Report Reveals Mistakes and Irregularities in Deportations

[Angelhair]

EFE
Mistakes and irregularities have been commonplace in the deportations of many immigrants and there have been "systematic violations" of the basic rights of immigrants, a report presented Thursday revealed.

The study entitled "Deportation Without Due Process," put together by professors of Stanford Law School and Western State University College of Law and attorneys with the National Immigration Law Center, analyzes thousands of documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

She said that during the past 10 years, via the stipulated removal program authorities deported more than 160,000 people "without ever giving them their day in court."

The report emphasized that 96 percent of the people who signed documents agreeing to voluntary deportation never received the advice of a lawyer before doing so.

"These people had no idea that it was a deportation order that they were signing," argued Karen Tumlin, a lawyer for NILC and co-author of the report.

She also emphasized that many of the immigrants - the great majority of them Hispanics - did not understand English and could not pay for a lawyer, and thus signing the order violated their basic rights and, in reality, was not voluntary.

In addition, the investigation found that a script used by immigration agents "is written in broken Spanish, replete with condescending and misleading phrases."

Jayashri Srikantiah, professor of law and director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School and another coauthor of the report, said that it is necessary to remedy the situation by following the recommendations contained within the study.

"First of all, Immigration and Customs Enforcement should not allow the alternative 'deportation or jail' to continue being presented to people, especially to those people who do not have legal representation," Srikantiah said.

Also, the Executive Office for Immigration Review should require that judges hold a hearing in person with the immigrants who do not have an attorney before they sign the voluntary deportation order.

"ICE should be prohibited from using stipulated removal on vulnerable non-citizens and those with strong ties to the U.S. These include, at a minimum, children, people with mental disabilities, and lawful permanent residents," the report urges.

According to ICE statistics, in fiscal year 2010, U.S. authorities deported more than 392,000 immigrants, of whom about 195,000 had no previous criminal records.

Report Reveals Mistakes and Irregularities in Deportations | Fox News Latino

 

[waltky]

Circumventing Congress to stop deportations...

Gutierrez: 'I Want to Thank' Obama for Bypassing Congress to Cancel Deportation of Illegals
September 14, 2011 – Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) thanked President Obama for circumventing the Legislative branch when it comes to immigration law.

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code makes it a federal crime to be in the United States illegally. Nevertheless, the Obama administration in August directed federal immigration officials to use "prosecutorial discretion" in deciding which illegal aliens to detain and deport. “We had a president of the United States that recently was speaking at National Council of La Raza who said during his speech, ‘There are those who simply wish me to bypass Congress when it comes to immigration,’ and many in the audience clapped, saying, ‘Yup, bypass Congress…’” Gutierrez told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) conference on Monday. “He (Obama) said, ‘But I can’t bypass Congress,’ and people in the audience said, ‘Yes you can,’ and you want to know something? They were right -- he could and he did, and I want to thank the President of the United States, and I want to thank all of those that work at the White House for issuing new guidance when it comes to deportations,” Gutierrez added.

(Obama in July told the National Council of La Raza that although the idea of bypassing Congress and changing U.S. immigration laws on his own was “very tempting,” his hands were tied because “that is not how our system works.”) Gutierrez, who has criticized Obama for not taking up immigration reform, said a million people have been deported from the United States during the last 30 months. But under the new policy, those who came to the U.S. as children will not be deported. “It means that one million young immigrants to this country get to live and survive for another day, and that’s a victory -- that they’re not being deported and as a matter of fact that there are cancellations of deportations.”

The DREAM Act, which would have granted young people a pathway to legalization if they went to college or served in the U.S. military, was rejected by Congress in December 2010, but administration's new "discretion" policy will now allow them to stay in the U.S., Gutierrez said. In June, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, a component of the Homeland Security Department, issued a memo outlining the new immigration policy. Unless the illegal alien poses national security concerns, has a serious criminal history, poses a threat to public safety, is a human rights violator or is involved in “significant” immigration fraud, he or she will probably will not be deported.

