It's not just criminals — ICE is nabbing lawful permanent residents too
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
LOS ANGELES - In 2001, Jose Luis Garcia was convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. Whatever tumult it caused within his family, the event seemed to fade with every passing year as Garcia became a grandfather and inched closer toward retirement.
In June, the nearly 20-year-old conviction came roaring back when immigration agents arrested the 62-year-old as he drank coffee and watered the lawn of his Arleta home.
His daughter, Natalie Garcia, thought there must be a mistake. Her father has been a lawful permanent resident since 1988. He carries his green card in his wallet."We thought this was happening to people like they said - criminals, the gang members," she said in an interview between sobs.
Legal immigrants in the U.S. have never been completely protected from possible deportation. But in its war against illegal immigration, the Trump administration has lowered the bar for whom immigration agents can go after, experts say.
President Donald Trump has vowed to crack down on immigrants with criminal records, saying they should be deported to their home countries. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have carried out a series of sweeps in California this year, detaining hundreds of people. While there has been much emphasis on the arrest of people who don't have criminal records but are here illegally, the arrest of legal immigrants who have convictions deep in their pasts has gotten less attention.
Trump's supporters see this as an important part of his get-tough approach. But others question the fairness of deporting people with legal status who committed relatively minor crimes long ago.
"They are going to go after anybody they can get their hands on who may be deportable," said Michael Kaufman, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. "That leads to cases like Mr. Garcia's, where you have somebody who has lived in the country for decades. He may have committed a crime a long time ago, but he has rehabilitated himself and he's fully an upstanding member of his community and key support for his family."
Because their information is logged into multiple government systems, permanent legal residents can be an easier quarry for enforcement - though the overwhelming majority of people targeted for deportation are in the country illegally.Garcia was picked up during a three-day operation targeting public safety threats in the L.A. area that began on June 10 and netted 162 arrests. Of those, 15 were of lawful permanent residents.
ICE does not track statistics on arrests of immigrants in the U.S. legally, according to the agency. On Jan.1, 2014, an estimated 13.2 million lawful permanent residents lived in the United States, according to a report last year from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Statistics.
"Some of these individuals that we're targeting, some of them have green cards," an ICE agent told his team before they searched for arrest targets. "So we should have a good address on them."
Databases revealed that Garcia "has past criminal convictions that make him amenable to removal from the United States," according to ICE. The agency did not specify the convictions, but a search of court records pulled up the 2001 conviction, as well as a 1987 conviction for violating a protective order. In the domestic violence case, Garcia was sentenced to 25 days in jail and three years' probation.
Lawful permanent residents must meet specific criteria to be subject to removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to ICE. For example, those convicted of an aggravated felony are removable, and lawful permanent residents "who at any time after admission have been drug abusers or addicts and those who are convicted of violating U.S. laws or regulations relating to a controlled substance, other than a single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, are removable," according to ICE.
When someone is applying for naturalization, they must show good moral character for a five-year period preceding the application. In the case of an aggravated felony, one can never meet this standard, which typically bars an applicant from being able to naturalize.
Domestic violence is not considered an aggravated felony, but is "always a deportable crime," regardless of whether it is a misdemeanor or felony or of how many years have passed, according to Carl Shusterman, a Los Angeles immigration attorney who used to work for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It is possible that if Garcia had applied for naturalization, it could have triggered deportation proceedings earlier, Shusterman said.
"Pretty much everybody I've seen, if immigration finds out about the domestic violence conviction, they put them right away into deportation proceedings," Shusterman said.
Garcia's immigration lawyer, Mackenzie Mackins, said that conduct prior to the five-year period can affect whether Garcia meets the requirements for naturalization, but the consideration of such conduct is discretionary.
"Can (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) deny your application and refer you to court at that point? Sure. But I don't think they would have" in cases like Garcia's, Mackins said. "Here, a domestic violence conviction in 2001 would be only a discretionary factor to consider in his naturalization application."
