ICE claimed Dreamer was gang-affiliated and tried to deport. Federal judge ruled ICE was lying

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sure but the violation here is on government action and the judge ruled against ICE so...

a reply to: Gothmog

Really, if convicted under federal law, people, including american citizens, just lose all their rights?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sure but the violation here is on government action and the judge ruled against ICE so...

LOL, a judge from the structure of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals... :rolleyes: so much for any sort of legal interpretive confidence on that one.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Who cares, that judge isn't the only one.

I already posted one example, which is really all that is needed to prove the "illegals have no rights" argument is wrong.

Wow, you guys calling him a criminal, saying you break the law you pay for it etc, etc... you didn't even read the article! You know how I know you didn't read it and you're just forming your opinion based on your opinion?

Because this is in the article:

At the detention center, it was determined (he) Ramirez Medina was a DACA recipient and did not have a criminal history. Being granted DACA requires a background check and fingerprinting, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services.

He does not have a criminal history and he did not break any law to get arrested.

Hate a little more.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Who cares, that judge isn't the only one.

I already posted one example, which is really all that is needed to prove the "illegals have no rights" argument is wrong.

Yes, one example is a massively impressive sample size. If I'm not mistaken, that's the same standard used by IPCC...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm sure you have heard of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. There is also Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

Sure...they deal with those born in the US. This kid wasn't.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sure but the violation here is on government action and the judge ruled against ICE so...

As I stated before, as soon as ICE agents show up they are considered the bad guys in Seattle. Recently they went and picked up a guy that had a warrant out for him and was being held by the local police. The police had to apologize publicly for cooperating with ICE and had to have a policy change so that wouldn't happen again. That, kind poster, is crap. This judge that ruled that ICE was in the wrong refused to hear the issue about his admittance that he was part of a gang. Instead allowed it as stress induced hearsay by the arresting officers.

Activist judges shouldn't be allowed to judge, but I guess that's too much to ask for.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

No, it isn't a sample size it is the one example need to disprove a blanket statement. If they have at least one right then you can't claim they have "no" rights.

Of course there are more then one but I don't feel like looking them up.

originally posted by: Kharron

He does not have a criminal history and he did not break any law to get arrested.

Hate a little more.

You bring up a good point. How does ICE check on a persons status without them being detained. Also you suggest he was arrested, is that correct, or was he just detained? Do DACAs get some form of paper proof? Did he have anything he could show the ICE officers proof to his self proclaiming DACA status?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Guess you missed the part where the ruling applied to:

all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

Emphasis mine.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No, it isn't a sample size it is the one example need to disprove a blanket statement. If they have at least one right then you can't claim they have "no" rights.

Of course there are more then one but I don't feel like looking them up.

It was also from the 1800's. So a better example should have been used to defend your stance.

Full disclosure, I think that people within a countries boarder should be subjected to the rights and privileges that the country of visitation allows for it's people. This includes protections and rules that the laws of that country has.

In this case the person had stated that they were in a gang, and therefor in violation of the rules under DACA, add to this the fact that his was only asked about his status due to interfering in an attempt the arrest his father for drug trafficking and immigration violations, and your assumption of governmental overreach goes out the window.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Guess you missed the part where the ruling applied to:

all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

Emphasis mine.

Sorry....you apparently dont understand the emphasis yourself and I cant argue with belief....

My nationality is Irish, but I was born in the US....there is a big difference.

a reply to: Xtrozero


He stated that he was here illegally to them, then the agents found out he was under the DACA program when they were processing him.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Kharron

He does not have a criminal history and he did not break any law to get arrested.

Hate a little more.

Also you suggest he was arrested, is that correct, or was he just detained?

Good question. Luckily, it's answered in the OP.

ICE then interrogated Ramirez, fingerprinted and booked him, confiscated his work permit, sent him to a detention center, and placed him in removal proceedings. It also purported to revoke his DACA status, subjecting him to imminent deportation.

Typically, the government may not rescind an individual’s DACA status without giving the beneficiary an opportunity to contest its decision. But ICE claimed that Ramirez’s DACA benefits could be terminated “automatically” because he presented an “egregious public safety concern” due to his alleged gang affiliation.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
My nationality is Irish, but I was born in the US....there is a big difference.

You apparently can't be bothered to read what was linked either because the person in that case was chinese, not born in the US.

that petitioner is a native of China and came to California in 1861, and is still a subject of the Emperor of China...

a reply to: Guyfriday

The court ruled that ICE had lied so what they claim he did or didn't say is moot.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Xtrozero


He stated that he was here illegally to them, then the agents found out he was under the DACA program when they were processing him.

So it seems everything was OK up to that point. They should have released him, and any further actions was wrong.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
It was also from the 1800's. So a better example should have been used to defend your stance.

Unless someone can find where it has been overturned the SCOTUS ruling stands as case law.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: TinfoilTP
Even if that’s the case is it right to break up families now? Because it’s the Democrats fault?

The judge broke up the family. ICE wanted to keep them together by deporting them all.