Activist Sues ICE For Its Unconstitutional Targeting Of Immigrants' First Amendment-Protected Activities

from the IF-YOU-DONT-LIKE-ICE-THAN-GO-BACK-TO-YR-COUNTRY-ETC dept

ICE has been instructed to make the nation safer by deporting the "worst of the worst." The nation will be made secure again, said the DHS, pointing to its report declaring three-quarters of those convicted for terrorism offenses were "foreign-born." Of course, to reach this ratio, the DHS had to count people the US government had extradited to the US to face trial for terrorism attacks committed in foreign countries, but whatever. The point is: foreigners are dangerous and ICE is going to remove them. An ongoing "challenge" for ICE has been finding enough dangerous immigrants to deport, so it's had to change its strategy a bit.

So, if we're trying to root out would-be terrorists and MS-13 gang members and undocumented immigrants with long domestic criminal rap sheets, why is ICE targeting people for their First Amendment activities? That's what one rights activist wants to know, and he's taking ICE to court to force it to explain itself. Kevin Gosztola of ShadowProof has more details.

Immigrant rights activist Ravi Ragbir, who recently had his deportation stayed by a federal court, the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, Casa de Maryland, Detention Watch Network, the New York Immigration Coalition and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild are all plaintiffs pursuing the First Amendment lawsuit.

“Federal immigration authorities have specifically targeted prominent and outspoken immigrant rights activists across the country on the basis of their speech and political advocacy on behalf of immigrants’ rights and social justice,” the lawsuit declares [PDF]. “These activists have been surveilled, intimidated, harassed, and detained, their homes have been raided, many have been plucked off the street in broad daylight, and some have even been deported.”

“The ‘broad discretion exercised by immigration officials,’ has been abused in a cynical effort to punish those who disagree with [President Donald Trump’s] administration. To sweep away all opposition. The government’s targeting of activists on the basis of their core political speech is unfair, discriminatory, and un-American. And it violates the First Amendment.”

Ragbir isn't dangerous. Nor should he be anyone's idea of someone ICE should expend resources deporting. Ragbir has lived in the US for 25 years, has advocated for people like him, and has generally been all the things we want from US citizens. The only problem is that he isn't one. He's faced a "final order of removal" since 2007, but that has been extended time and time again because he's someone who's a credit to this country, even if he doesn't have the paperwork in to make it permanent.

Despite this, ICE arrested him and sent him from New York to a Miami detention facility. He was not given any of the courtesies one expects would be given to someone who's lived peacefully and productively in the United States for a quarter-century. Instead, he was treated like the "worst of the worst," and not even given a chance to get his personal affairs in order or say goodbye to the family he would be leaving behind.

This resulted in a scathing court order from a federal judge in New York. The full order [PDF] is worth reading but here are a few of the highlights. It opens with this devastating paragraph and the heat never lets up.

There is, and ought to be in this great country, the freedom to say goodbye. That is, the freedom to hug one's spouse and children, the freedom to organize the myriad of human affairs that collect over time. It ought not to be -- and it has never before been -- that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust, regimes where those who have long lived in a country may be taken without notice from streets, home, and work. And sent away. We are not that country; and woe be the day that we become that country under a fiction that laws allow it. We have a law higher than any that may be so interpreted -- and that is our Constitution. The wisdom of our Founders is evident in the document that demands and requires more; before the deprivation of liberty, there is due process; and an aversion to acts that are unnecessarily cruel.

[...]

In sum, the Court finds that when this country allowed petitioner to become part of our community fabric, allowed him to build a life with and among us and to enjoy the liberties and freedoms that come with that, it committed itself to allowance of an orderly departure when the time came, and it committed itself to avoidance of unnecessary cruelty when the time came. By denying petitioner these rights, the Government has acted wrongly.

While the court agrees ICE has the statutory authority to enforce deportation actions, it does not have the authority to pursue them in this manner. Its treatment of Ragbir was unconstitutional, given Ragbir's extended stay in the US without incident and frequent timely renewals of his work permit and permission to stay. The tactics used by ICE were cruel and capricious. And, as argued by Ragbir in his lawsuit, likely the result of ICE's disagreement with his First Amendment activities. All of this is unconstitutional, even if technically legal under ICE's statutory guidance.