Along with other factors, the number of years without any trouble with the law could be taken into account, she said.
Mackins said her client is eligible for Cancellation of Removal for Permanent Residents, which would allow him to stay in the U.S., because his offense was a misdemeanor and his sentence was under one year.
"There's certain factors we have to litigate in court in front of the immigration judge now for him to keep his green card," Mackins said. "If we win that case and we're successful, he can file for naturalization right away."
On the first day of the ICE operation in June, agents also detained 26-year-old Adriana Espejel, who came to the U.S. when she was 5 and has been a green card holder since 2010.
In May she was convicted of possession of a controlled substance for sale. That made her "amenable to removal," according to ICE.
"I got woken up by them telling me they're going to take me in because of immigration. But I'm not illegal here," Espejel said, soon after her arrest. "I have my permanent residence, it has no expiration. ... I went in jail, served my time, I don't see why immigration picked up on it after, when I was already released."
Fingerprints of individuals detained in immigration raids are logged electronically with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, according to David Marin, director of Enforcement and Removal Operations for ICE in L.A. When a lawful permanent resident is arrested for a removable crime, agents make a note to follow up on the person later.
Once there is documentation of a conviction, ICE agents inform an agency attorney, who decides whether the person is eligible to be placed in removal proceedings, according to Marin.
Among other targets of ICE's recent enforcement action was a man who gained legal status through his wife in 2013 but had multiple drug convictions. Another man, who got legal status in 2014, was targeted because of a conviction this year of cruelty to a child.
Garcia's case was different because nearly two decades have passed since he was convicted of a crime.
Immigration agents picked him up outside his home as he was about to head out to drive for Uber. His daughter woke to the sound of her father shouting her name as agents wearing vests that read "Police" placed him in a black SUV.
It wasn't until after the agents left that the family looked at the card they had presented, with Garcia's alien registration number, and realized the agents were with ICE. When Natalie visited her father in the processing center, she said, he didn't understand why he was there.
Garcia came from the Mexican state of Michoacan when he was 13 and worked in the fields in Northern California. He later bought a home in Arleta, where he lived with his wife, their two kids and a granddaughter.
At their family home, Natalie sobbed as she talked about her father's constant presence - in her life as well as that of her 6-year-old daughter, Marley, whom he was helping raise. When she spoke of him, Marley referred to him as, "mi papa" - her father.
On the bed where Garcia slept, the little girl had carefully laid out one of his shirts over a pillow, a pair of shorts and his socks. Since the arrest, Marley has slept in her grandfather's bed.
Garcia's wife told agents she did not even remember the domestic violence incident, which she later characterized as a minor dispute.
Shusterman said that under the Obama administration immigration priorities were markedly different.
"We find that very frequently, and especially with this administration ... that they're going after people with very, very old violations and trying to get them deported," Shusterman said.
Garcia is in ICE custody pending a determination from an immigration judge with the Executive Office for Immigration Review on whether he has a lawful basis to remain in the U.S.
In the wake of Garcia's arrest, his wife, who is also a lawful permanent resident, has been left to worry about her own status.
"It's happening to people who have papers," said Maria Dolores Garcia. "Don't just trust, check your record, become a citizen, stay alert to the changes. ... I don't want this to happen to someone else."
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
So, Mr. Garcia had a domestic violence charge 20 years ago and, served his time, he's been "clean" since then and, has been a productive member of society since that time, he's 62 years old, a home owner and, YES, PAYS TAXES. He has a green card and, has had one since arriving in the U.S.
So the idiot never bothered to become a citizen?
"It's happening to people who have papers," said Maria Dolores Garcia. "Don't just trust, check your record, become a citizen, stay alert to the changes. ... I don't want this to happen to someone else." What she said!
Soooo, it's his fault for being a LEGAL immigrant, got it.
If only there was a governmental body that passed immigration laws for Trump to follow.
