February 18, 2017

What's due process for a DACA "dreamer" who has no criminal convictions whom the government believes is a member of a violent street gang?

That's my question as I read about the arrest a 23-year-old man named Daniel Ramirez Medina. Medina, who was 7 when he arrived in the U.S.,  has participated in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
While some have suggested that Ramirez’s detention could be a fluke or the action of a rogue agent, David Leopold, a leading immigration lawyer, said the fact that he had been detained for several days already suggested that it was not an error, but part of a broader policy....

Ice spokeswoman Rose Richeson claimed in an email that he was a “self-admitted gang member” who was arrested “based on his admitted gang affiliation and risk to public safety”.

Mark Rosenbaum, one of Ramirez’s attorneys, strongly refuted the allegation, saying in a statement: “Mr Ramirez unequivocally denies being in a gang. While in custody, he was repeatedly pressured by [Ice] agents to falsely admit affiliation.”

Leopold noted that Ramirez has twice passed extensive background checks when he was approved from Daca and had his status renewed. “With the vetting for Daca, the bar is really high.”
UPDATE: Judge won't free Ramirez. And this is a Seattle judge.

54 comments:

Oso Negro said...

"Seattle judge".

Oso Negro said...

"Madeleine Villanueva, a student at the University of California, Berkeley and a Daca recipient who moved from the Philippines at age nine, said it was hard to imagine that the arrest of Ramirez was a “mistake”."

It's really fortunate that a Berkeley student was on hand to offer expert insight.

The Drill SGT said...

here's the nut graph in a different paper:

But gang members aren’t eligible for the program, and the government says Mr. Ramirez not only had a gang tattoo, but said he used to “hang out” with the Sureno gang in California, fled that state to get away from gangs, and but still “hangs out” with the Paizas gang in Washington.

Michael K said...

Yes, I was wondering about tattoos. They have becime so common in this age group that I assume cops and ICE agents can recognize them quickly, No need to ask.

rhhardin said...

Due process is that he gets sent home. You'd nead a trial to puhish him for street gang activity.

He's at liberty in his own country and can pursue happiness there.

Jason said...

That word "refute" people keep using. It does not mean what they think it means.

rhhardin said...

The whom-whistle and flag should be thrown though.

Darrell said...

No, no puede.

Karen of Texas said...

Ah, but Drill SGT, his lawyer says he says he was pressured by ICE to admit he was a gang member. Perhaps he doesn't believe hanging out is membership? /sarc

Get ready for the protesting to ratchet up again. Whether it was an overzealous agent, a genuine misunderstanding/mistake, a "test" case to "create a reason for rioting" - here we go again.

I say get it out there in the open. Let's hash it out now. DACA has always had issues that were simply swept under the rug. Time to air it out, it seems.

Darrell said...

Send him to Canada before Trudeau gets booted out.

David Hampton said...

We wonder what changed in his life of assimilation between arrival and arrest? Look for the same problem, lack of assimilation among newly arrived juveniles from the middle east, who pass vetting but then fall victim to military age angst as they disappear into the diaspora and Ummah.

CJ said...

I can't stand the English style of acronyms. Why do they write things like DACA as Daca? They don't write IRS as Irs so it's inconsistent as well as being annoying.

CJ said...

From the first page of the Guardian strike guide (doh).

"Use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser"

Hagar said...

They repatriated Lucky Luciano, and he passed through Ellis Island at the age of 2, carried in his mother's arms. There is a photograph.

rhhardin said...

So it's Snafu, the Japanese art of cubicle arrangement.

Amadeus 48 said...

His mom told him not to get that tattoo, but he wouldn't listen.

tim maguire said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

Seems to me if you're here under DACA you have an obligation to be a saint. That's sure how I would behave if it were me.

tim maguire said...

I would be open to something like a six month window opening on their 18th birthday to apply for immigrant status for those brought in before 16. Something like that. But he's 23. That's way too old for any kind of preferential treatment based on his childhood.

rhhardin said...

What skills does this person bring to the US that we need.

We're not a charity.

David Begley said...

