary action. But a DACA recipient's status is obviously a legal one passed by the law. They are legally afforded a status of being in this country, that's undeniable.

They certainly have legal rights, but all noncitizens do. DACA is an executive order, meaning an administrative rule, not something enshrined in law, which is why the president can revoke it (even the stays issued by courts don't dispute that the president can do this, as opposed to saying congress has to if it were a law, but rather that he needs to state a valid argument for the change in rules, more or less)

again it doesn't really matter for this conversation but he is correct, DACA recipients are still 'illegal.' I'm not strawmanning anything, I'm actually responding to a very specific post chain and you keep trying to change the goal posts to be about the broader topic. Only I'm not saying DACA recipients aren't allowed here or anything like that. Just saying exactly what I said, that he is technically correct and you are technically wrong.

CruelBuffalo posted...

Balrog baby what is you doing?

trying not to oversimplify how policies work
---

Whoa, not responding to all that. This isn't the mid-2000s when most people here are in their teens and are dopey enough to spend hours on line-by-line arguments. Communicate concisely.

Balrog0 posted...

again it doesn't really matter for this conversation but he is correct, DACA recipients are still 'illegal.'

Ultimately we are, but not for the time being. We are legally allowed to be present here, as the USCIS site stated. This says nothing about our comparison to fully legal immigrants or citizens like you brought up. That's why it's a strawman to use that in your argument.
---