Here, instead, the process we have employed has also been unnecessarily cruel. And those who are not subjected to such measures must be shocked by it, and find it unusual. That is, that a man we have allowed to live among us for years, to build a family and participate in the life of the community, was detained, handcuffed, forcibly placed on an airplane, and today finds himself in a prison cell. All of this without any showing, or belief by ICE that there is any need to show, that he would not have left on his own if simply told to do so; there has been no showing or even intimation that he would have fled or hidden to avoid leaving as directed. And certainly there has been no showing that he has not conducted himself lawfully for years. Taking such a man, and there are many such men and women like him, and subjecting him to what is rightfully understood as no different or better than penal detention, is certainly cruel. We as a country need and must not act so. The Constitution commands better.

Ragbir isn't suing ICE simply because of its targeting of him. His lawsuit points out he's not the only activist ICE has taken action against, using similar unconstitutional tactics.

ICE agents arrested Jean Montrevil, a Haitian national immigrant rights activist, co-founder of the New Sanctuary Coalition, and green card holder, on January 3. It was mere days before Ragbir’s check-in, which led to his detention. Montrevil was deported to Haiti on January 9. Authorities forced him to leave his four children—all U.S. citizens.

According to the lawsuit, Montrevil’s lawyer asked Scott Mechkowski, the ICE Deputy Field Office Director for New York, why ICE agents were deployed to “apprehend” Montrevil at his home “months before his scheduled check-in.”

“We [ICE] war-gamed this over and over,” Mechkowski apparently replied. “[T]his was the best time and place to take him.”

Several more are listed in the lawsuit (and covered by Shadowproof). In each case, immigrants appear to have been targeted for their activism or engagement with entities providing shelter and care for other immigrants. None of those listed faced deportation for illegal acts and many of those had lived in the States for years, raising families and becoming positive additions to their communities.

ICE has been given free rein by the current administration which never misses an opportunity to portray undocumented immigrants as inherently dangerous. If this lawsuit goes far enough, it should lay bare ICE's forays into unconstitutional behavior.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Dan (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 3:30am

    So people are in the country illegally, and are vocal about being in the country illegally, and they get picked up. That's a constitutional problem somehow? Sure, the First Amendment protects your right to confess to breaking the law, but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of breaking the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bruce C., 14 Feb 2018 @ 4:31am

      Did you miss the one...

      where they deported a green card holder? It's not just "illegals".
      "ICE agents arrested Jean Montrevil, a Haitian national immigrant rights activist, co-founder of the New Sanctuary Coalition, and green card holder, on January 3. It was mere days before Ragbir’s check-in, which led to his detention. Montrevil was deported to Haiti on January 9. Authorities forced him to leave his four children—all U.S. citizens."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:08am

        Re: Did you miss the one...

        You come here Illigally, knock up someone, have Kids, that still gives you ZERO right to stay. By the way, the Kids can go back with you. Then the family stays together. When the kids grow up and turn 18, and leave, they can legally come back to the U.S. on their own.

        Maybe, while tossed out of the U.S. and taking your kids with you, you can apply to come into the U.S. Legally, getting in the back of the line like everyone else. It won't be fast, but it'll be legal. Then you can bring your kids back into the U.S.

        I don't see how being an Illegal gives you any constitutional rights. You're not an American, you should have no constitutional rights. Should get the boot right out of this country. I don't care if you're as white as can be from Canada. Illegal is Illegal.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:45am

          Re: Re: Did you miss the one...

          > You're not an American, you should have no constitutional rights.

          Courts would disagree with you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:44am

          Re: Re: Did you miss the one...

          Yeah - who cares about that being created equal bullshit - amirite?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:53am

          Re: Re: Did you miss the one...

          You, presumably an American have obviously never read the Constitution. And yet you bitch about other people breaking the law when you don’t know the first thing about your own.