DACA is unconstitutional. Constitutional law professor Obama told us he didn't have the authority.

damikesc said...

Has any court found DACA to be actually Constitutional in the first place? Presidents can limit prosecutorial action, but they cannot offer de facto amnesty without Congressional approval.

rehajm said...

That's way too old for any kind of preferential treatment based on his childhood.

It's a variant of the Chelsea Clinton defense.

Original Mike said...

"But he's 23. That's way too old for any kind of preferential treatment based on his childhood."

Per ObamaCare, the new age of adulthood appears to be 26.

Bruce Hayden said...

Ann asks a good question - we know how much process is normally due illegal aliens - if I remember right, notice that thery are going to be deported and, if requested, a hearing to hear any reasons not to. Not as much as is due a legal immigrant. But, did Obama's DACA program give the illegals more due process, thanks to being part of DACA? And what happens when DACA, created by the stroke of a pen, is killed the same way? You would think that whatever extra protections DACA provided would go away just as easily, but what about the reliance interest of the DACA illegals? For one thing, they came out of the shadows because of DACA, and some might think it unfair that registering for DACA might make them more visible for ICE. I would give them the benefit of the doubt, if they had been true Dreamers, going into the military to earn the right to stay here. But going to college, often with most of the cost paid by American taxpayers, shouldn't buy much dreaming in my book, and even less if they just managed to graduate from HS (a lot of bait and switch going on by the Obama Admin in terms of what a "Dreamer" was).

Michael K said...

I'm not aware of illegals being able to join the military.

Bruce Hayden said...

The police routinely use tattoos to identify gang affiliation. My understanding is that it is pretty good - esp since falsely claiming to be in one set or gang (with signs, clothes, tats, etc) is very often met with violence. Sometimes even with death. If the guy was wearing tattoos for some set or gang, it is highly likely that he at least was a member, and probably fairly likely that he still was. And, I would expect that even a brief membership in a gang should disqualify him permanently from the DACA program.

Yes, we see more and more tattoos these days, but some stand out. Pretty sure that one of the guys moving us into our new house was Aryan Brotherhood, from his neck tattoos, which likely meant prison. Wasn't worried, since the company is bonded. Little guy, strong as an ox, who has a firmer handshake than guys 100 lbs bigger. They were really good, fast, and cheap, and I expect we will hire them for the next phase.

Bruce Hayden said...

You may be right (esp being much closer to it, through your induction physicals). But my memory is that Dreamers were originally sold to us that way, then they slid in college students, and then those who could spell college.

Owen said...

Tattoos IMHO are this guy's declaration of citizenship. If they are "official" gang tattoos (is there a registry and trademarking and stuff, so you know if you're wearing the right stuff?) then I would say he has a high burden of persuading us all that he was just posing, or picked the wrong drawing at the tattoo parlor, or that he changed his mind.

23 is too old to be talking about being brought here as a young child. What has he done for the country since then?

The DACA thing sounds like a huge mess. Lots of unclear rules and categories and consequences. If the DACA proponents want to resolve those ambiguities and open questions in a way favorable to their cause, they need to find stronger examples than this.

The Drill SGT said...

And what happens when DACA, created by the stroke of a pen, is killed the same way?

more interestingly, IMHO, the DACA forms out your illegal parents already. They have no coverage at all, evah.

Birches said...

Funny how we only have one picture of the guy and it's all fuzzy. I'm guessing he looks a lot more rough than the MSM wants to admit.

MaxedOutMama said...

It is a very interesting question - legally, should they be treated as legal residents or undocumented immigrants?

The legality is complicated by the fact that their status under DACA is conditional - but does having been de facto legalized by the executive branch then confer upon them the rights of a person whose presence has been legalized by the legislative branch and the executive branch? Green cards may also be revoked for cause.

My guess is the courts will go with the idea that they do have due process rights, just as legal residents have due process rights when their status is revoked for cause. This may not turn out so well for people in this situation - the more control is lost by the authorities, the less the average citizen might like this program. More than a thousand Dreamers have had their status revoked, and if now these people can dispute that in the courts, it adds another element.