The memo also directs ICE agents to take into consideration how long an individual has been in the U.S., whether that person has a spouse or children who are U.S. citizens, and whether that person has a serious criminal record. Crimes victims, witnesses to crimes, or people who are charged with minor traffic violations also would avoid deportation under the ICE guidance. According to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, the new discretion policy will result in a case-by-case review of an estimated 300,000 undocumented immigrants facing deportation in federal immigration courts. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) introduced the HALT Act in June. The bill is intended to prevent the Obama administration from granting de facto amnesty under the guise of prosecutorial discretion.

Source

Also See:

White House Compares Illegal Immigration to Jaywalking
Sept. 14, 2011 - Cecilia Munoz, the White House director of intergovernmental affairs, compared the federal crime of being in the country illegally to jaywalking.

"If you were running the police department of any urban area in this country, you would spend more resources going after serious criminals than after jaywalkers. DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) is doing the immigration equivalent of the same thing," Munoz told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) conference on Monday. Munoz was referring to the administration's new policy of "prosecutorial discretion," outlined in a June memo from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which falls under DHS.

Under the new policy, immigration officials will prioritize deportation orders, acting only on those involving people convicted of serious crimes or those who pose a national security or public safety threat. The memo also directs ICE agents to consider how long an individual has been in the U.S., whether that person has a spouse or children who are U.S. citizens, and whether that person has a serious criminal record. Crimes victims, witnesses to crimes, or people who are charged with minor traffic violations, would avoid deportation under the ICE guidance.

Munoz said the administration is acting within its authority - "but we also all understand that even as we use our administrative authority, make the right enforcement judgments, it is not the permanent solution for anybody, it doesn't solve our immigration problems. In order to do that, we need the Congress of the United States." Munoz also indicated that the administration's new "discretion" policy is part of a "progression" of "work that's been going on for several years." "We have 10 million, 11 million undocumented people in this country and it's abundantly clear to anybody who's paying attention that we're not going to deport that entire population," said Munoz.

"It's not humanly possible. It's ridiculously expensive...and so what DHS is doing for the first time is trying to have a strategy around the law-enforcement work that it does, and so while it's enforcing the law vigorously, as [Congressman Luis Gutierrez] points out, it's also making strategic judgments about who is a priority for enforcement and who isn't." At the same conference, Rep. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) thanked President Obama for by passing Congress when it comes to immigration.

White House Official Compares Illegal Immigration to Jaywalking | CNSnews.com

 

[Xchel]

Angelhair, I think the problem here lies in that they don't have to give due process or read rights because it is a civil infraction..however, if they charge them with a criminal infraction, even a misdemeanor it means the government spends more because they have to provide them with an attorney, read them their rights and give them a trial by jury....right now the only consequence is deportation...well and exclusion which seems to me should include due process...especially since it seperates families for years.

 

[Angelhair]

Stop them at the border!!! That is the ONLY solution. Stop spending so much money on due process and use that money to secure the border even if it takes the military to do it. Do away with the anchor baby perk - due away with the hiring and mandate E-verify througout the nation. NO more free medical; no more free education; no more free/reduced housing. And most of all no more pandering and treating them like spoiled children. This country continues to create monsters and then does not know what to do with them. When something is your creation and it has failed, you stop the creating. So, stop it !!!! Either this country is a country of laws....or.....it is not!!!

 

[LilOlLady]

Day in court? Why should they be allowed a Day in Court? Isn't being in the country illegally enough? If you are in the country illegally they are departable. Period. I don't think Sheriff Joe give them a day unless it is a day to get their affairs in order and leave.

 

[LilOlLady]

Angelhair, I think the problem here lies in that they don't have to give due process or read rights because it is a civil infraction..however, if they charge them with a criminal infraction, even a misdemeanor it means the government spends more because they have to provide them with an attorney, read them their rights and give them a trial by jury....right now the only consequence is deportation...well and exclusion which seems to me should include due process...especially since it seperates families for years.

Illegal immigration and legal resident status separates families for years. Deportation unite families. Children with grand parents and adults with their parents. Some anchor babies have never seen their grand parents or know the land of their ancestors.