          Also thanks for paying real money that someone had to earn by working an actual job, for the first word. Nothing like paying to put your ignorance on display for the whole world to see. I hope Mike donates it to the ACLU.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 1:55pm

          Re: Re: Did you miss the one...

          You come here Illigally, knock up someone, have Kids, that still gives you ZERO right to stay.

          "Knock up someone"? That's an interesting way of saying "meet someone wonderful, fall in love, get married and have multiple kids, be a productive, contributing member of society..."

          Maybe, while tossed out of the U.S. and taking your kids with you, you can apply to come into the U.S. Legally, getting in the back of the line like everyone else. It won't be fast, but it'll be legal. Then you can bring your kids back into the U.S.

          I assume you'll take this the wrong way, but you are a cruel, heartless person. Please go away.

          I don't see how being an Illegal gives you any constitutional rights.

          You are also wrong about the Constitution.

          I don't see how being an Illegal gives you any constitutional rights. You're not an American, you should have no constitutional rights. Should get the boot right out of this country. I don't care if you're as white as can be from Canada. Illegal is Illegal.

          1. You're wrong about the Constitution. 2. You're wrong about immigration. 3. You're heartless and cruel. I hope you're lucky enough and privileged enough in your life never to have to face adversity or face a government trying to kill you and your family. I also hope, one day, you might learn about all the benefits and privileges you enjoy today because of so-called "illegal" immigrants.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 3:00pm

          "Illegal is Illegal."

          Which prompts our daily reminder that we are all felons and cannot help be felons by some laws including the CFAA, the espionage act and for the crime of conspiracy. It is only because of prosecutory discretion, the right of district attorneys to choose which crimes they want to prosecute in court (id est selective enforcement) that we are not all in prison for long sentences.

          But if an agent of the state, a law enforcement officer or some other official wants to make sure you disappear, (or just confiscate your stuff) he has approximately a 90% chance of succeeding to get you convicted and in prison.

          We are all criminals.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Cowardly Lion, 14 Feb 2018 @ 4:47pm

          Quality lacking

          "the Kids"

          "come into the U.S. Legally, "

          Your lack of understanding of English grammar is as deficient as your lack of understanding of the US Constitution; nowhere does it differentiate between internal and external.

          Also, I have a feeling you lack the basic requisites to qualify as human.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Thad, 15 Feb 2018 @ 7:19am

            Re: Quality lacking

            Q: What's the difference between a pro-immigrant rally and an anti-immigrant rally?

            A: The immigrants' signs have better spelling.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 5:28am

      Re:

      It's worth repeating:

      "So people are in the country illegally"

      FTA:

      "green card holder"

      There's clearly more to the story than you have assumed.

      Also, I'd argue that where someone is essentially a credit to the country but is being deported on technicalities (as appears to be the case with the main subject of the article), there is another approach other than "the law is the law" that would make sense. Sure, enforce your immigration laws, but it does seem a little bizarre when you're deporting both people who are a positive benefit to the country and people who have actually gained prior permission to reside there.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 7:23am

      Re:

      It's spelled out for you, in the fucking article, how it's a Constitutional problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Cdaragorn (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 7:52am

      Re:

      Go back and read the article again, you clearly missed a lot the first time through.
      What the judge called unconstitutional had NOTHING to do with their deporting him. It had to do with how they treated him as they did that.
      You should also go do some basic research into what it means to hold a green card. A person can be in the United States LEGALLY without being a citizen. Your assumptions are all wrong here.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 3:33am

    And those cheering on this sort of behavior missing the point that when they run out of those damn illegals, they are gonna start on the damn unamerican... and someone might turn them in because they didn't put their flag up on worship trump day.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DiscontentedMajority (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 4:21am

    Bit one sided

    The ICE wants him deported because he is a criminal who was convicted of "conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud" for his part in the theft of about half a million dollars from his company and served 3 years in prison for it. He was given a final order of removal in 2007, and has been dodging that through the legal system for 9 years.