The reality was that this guy was picked up with his father who is supposed to be a narcotics dealer. The BCS tattoo is associated with a gang in CA. That's an interesting choice of domiciles for someone who is going straight. I suspect that the immigration officials are correct in their assessment.

Carter Wood said...

Refute means disprove. The correct word is rebut. Copy editors used to know the distinction

Levi Starks said...

The very wording of the story is prejudicial against ICE.
Immigration lawyer "says", versus ICE Agent "claims"

Angel-Dyne said...

Jason: That word "refute" people keep using. It does not mean what they think it means.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. It'd be nice to think that a Guardian writer was intelligent enough to be attempting to subtly manipulate the reader here, but, alas, I have no doubt that it's just sheer illiteracy.

Michael K said...

(is there a registry and trademarking and stuff, so you know if you're wearing the right stuff?

Having the right tat is important. If not, you get shot.

Cops know. Good cops anyway,.

Fernandinande said...

Carter Wood said...
Refute means disprove. The correct word is rebut.


www.dictionary.com/browse/rebut
1. to refute by evidence or argument.

Words suck.

Fernandinande said...

Rose Richeson -> Rhinoceroses

Daniel Ramirez Medina -> A Realized Imam Dinner: guilty!

The Godfather said...

What process is due, is a preplexing question, because DACA is not a law, it's not even a regulation; it's a "policy". Wikipedia says:

"DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo formally directed them to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the requirements.

"To apply for DACA, individuals must pay a $495 application fee, submit a number of forms, and produce documents showing they meet the requirements."

So obviously the new President could direct the agencies to exercise their enforcement discretion differently, but my understanding is that President Trump hasn't done this, and doesn't seem to want to do so, at least not at this time.

Because DACA applicants paid an application fee, they may have some basis for claiming a vested right in their DACA status. But the forms that they were required to sign might, for example, reserve the Government's right to revoke their status at any time in the Government's discretion. If the Government has not expressly reserved such discretion, the forms or other disclosures given to the DACA applicant may define the nature of the procedure required to revoke that status. In fact, all of this really should have been spelled out. If it wasn't, then the Obama Administration was as sloppy on DACA as the Trump Administration has been on the "Travel Ban ".

Fernandinande said...

Photos of Ramirez's tattoo in the federal court file is redacted. His attorney said the tattoo says "La Paz BCS," referring to the term "peace" in Spanish and Baja California Sur, the place where Ramirez's attorney said he was born.

"La Paz BCS" on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaPazBajaSurMexico/

Kathryn51 said...

I cannot locate the original article (right after his arrest here in Seattle), but it was my understanding that he was not a target of the "sweep" ,but happened to be at the house with his father who has been deported many times because of his criminal record. Perhaps wrong place, wrong time - but maybe if you are a Daca kid, you should stay away from the criminals (i.e., Daddy).

My weepy liberal friends in Seattle area have found their latest "cause".

Michael K said...

"Photos of Ramirez's tattoo in the federal court file is redacted."

Have none of these people ever taken a grammar lesson ? "Photos --- is ?" Subject verb.

Jeez !

Balfegor said...

Following on the Godfather's post, I think there's no "due process" rights as such, only rights as embedded in the forms they had to sign. I suppose they may have been comparable to a nonprosecution agreement in which a party that is guilty of a violation of the law reaches an agreement with the US government they they pay a fine, promise not to violate the law again, maybe agree not to violate the law again, and in exchange the government agrees not to prosecute. Those agreements are probably enforceable to some extent. But it could also be unilateral, i.e. like the closing letters one sometimes gets from government agencies saying they have looked into this matter and have decided that they are not going to proceed with enforcement at the moment. Those letters are not enforceable, and they're usually loaded up with qualifiers about how the government can reopen the file if they feel like it.

Balfegor said...

Let me qualify that -- they probably still have the usual process they would get if they wanted to claim they were being deported in error, and they were really present in the US legally. But membership in the DACA program would seem to undercut that, since it's basically an admission that you're in the US illegally. I'm sure a lawyer could find grounds to undercut that, e.g. he thought he was here illegally but it turned out, to his surprise, that he was authorised under this or that provision. But the presumption would seem to shift way over towards a determination that he is here illegally.