But since these days no one knows how laws are passed, just blame Trump for following the law. Easier then wondering why Democrats didn't overhaul immigration laws when they had a filibuster proof control of that thing called Congress.
Welcome to wacko world, where the chief executive is a sinner for enforcing the law and the people who break it are saints.
I don't know if he considers his wife a saint or not, but she violated her entry visa and is still here.
Tell me, exactly, what law did this man break, recently, that made it possible for ICE to take him in? His green card is up to date, he works, he owns his home, he pays taxes and, he hasn't done anything illegal the whole time he's been here. Yes, decades ago he had a domestic violence charge, he served his time and, hasn't done anything wrong since that time. So, what crime did he commit RECENTLY, "living while Mexican"?
Nothing says that he had to break a law recently as a precondition for being taken in.
According to the article:
So either remove domestic violence as a crime or specifiy how many years can pass. As it stands, ICE is doing its job.
So, you're saying that any person who has committed any crime in the past can be pulled in simply 'cuz the government thinks they should be pulled in, even if it's been decades since they did anything wrong and, they served their time for the mentioned crime.
That’s what the expert said. If a criminal commits a crime like molesting a child and serves time, why should serving time mean that he evades deportation when he gets out? We have enough criminals of our own.
Re-read what I posted, I said any PERSON, that includes citizens of the U.S., what you have claimed is that any person, citizen or, not, can be deported for having committed a crime decades ago and, having served their time, that makes no sense. What the article is saying is that if a person who is a legal immigrant commits one crime, serves their time for that crime and, keeps his/her "nose clean" for the rest of the time they are here in the U.S. that time should be taken into consideration to allow them to stay in the U.S. What you and, others are saying is, it doesn't matter if you've stayed clean the rest of the time you are here, if you committed a crime in the past, no matter how far back that crime was committed, you can get the fuck out. You really don't see anything wrong with that thinking? Wow.
Citzens and legal residents are different so I don’t lump them together. Citizens have a right to be here. Legal residents only have the right to be here if they comply with the conditions for reminding in the country and, if they don’t, they can be deported. If an alien doesn’t like the conditions for entry, then refuse them and stay out.
I simply posted what the expert said. Whether it makes sense to you is another matter.
Nobody is saying that it can’t or shouldn’t be taken into consideration as a factor. What you’re doing is turning a factor into a “get out of jail card.” I assume that the person who takes the factor into consideration is an immigration judge not the ICE agent in the field. ICE agents in the field may be arresting people more often, pending a hearing before a judge, because of difficulties with sanctuary cities. The article didn’t bother to explore that issue.
If there is no time limit in the law, then I assume that you don’t think an ICE agent should take it upon himself to arbitrarily make up limits at different times for different people on a whim. The matter should be considered by an immigration judge, who may or may not think the person should be deported.
I didn't say a citizen or, a legal resident, I said a PERSON. Don't try to split hairs.
Yes, you did, in an attempt to twist what was said to fit your beliefs.
This is exactly what you and, the Trumpbots are saying.
So, why wait 20 years to come after him? He had served his time 20 years ago, while he was on probation they could have come after him then, why didn't they?
Saying “person” lumps citizen and legal residents together. I split the categories apart because they’re different,
And, I'm trying to "humanize" it for you, you splitting it up the way you do sets them in a "us" vs. "them" category, the only thing separating this gentleman from you or, me is that he has a green card and, we are citizens and, the only reason he still has a green card and, didn't become a citizen is because he was afraid of something like this happening before.
I cut out and pasted what the expert said so I have no idea how you see that as a twist.
How you are applying it to what you are saying is twisting it.
Data bases are better than they used to be so maybe they just discovered it. He can tell it to a judge.
Your attempt to humanize it confuses the issue. I have a right to be here as a citizen. He has the privilege to be present here if he complies with the conditions for entry. If he had reported it before for the purposes of citizenship, then he would have crossed this bridge earlier. But he said nothing and is crossing the bridge now. So he doesn’t dispute that he committed the crime or that he chose to take the risk that it would never be discovered. I understand his predicament but it’s of his own making. He can tell it all to an immigration judge.