    It's not like this is some kind of baseless attack on him because of his beliefs, and it's not a new thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 6:20am

      Re: Bit one sided

      Is that true? It contradicts the court's statement "certainly there has been no showing that he has not conducted himself lawfully for years."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 6:56am

        Re: Re: Bit one sided

        A quick search indicates that it's true.

        In his case, he was convicted of wire fraud in 2001 after the mortgage company that he worked for was investigated for fraudulent loan applications. He served a five-year jail sentence, then spent two years in immigration detention while he was in deportation proceedings.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 7:28am

          Re: Re: Re: Bit one sided

          And after that he was allowed to stay (in relative freedom) and work for another ten years; living the life of a resident. Yet bureaucracy does not allow the mark "permanent" to his residency.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Cdaragorn (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:01am

          Re: Re: Re: Bit one sided

          That's funny, because that article shows that what you're implying isn't true at all.

          He paid for the crime, assuming the article is actually true. So he's NOT a criminal anymore and cannot be punished or treated as if he is. This would explain why the JUDGE evaluating this case wouldn't bring this issue up.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Roger Strong (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Bit one sided

            When a non-citizen is convicted for a jailable AND deportable offense, normal practice is to jail them AND THEN deport them. Serving their time does not wipe the slate clean.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 17 Feb 2018 @ 4:41am

              Insult to injury

              That strikes me as rather cruel. 'First we're going to throw you in jail, then we're going to throw you out of the country'. If they do something deserving of deportation just deport them first, don't lock them up and then do it after they get out.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 17 Feb 2018 @ 3:27pm

              Re: Serving their time does not wipe the slate clean.

              What is the point of serving the time, then?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 18 Feb 2018 @ 2:32am

                Re: Re: Serving their time does not wipe the slate clean.

                Some people would rather waste taxpayer money on retribution than deal with the underlying problem or find solutions that don't involve feeding the for-profit prison system (that taxpayers still fund, of course). That's part of the reason why the US has the highest proportion of their population in prison in the world.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    it's in the name, 14 Feb 2018 @ 4:31am

    it's in the name ICE

    International crediting enemy

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 4:50am

    Living here illegally is an illegal act

    "None of those listed faced deportation for illegal acts and many of those had lived in the States for years, raising families and becoming positive additions to their communities."
    That is not true as the basis of living here without a valid visa or green card is an illegal act.
    I personally think there should be exceptions made for anyone of first nation blood since this was their land before we stole it, and therefor should be naturalized citizens by default. I do think we should be doing more to stop illegal immigration from other countries though. The legal process is hard enough without everyone and their mother trying to circumvent it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 5:34am

      Re: Living here illegally is an illegal act

      "The legal process is hard enough without everyone and their mother trying to circumvent it.|"

      There's a good argument that the reason why so many people do it illegally is *because* the legal process is so hard. Not everyone, but there's a huge difference between the Mexicans who get dropped off to drug gangs through a coyote and the people who overstay their visas and end up staying there for decades, even if some people would like you to believe that all immigrants are the former group.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Cdaragorn (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:06am

      Re: Living here illegally is an illegal act

      " for anyone of first nation blood since this was their land before we stole it"

      I get what you're going for, but this is a classic basic fallacy. All one has to do is take it one step further: who'd they steal this country from?

      If we followed this kind of logic then everyone would be able to claim citizenship in multiple countries around the world. Trying to pretend that ONLY one group ever invaded anyone ever or that one group is entirely in the wrong making another entire in the right is just ridiculous. History does not bear your perception out.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:27am

        Re: Re: Living here illegally is an illegal act

        "All one has to do is take it one step further: who'd they steal this country from?"

        If the answer is "nobody, they were the first human being there"? Obviously, everybody came from somewhere originally, but how far back do you want to go? I think that standard of "those guys were doing OK until the current lodgers moved in and killed everyone" does bear some credit,.

        "Trying to pretend that ONLY one group ever invaded anyone ever or that one group is entirely in the wrong making another entire in the right is just ridiculous."

        I think the point is the scale of the genocide that happened, rather than simply who was there first.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chris-Mouse (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 5:17am

    You have to remember, the Constitution protects the rights of "All persons" but to the Trump administration you're not a person unless you have an annual income in the millions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 3:08pm

      So it has been about "equality" since the dawn of time.

