Deported illegal is suing us LOL

[TNHarley]

I didn't put lol on there :/

Thank you for explaining your code, though.

I noticed you ignored the bigot accusation.

 

[usmbguest5318]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

Non citizens can sue the government?

Non citizens can sue the government?

I'm not an attorney nor have I searched for every precedent pertaining to standing. I recall a somewhat recent case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., that addressed the matter. It seems from reading the decision and multiple concurring opinions given in the unanimous decision, whether a foreign individual has standing to even bring suit depends on the nature and extent of their "presence" (legal sense of the word). There being multiple concurring opinions means essentially that foreigners may or may not have standing.

As goes the matter of bringing suit against the U.S. Government itself, Price v. United States is likely the predominant decision on the matter. The Constitution is silent on the matter, yet loose construction of that document allowed the Court to impute sovereign immunity as a principle of jurisprudence that the U.S. Government itself cannot be sued unless it accedes to being sued.


How various individuals apply the principle of sovereign immunity can present an interesting dilemma, depending on the approaches the individual in question advocates on other matters. Take, for example, strict constructionists who on a variety of issues argue that because the Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit or permit a given action, that action, thus the right by which one undertakes it, cannot by lesser laws be abridged. Clearly, one cannot be a person of principle who both stands on that notion yet also agrees with the notion of sovereign immunity. A person who do that must rationally be construed not as a principled one, but rather as one who merely wants what they want when it suits (no pun) them.

In contrast, individuals who see the Constitution as one of several relevant guides for jurisprudential decision making don't have that problem. They don't because they don't "box" themselves into a binary position controlled by what one source, a 200+ year old document penned by fallible men, explicitly says or doesn't say.

 

[OldLady]

I didn't put lol on there :/

Thank you for explaining your code, though.

I noticed you ignored the bigot accusation.

You're the bigot for thinking that up, TN.

 

[xyz]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

So you work for the govt?

 

[OldLady]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

Non citizens can sue the government?

Non citizens can sue the government?

I'm not an attorney nor have I searched for every precedent pertaining to standing. I recall a somewhat recent case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., that addressed the matter. It seems from reading the decision and multiple concurring opinions given in the unanimous decision, whether a foreign individual has standing to even bring suit depends on the nature and extent of their "presence" (legal sense of the word). There being multiple concurring opinions means essentially that foreigners may or may not have standing.

As goes the matter of bringing suit against the U.S. Government itself, Price v. United States is likely the predominant decision on the matter. The Constitution is silent on the matter, yet loose construction of that document allowed the Court to impute sovereign immunity as a principle of jurisprudence that the U.S. Government itself cannot be sued unless it accedes to being sued.


How various individuals apply the principle of sovereign immunity can present an interesting dilemma, depending on the approaches the individual in question advocates on other matters. Take, for example, strict constructionists who on a variety of issues argue that because the Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit or permit a given action, that action, thus the right by which one undertakes it, cannot by lesser laws be abridged. Clearly, one cannot be a person of principle who both stands on that notion yet also agree with the notion of sovereign immunity. A person who do that must rationally be construed not as a principled one, but rather as one who merely wants what they want when it suits (no pun) them.

In contrast, individuals who see the Constitution as one of several relevant guides for jurisprudential decision making don't have that problem. They don't because they don't "box" themselves into a binary position controlled by what one source, a 200+ year old document penned by fallible men, explicitly says or doesn't say.

Sounds like there's plenty of wiggle room, either way. He would seem to have had "presence" here though after many years as a legal resident. From his behavior of illegally crossing the border while on probation, I wouldn't have a lot of patience with him, if I were the judge.

 

[TNHarley]

I didn't put lol on there :/

Thank you for explaining your code, though.

I noticed you ignored the bigot accusation.

You're the bigot for thinking that up, TN.

I was just messin with you!!

 

[TNHarley]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

So you work for the govt?

?

 

[usmbguest5318]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

Non citizens can sue the government?

Non citizens can sue the government?

I'm not an attorney nor have I searched for every precedent pertaining to standing. I recall a somewhat recent case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., that addressed the matter. It seems from reading the decision and multiple concurring opinions given in the unanimous decision, whether a foreign individual has standing to even bring suit depends on the nature and extent of their "presence" (legal sense of the word). There being multiple concurring opinions means essentially that foreigners may or may not have standing.