I'm sure his judge in his case saw that he had a green card and, knew that he had committed a crime when he sentenced him, so, why didn't the judge turn him over to the authority's at the time? Are you saying the judges data base, (brain), needed to be upgraded before that could happen?
To me, what I said flows directly from what the expert said and I explained my reasoning. The twist seems to occur when you try and bang what I said into your opinions of “Trumpsters.”
Let me see if I can straighten out the pretzel you've made here. First, he already went before a judge for the domestic violence charge, he served his time in that case, 20 fucking years ago. Second, the judge in that case didn't report him to immigration for the violation 20 years ago so, why are they coming after him now, after 20 years? It is a matter of public record that he did, 20 years ago, commit domestic violence, 20 years ago. He was afraid back then, 20 years ago, when his kids were little, that he would be deported if he tried to apply for U.S. citizenship, since that time it didn't seem as important to him to apply since he kept his legal status and, didn't commit any more crimes, in fact he has lived here and, worked here the whole time, even becoming a home owner and, paying taxes, so, as someone who is paying taxes, doesn't that give him some rights under the law, the same as you and, I.
When you lump, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and, refugee's into the same group it becomes a Trump talking point and, that is exactly what you have done.
Your question seems to assume that he had a judge before his arrest and that it’s the judge who turns him over to the authorities. I assume that he has no judge prior to his arrest and that there’s no reason to arrest him until information in a database shows that he has violated the conditions for his green card or visa,
As for databases, they don’t necessarily interface or, if they do, it may take a long time. When my car was stolen, the thief got a photo camera speeding ticket in a neighboring state. The ticket was mailed to me because the database handling speeding tickets doesn’t interface with the one that handles stolen cars. And that’s so, even though they could only get my address by running the tag number and the tag number is connected to a stolen car. Did I know they don’t and can’t interface? No. Do they care? No. I had to get a copy of the police report and mail it to the other state to prove that the car was stolen. If I ignored the ticket, at some point I may have to be explaining to a judge what happened in order to straighten out my record. Would information between the two databases ever trickle to a person that draws a logical conclusion? Maybe, but who knows how long that would take? I have no reason to believe that immigration is more efficient.
Ok, now I get why you’re confused. A state judge in a domestic violence case has no connection whatsoever to federal immigration.
Unless a state judge is required by state law to report the matter to immigration, he would not do so. It just sits in a public record.
Public records number in the tens of thousands, spanning 50 states. If immigration has to comb them and there are limited staff to do so, then it should be obvious why it can take years to discover something.
He committed the crime, he knew it was in a record, and he knew that it could one day come to light and it did. And, no, working and paying taxes doesn’t give him the same rights as you or I because we’re citizens and he is not.
We we’re talking about aliens with legal status, not illegal aliens and refugees. If you lumped them all together in your mind to respond to a Trump talking point that I never made, then you created a “twist” and then confused yourself.
Well gee, could it be that the 'filibuster proof control' was only for about 30 working days of the Senate?
Ok, I see where you are confused, he had a domestic violence charge, twenty years ago, for which he was arrested and, for which he went before a judge, at that time and, was convicted of the charge, he served his time then and, he still had his green card then and, now. What I was saying was the judge he went in front of back 20 years ago could have pulled his green card at that point and, had him deported by immigration but, he didn't, understand?
Tell me, were in the fine print of the Constitution does it say that the rights in the Constitution only apply to citizens and, not anyone else legally residing in the United States.
Citizens and legal residents are not the same. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits granting an alien permission to enter the country on condition that they don’t commit crimes while they’re here. That includes punching out his wife. It’s easy not to commit a crime and I make it through ever day crime-free.