      Remember that the Constitution made us all equal...except for slaves and women, and sharecroppers and people in debt, and Mormons and any other religion that was too weird.

      The Trump era has just put American hypocrisy into sharp relief.

      Equality has to be for absolutely everyone, or it's not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 5:18am

    Doesnt the constitution apply only to citizens of the US?

    He isn't a citizen legally so why should his non existent 1st amendement right be respected?

    The job of ICE is to deport illegals, if they are illegals and manifest as such isn't it normal that they get the boot?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 5:41am

        Re: Re:

        Haven't these 4 judges been overtuned in the past year?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 7:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's the first non-partisan looking link I found in a quick search, but as I understand it, because of the way the constitution is written some clauses apply to people in the US whether citizens or not. Some aspects only apply to citizens, of course, but the overall document has pieces that apply to both.

          As an example, because the 14th amendment states things that apply to "citizens" and those that apply to "any person within its jurisdiction". The right to vote will apply to citizens, but "the equal protection of the laws" applies equally to non-citizens. I'm not American, so I'm going off my general understanding here, but basically you don't get to treat people however you want just because they've been caught there illegally, there's still laws that apply.

          You may not like that, but personally I'm happy that I don't become a non-person if I decide to visit your country just because you're scared of others who might not have filed the correct paperwork to get there. Just as I'm happy that any American who visits my country has certain guaranteed rights there should they need them.

          Anyway - tldr - I believe you're wrong if you say the entire constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            There's no problem coming to the U.S. for a VISIT Legally!!! It's the coming Legally, and they staying Illegally. 2 completely different things.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes, and nowhere did I state otherwise. Nonetheless, non-citizens still have some rights whether they came without permission, are staying with permission, or have overstayed their welcome. Whether you like it or not, people are not yours to do with as you please just because their presence is in violation of some law (usually civil, not even criminal).

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The original question was:

              Doesnt the constitution apply only to citizens of the US?

              That covers legal visitors.

              Immigrants are protected by the Constitution vs. deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. They have freedom of speech and religion, and if arrested, a right to a Miranda warning.

              The big exception is that they're not allowed to vote in state and national elections.

              This is the same for undocumented immigrants except for a further exception; they get almost no due process in removal proceedings.

              That last bit doesn't apply to this guy. He's a fully documented immigrant. But one who has committed a crime. He's stayed legally while getting his due process, and that process has run out.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 9:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "The right to vote will apply to citizens, but "the equal protection of the laws" applies equally to non-citizens."

            This is correct. We extend the protection of our laws to all who are subject to those laws, whether they're citizens or not, whether they're here illegally or not, whether they're war criminals or not, whether they're anything. How they got here is irrelevant: maybe they immigrated illegally. Maybe they're visiting for the week. Maybe we captured them in a war zone. Maybe they were born here and are citizens. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

            If you think about it rationally for a bit, it should soon become clear why this is so. If it weren't, then we wouldn't have a double standard: we'd have an N-standard, where N is the number of unique situations that each of these people represent. That's a jurisprudence nightmare AND it's unfair.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Cdaragorn (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:10am

        Re: Re:

        This is a common misunderstanding of the Constitution. As another commenter pointed out judges have made it clear in the past that this is not true, but I'd like to give some understanding as to why.

        The whole point of the Constitution when it was written was to address how people should be treated, period. We only have power to enforce it's principals within our borders, but we should be abiding according to those principals at all times regardless of who we are engaging with or where.

        Yes US citizens do have more protection than non-citizens, but it does still afford protection to everyone regardless.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 5:37am

    lol...freedom to say goodbye

    That'll work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 7:29am

    The nation will be made secure again, said the DHS, pointing to its report declaring three-quarters of those convicted for terrorism offenses were "foreign-born." Of course, to reach this ratio, the DHS had to count people the US government had extradited to the US to face trial for terrorism attacks committed in foreign countries, but whatever.