 

[Xchel]

Day in court? Why should they be allowed a Day in Court? Isn't being in the country illegally enough? If you are in the country illegally they are departable. Period. I don't think Sheriff Joe give them a day unless it is a day to get their affairs in order and leave.

It is called a constitution and the Bill of Rights and it is called DUE PROCESS

 

[Amelia]

Day in court? Why should they be allowed a Day in Court? Isn't being in the country illegally enough? If you are in the country illegally they are departable. Period. I don't think Sheriff Joe give them a day unless it is a day to get their affairs in order and leave.

It is called a constitution and the Bill of Rights and it is called DUE PROCESS

The constitution protects the rights of citizens.

Furthermore, the constitution is not a suicide pact. Noncitizens without permission to be here have no standing.

 

[Xchel]

Day in court? Why should they be allowed a Day in Court? Isn't being in the country illegally enough? If you are in the country illegally they are departable. Period. I don't think Sheriff Joe give them a day unless it is a day to get their affairs in order and leave.

It is called a constitution and the Bill of Rights and it is called DUE PROCESS

The constitution protects the rights of citizens.

Furthermore, the constitution is not a suicide pact. Noncitizens without permission to be here have no standing.

wrong, it protects all people..in fact it says people not citizens.

 

[Amelia]

It is called a constitution and the Bill of Rights and it is called DUE PROCESS

The constitution protects the rights of citizens.

Furthermore, the constitution is not a suicide pact. Noncitizens without permission to be here have no standing.

wrong, it protects all people..in fact it says people not citizens.

Oh brother.

"We the People of the United States, ...."

People who are not citizens are not people of the United States. They are people of another nation and should be returned to that nation when they do not have permission to be here.

It is OUR constitution. Not the constitution of the world.



The founding fathers did not foresee that there would be a breed of Americans who would deny common sense and support politicians who would parse the meaning of the word "is". But even if they had tried to dot all their i's and cross all their t's and gaze into a crystal ball to try to accommodate the many ways which addle-minded liberals would try to misunderstand plain language, they still could not have satisfied you.


The Bill of Rights protects citizens. It does not protect people who are in the custody of the government for transgressing the law and threatening our security.

 

[Angelhair]

They are protected by the U.S. Constitution but are NOT afforded ALL the rights that citizens are.

 

[Xchel]

if they aren't given rights please by all means explain Plyler v Doe...

Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

and again here in this decision

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

and this decision

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

so just where do you get that it doesn't protect illegal immigrants when repeatedly the court has ruled that you are 100% wrong?

 

[Amelia]

if they aren't given rights please by all means explain Plyler v Doe...

Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

and again here in this decision

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

and this decision

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

so just where do you get that it doesn't protect illegal immigrants when repeatedly the court has ruled that you are 100% wrong?

I can't argue case law.

If people are not here legally they should be sent back to where they belong. If their parents brought them here illegally, then their parents did them a severe injustice but we don't owe them anything. If parents rob a bank, they don't get to keep the money and their kids don't get to keep the money. They don't get to stay out of jail just because they happen to be parents. We can't save the world. We have enough trouble trying to save our own citizens.

We have to do something to stop people from thinking it's worth the gamble to come here and set down roots illegally. So far the US is a lottery which is stacked in illegal immigrants' favor.

Obama started to do something right with enforcement but then someone poked him and said, dang, you're looking like someone who respects law and order. Stop it now. So he stiopped it.


The constitution is not a suicide pact. Or should not be. I'll have to leave it at that.

 

[Angelhair]

if they aren't given rights please by all means explain Plyler v Doe...

Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

and again here in this decision

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

and this decision

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

so just where do you get that it doesn't protect illegal immigrants when repeatedly the court has ruled that you are 100% wrong?

In these cases MY point was made. They are PROTECTED. They do NOT have the right to drive; the right to vote; the right to travel freely outside the USA to name a few. But in any case, they are not given ALL rights that are given to citizens but ARE protected.