It goes without saying that this creates a HUGE disincentive for immigrants to follow the rules. Many thousands of Dreamers have voluntarily shared their information with the Federal government based on the implicit promise that cooperation would provide them the best path to permanent residency and citizenship. If ICE betrays that trust and uses said information to track down and deport Dreamers then the next generation of undocumented immigrants will know better than trying to work within the system.
4 Likes
Pretty much.
Of course this is about people who already have an order of removal, with a deferral.
Immigrants who follow the rules are unlikely to have the order of removal.
DACA recipients, of course, may not have been old enough to take any blame for their illegal childhood crossing. But this article is not really about that.
The subject of this article did not get his status revoked because of a parking ticket. From “USA vs Ragbir”- “He [Kosch] told me that he wanted me to do business with him through mycompany [HFC] and set up real estate loans for people that he would send
to me as referrals. He told me that he wanted to get the money from the
loans and would send people to me to use false names and information and
offered to me one point of each loan. One point is one-percent of the dollar amount of each loan. I told him that I would do it for him.
Later in that statement, Ragbir lists twenty-one different loans that he
fraudulently submitted under his arrangement with Kosch. Ragbir’s statement of July
28th similarly confirms the conspiracy:He [Kosch] is the guy that was running the whole scheme through me at my job Household Finance between December 1998 and now. He has organized the filing of 1.5 million dollars worth of fraudulent loans by using me to process the loans through Household Finance and allow others to assume false identities to apply for the loans.”
Can you explain what this has to do with the way in which the enforcement agency chooses to go about arresting and deporting a person?
He is to be deported because he committed crimes - fine. Let’s posit that as a reasonable and lawful thing to do in the circumstances.
Why does that fact mean he has to be arrested when he turns up for a supposed ‘check-in’ and moved a long way across the country, away from his family and friends without any notice?
Equally, what is it that allows a government to “defer” someone’s deportation for many years and then, without warning or any reason being given, change their stance?
One of the points the judge makes in her judgment is that the statutory scheme as written allows what happened in this case. Essentially someone who is subject to deferral can be deported if there is a ‘change in circumstances’.
That seems reasonable and sensible. You might well say that it would be unfair to deport someone but want the option to change your mind if new information comes to light or they do something else wrong, etc.
However, a ‘change in circumstances’ includes the issue of a ‘travel document’.
The obtaining of such a document is entirely in the hands of the immigration enforcement people. It is up to them whether they apply for one or not. If they do, getting one is not difficult.
In this case they could have done it at any time since the supervision order was first granted.
They chose to do so only now - without having to give any reason for that decision.
People forget that we created this problem by inventing the concept of “citizenship.”
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