    In the same article:

    The report considers only those incidents motivated by international terrorist groups — so instances of domestic terrorism are not counted.

    Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:05am

    "ICE has been instructed to make the nation safer by deporting the "worst of the worst.""

    So ICE will be deporting Trump and friends soon?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 8:48am

    Dude was ordered to leave in 2007. He couldn't find the time to say goodbye in the 11 years since?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OA (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 9:08am

    Saddened

    I'm saddened by the "The First Word", some of the comments and the mind set that has produced and is sustaining the situation discussed in the article.

    I'm struck by how much of this seems frighteningly familiar. Instead of analysis, I'm struck by a thought:

    Hopefully, one day people won't look back at this time and wonder how so many people permitted some tragic event(s) to occur.

    .
    .
    .

    P.S. - Solution: ban religion /s

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 9:19am

    So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

    The US of A is TOO nice: "He's faced a "final order of removal" since 2007, but that has been extended time and time again"

    "Despite this, ICE arrested him and sent him from New York to a Miami detention facility. He was not given any of the courtesies one expects would be given to someone who's lived peacefully and productively in the United States for a quarter-century. Instead, he was treated like the "worst of the worst," and not even given a chance to get his personal affairs in order or say goodbye to the family he would be leaving behind."

    Do you notice THE TEN YEAR DELAY HE WAS AFFORDED IN WHICH TO SETTLE MATTERS AND GO PEACEABLY AT TIME OF HIS CHOOSING?

    Because of that TEN YEAR PROCESS this one activist judge is sure to be overturned, and the new suit should be summarily dismissed: it's simply baseless way to obtain more delay. But there's a limit to even judicial largess.

    This only affords Techdirt another opportunity to show it favors ILLEGAL immigrants over citizens, and that it rabidly hates Trump.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:01am

      Re: So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

      Perhaps we should throw the ICE agents out. It's clear they're fucking freeloaders, collecting a paycheck while doing absolutely nothing. How else can you explain why this guy was here for 10 years?

      Republicans are so concerned about immigrants being lazy and not contributing to society. They should focus on these lazy ICE agents living off the system instead. Amirite?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re: So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

        Please. A little compassion for the agents. They were operating under a laissez faire mandate from the previous administration.

        Republicans are not complaining about lazy immigrants, but the criminal illegal immigrants.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:51am

          Re: Re: Re: So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

          "Republicans are not complaining about lazy immigrants"

          Yeah - they never do that.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:59am

          Re: Re: Re: So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

          “And some, I assume are good people.”

          You forget that one already did ya?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 11:04am

          Re: Re: Re: So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

          Please. A little compassion for the agents.

          Fuck that shit. If they weren't getting these illegals that they clearly knew about out, then they're freeloading pieces of shit sucking off the teat of society. And frankly, they're a bigger expense than the immigrants.

          If we want to get serious about lazy pieces of shit draining society, then we should start with those getting paid significant sums of money to do absolutely nothing. I'm not paying welfare so some lazy as fuck "ICE" agents can sit on their collective asses doing nothing.

          Let them pick some beans and be useful.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 11:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

            Seconded!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:49am

      Re: So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

      who came here illegally ... ILLEGAL immigrants

      That's not the case.

      Illegal immigrants get almost no due process in removal proceedings. This guy arrived legally, and was entitled to due process.

      Look, I agree that he should have been gone shortly after being released from jail, and I suspect most here do. But it's firmly established that even non-citizens get constitutional protections like freedom of speech. Your follow-up - spinning a story on targeting First Amendment activities into...

      This only affords Techdirt another opportunity to show it favors ILLEGAL immigrants over citizens, and that it rabidly hates Trump.

      ...only makes you look like a dishonest ten-year-old with no reading comprehension.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 14 Feb 2018 @ 11:18am

        Re: Re: So for TEN YEARS we've been on our own, and moss grows fat on a rollin' stone, but that's not how it used to be, when the jester sang for the king and queen in a coat he borrowed from James Dean and a voice that came from you and me.