As goes the matter of bringing suit against the U.S. Government itself, Price v. United States is likely the predominant decision on the matter. The Constitution is silent on the matter, yet loose construction of that document allowed the Court to impute sovereign immunity as a principle of jurisprudence that the U.S. Government itself cannot be sued unless it accedes to being sued.


How various individuals apply the principle of sovereign immunity can present an interesting dilemma, depending on the approaches the individual in question advocates on other matters. Take, for example, strict constructionists who on a variety of issues argue that because the Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit or permit a given action, that action, thus the right by which one undertakes it, cannot by lesser laws be abridged. Clearly, one cannot be a person of principle who both stands on that notion yet also agree with the notion of sovereign immunity. A person who do that must rationally be construed not as a principled one, but rather as one who merely wants what they want when it suits (no pun) them.

In contrast, individuals who see the Constitution as one of several relevant guides for jurisprudential decision making don't have that problem. They don't because they don't "box" themselves into a binary position controlled by what one source, a 200+ year old document penned by fallible men, explicitly says or doesn't say.

Sounds like there's plenty of wiggle room, either way. He would seem to have had "presence" here though after many years as a legal resident. From his behavior of illegally crossing the border while on probation, I wouldn't have a lot of patience with him, if I were the judge.

Sounds like there's plenty of wiggle room, either way.

There is. I don't know that it's "plenty," but some exists.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

Why didn't he become a citizen sometime during the 14 years he lived in the US?

$700? Just a guess.

that 50 dollar shirt he wears sure is nice

So was his (more than likely) I-phone 7

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

When he wins or loses, it'll be worth knowing about the case and on what basis Juan wins or loses. Right now, so what? He'll either prevail in court or he won't.

To understand my point, if you don't, read this.

I think it's just a Fd up system when foreigners have any ability to sue the US government or even apply to have it heard in court.

He may not be a murderer, but he does have a history with the law; a history most native born Americans don't have. He's not American Apple Pie by any stretch of the imagination.

The problem with our country (thanks to some of our leaders) is that these people too feel entitled. They believe they are owed something by the taxpayers and government which is welcomed with open arms by the Democrats---but not all of us.

I have no sympathy. Go back to Mexico and live your life there.

 

[busybee01]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.

The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what the real facts are in this case and make a determination. DACA is still the law of the land and the people who are currently in it should be allowed to remain. That is the fair thing to do.

 

[my2¢]

"lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California", that's part of the Ninth Circuit, isn't it? If so this guy should make out even better than the Chinese guy kicked off the United flight.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.

The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what the real facts are in this case and make a determination. DACA is still the law of the land and the people who are currently in it should be allowed to remain. That is the fair thing to do.

Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.

 

[Claudette]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

I wish him good luck with that as his ass heads out of America. LOL

 

[TNHarley]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.

The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what the real facts are in this case and make a determination. DACA is still the law of the land and the people who are currently in it should be allowed to remain. That is the fair thing to do.

If he didn't renew, he isn't legal. Period.

 

[busybee01]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.

The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what

Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.

He says he did and if he has proof that he filed then it is a new ballgame. I know firsthand how the government can screw things up.

 

[TNHarley]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.

The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what

Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.

He says he did and if he has proof that he filed then it is a new ballgame. I know firsthand how the government can screw things up.

if he had proof, don't you think they would have mentioned that?

 

[Rambunctious]

He wasn't deported from here, he was caught trying to scale the fence from Mexico and then he was deported. He is lucky he isn't in jail. His lawsuit is going nowhere.

 

[usmbguest5318]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.

The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what

Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.

He says he did and if he has proof that he filed then it is a new ballgame. I know firsthand how the government can screw things up.

if he had proof, don't you think they would have mentioned that?

LOL

What? Nothing, because that is what appears to be content the other member shared in the post to which you replied.

 

[TNHarley]

DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.

Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.

According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA



dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357

I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.

The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what

Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.

He says he did and if he has proof that he filed then it is a new ballgame. I know firsthand how the government can screw things up.

if he had proof, don't you think they would have mentioned that?

LOL

What? Nothing, because that is what appears to be content the other member shared in the post to which you replied.

Look again. Bee messed up the quote..