Leora said...

Didn't members of the mafia get this treatment in the 50's and 60's? If they weren't born here, they would deport them back to Italy.

Yancey Ward said...

I for one would like to see a high resolution picture of this person that was taken in the last 2 weeks. When I can't find a single picture of him from his supporters, I get suspicious. This greatly reminds me of the Trayvon Martin situation where every single story written by the media included a picture of him when he was 12 years old or younger.

hombre said...

“With the vetting for Daca, the bar is really high.”

Yes, it rivals the vetting of President Obama in 2008, I'm sure. Obama vetting for an Obama program. Lol.

hombre said...

Let's have the "vetting" for DACAs be against the standard for legal immigration for a person of similar circumstances. If they qualify for legal admission, they stat. If not, they go.

mccullough said...

Different levels of rights at play. Anyone subject to deportation would have a right to a hearing to contest the allegation that they are not a citizen. That's the highest right and it's understood that this is a constitutional right. The other right for non-citizens are statutory rights. They are also protected by due process but the process is less rigorous. More rigorous if they are in the US and not caught at the border. Border people can be turned back and given a hearing date to assert their statutory right to be present in the US if they claim to fall within one of the statutoryily granted categories. But they have no right to be present in the US. Get a lawyer or attend the hearing by phone from outside the US.

The problem with DACA is Obama categorically adjusted the status of illegals. He didn't have that level of discretion, just a case by case basis. Since that was unconstitutional, the adjustment in this guy's status is void. He's not claiming he is a citizen or green card holder nor is he seeking refugee or asylee status. Whether he's a gang member might be relevant to whether to deport him vs others because law enforcement has limited resources to catch and deport illegals. But his gang membership is irrelevant as to whether he is subject to deportation. So he doesn't deserve a hearing to contest a fact that is irrelevant to his removal.

Jupiter said...

"UPDATE: Judge won't free Ramirez. And this is a Seattle judge."

Oh, fiddlesticks, Althouse. It's not like there's something in the water that makes all judges become corrupt Left Fascists when they enter Seattle. One particular corrupt Left Fascist was placed on the bench by the corrupt Left Fascist senator from Washington. He is a piece of shit, and he stinks. That's all. It is certainly no reason to suppose there are no honest, law-abiding judges in Washington.

Jupiter said...

Bruce Hayden said...

"... what about the reliance interest of the DACA illegals? For one thing, they came out of the shadows because of DACA, and some might think it unfair that registering for DACA might make them more visible for ICE."

Yes, we wouldn't want criminals to be tricked into revealing their wherebouts, would we? Some might think it unfair! Oh wait, yeah, as a matter of fact, that is common police procedure. It's called a sting. They tell 'em they won the lottery or something, and then pick them up on an old warrant. So, no, there is no legal right to not be tricked into revealing your whereabouts to the law enforcement agents looking for you.

It often seems that people with legal education start imagining that laws are just made so that they can play this game they enjoy so much. "reliance interest". Isn't that special. Did they teach you that in law school? Was there a whole week on it, and you wrote a paper and got an A? No, look, Obama lied to the kid. The kid believed him. Tough shit, a lot of people believed Obama's lies. So sue the bastard. I'll hold your coat.

jdniner said...

This google search didn't pull up any gang tattoo info for me.

tattoo la paz bcs -seattle -medina -dreamer

Lot of tattoos these days. And I think the police catalog most of the gang related ones. If there isn't an obvious tatoo-gang connection here then the effort is misguided.

He did run with a gang in the past though.
He was hanging out with his dad.

TomHynes said...

Let's assume that prior to DACA he would be deportable. Did DACA give him any due process rights? The Obama administration that it was merely prosecutorial discretion. How doe a prosecutor deciding to defer prosecution confer due process rights?

Joanne Jacobs said...

The story says he's an unemployed high school dropout who quit his job picking oranges to move to Washington and search for a better job. He is the father of a three-year-old son. He was arrested when police came for his father, a convicted narcotics trafficker who's been deported eight times.