        Have you ever noticed how people who rant about illegal immigrants don't seem to like legal immigration very much either? Funny, that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 11:05am

      Re: So for TEN YEARS we've provided process for this trouble-maker who came here illegally and then uses the time to argue that he should be allowed to openly violate our laws.

      Funny, I thought you sovcits didn’t believe in the government restricting you freedom of travel.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 9:23am

    From my point of view, you're all here illegally

    Please deport yourselves back to your respective countries of origin.

    Sincerely,
    A member of the Lakota Sioux Nation

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    me, 14 Feb 2018 @ 9:27am

    ICE is the new Secret Police

    If not an out right State Sponsored Terror group. To the point of impersonating Municipal police.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:37am

      Re: ICE is the new Secret Police

      Yes, enforcing our laws should be considered terrorism.

      Maybe if local governments didn't work to subvert the laws (and our Constitution) ICE wouldn't have to do a lot of the things they do.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 11:00am

        Re: Re: ICE is the new Secret Police

        The terrorist aspect of law enforcement today does not occur when the law is being enforced, unless the law its self is terroristic in nature which of course it can be, but it occurs when the LEO(s) for no reason; discriminate, act violently, ignore violations, and basically act like terrorists.

        Local governments subvert what laws ... federal laws?
        Yeah - states are not allowed to make their own laws unless you agree.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 11:26am

          Re: Re: Re: ICE is the new Secret Police

          Yeah - states are not allowed to make their own laws unless you agree.

          That sums it up.

          When individual states started allowing same-sex marriage, Republicans demanded that the federal government put a stop to it. But when the federal government started to favor same-sex marriage, for Republicans it suddenly became a states' rights issue that the federal government needed to stay out of.

          Schrödinger's Sovereignty: States' rights and citizens' rights aren't decided until it's observed whether those rights align with Republican ideology.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 11:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE is the new Secret Police

            Not really, because some laws have to be recognized by other states.

            A person married in California should expect that marriage to be recognized in other states, so that does make a difference.

            If you want to make pot legal, fine, but that doesn't force other states to allow its residents to smoke pot legally in their own state.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 2:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE is the new Secret Police

              For a while some states refused to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

              That could affect a great many things from taxes and benefits to even whether someone would be recognized as family and be allowed to visit their dying spouse in hospital.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 3:11pm

      Re: ICE is the new Secret Police

      ICE has it's own internment camps. I can't say if the folks there are forced to work. That's all classified.

      As it will be if internees start getting processed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    ovfuckyou (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 10:54am

    DEPORT THE DEMOCRATS TOO

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 1:49pm

    My favorite part

    Is how America is the bad guy in this for parents putting their own children through this bullshit.

    If your first reaction is to blame America as the bad guy for people invading it and parents putting their children in this position then you should shut up because you are more than too biased to have an intelligent conversation with, you are nothing other than a mindless fundi parroting an agenda.

    America has one of the most lax Immigration policies in the world.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 2:22pm

      Re: My favorite part

      ...then you should shut up because you are more than too biased to have an intelligent conversation with, you are nothing other than a mindless fundi parroting an agenda.

      Oh, the irony. Perhaps you should read the article. It's related to illegal immigration, but that's not what it's about.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Feb 2018 @ 3:16pm

      "putting their own children through this bullshit"

      Amusingly the right is also at the same time trying to reduce access to birth control and abortion, especially to those marginalized.

      Do you know the story behind Fair Spanish Ladies? Even among the noblest and saltiest of peoples, babies happen.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2018 @ 3:50pm

      Re: My favorite part

      Let’s start with your first sentence. Is it a question or a statement? Second what the actual fuck are you trying to say? Periods and commas are your friend. Thirdly bullshit.

      And fourthly why are bigots so often incapable of framing an argument in English as well as, to pick a completely random example, an illegal immigrent trying to blend into society?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Al Goor, 14 Feb 2018 @ 2:54pm

    So where would they have deported

    Timothy McVeigh to?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Feb 2018 @ 3:42pm

    Tony Benn Quote

    “The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Thanks To Our Sponsors

The Techdirt Free Speech Edition
is a partnership with

with sponsorship from:

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.