I think you’re still confused about how two separate systems work. The judge in his criminal case has nothing to do with immigration or pulling his green card, 20 years ago or now, the judge he will see following his ICE arrest will be a federal immigration judge, not a state court judge.
Who said he "punched out his wife"? Domestic violence can be any number of things, which could include breaking of things in the house.
Did you ever get a parking ticket?
A parking ticket is not a crime, it is a civil infraction.
A word play won't get you out of this. Is it against the law to park in a no parking zone or, to over stay at a parking meter? Yes, it is. that makes it a crime so, if you have had a parking ticket you have committed a crime. So, using your standards you should be kicked out of the country, you're just as bad as any MS-13 thug.
Nope it is only a civil infraction and the penalty is a fine not jail or prison time.
I am a naturally born citizen and they can't kick me out of the country.
It’s a simple statement of fact, not a word play. A parking ticket does not charge you with having committed a crime and you can’t be imprisoned for parking infractions. Citizens can’t be kicked out the country for any reason. No lawfully present alien, as far as I’m aware, has ever been kicked out of the country for something as trivial as getting a parking ticket. As for illegal aliens, they’re not kicked out because they got a parking ticket but kicked out because their ass doesn’t belong here.
If it is a "civil infraction" it is a crime, it goes on your record as a crime, it is as much of a crime as crossing the border illegally, it is called a "misdemeanor".
So you think a state court judge, who has nothing to do with federal immigration, should go out of his way to get the defendant’s green card revoked so he can be deported? If he did that, you would have called him an ahole. So, to you, the judge is wrong if he turns him in and the judge is wrong if he doesn’t.
Pretty frickin' sad commentary on our ''justice system''...
Pretty sad commentary on our POTUS as well.
Agreed
Guess the Dems could fix things like this if they weren't so busy refusing to budge on illegals and calling for defunding ICE. Give Trump his four pillars and things like this wouldn't have to happen.
What happened to Mexico paying for the wall?
If you ever believed that would happen, I have a bridge and some swamp land to sell you.
The Dems did the same thing to it as every other proposed fix. Haven't you heard Trump had to sign an Executive order to fix the problem because congress has not gotten off their ass. Yea, probably not, the media seemed to avoid reporting on it. Why is that?
Trump did that just as a showboat act, all he had to do was call Sessions and, tell him to stop doing it since it was Sessions at Trumps urging that started doing it, there is no law that says this has to be done, that is Trumps policy, a Trump temper tantrum that his wall isn't getting built.
Haven't YOU heard that it was TRUMP who created the problem?
It's not the "Dems" who need to fix this, this is part of Trumps policy, but, you would know that if you had bothered to do any reading. Where's Trumps wall? "The Dems" offered to fund it months ago and, Trump turned them down, remember, that was when DACA was on the table. If Trump wants his four pillars then he needs to learn to play nice with the other kiddies.
Trump created this problem, so he has to fix it by admitting that he was wrong.
The entire thing is an elborate scam to force the American people to pay for his stupid wall of xenophobia. Learn what problem-reaction-solution is.
Illegal aliens created the problem, themselves, by entering the country illegally and democrats exacerbate it by providing sanctuary to illegals so they can evade deportation.
This problem has been going on for decades. Clinton had no interest in stopping it, Bush wanted cheap labor for his business pals and Obama just put a bandaid on it.
Trump simply ordered existing law be followed. Dems are opposed to it because they see the invasion as a voter registration drive.
WRONG! Policies like sanctuary cities that encourage illegal immigration not only ARE the problem but CREATED the problem, but you will never admit that will you.
Yeah, Ok,
What U.S. law requires asylum seekers to give up their children at the border, site it please.
BULLSHIT.
So logically, that would mean that up until Oct. 2017, Trump was violating the law and even then only targeting a small percentage in during his 'pilot program'.
Also, one has to wonder WHY a directive needed to be issued by AG Session if it was already 'the law'.
It sounds like they are going through data bases and looking for people to deport.
This man could lose a lot because of this. He has a home, a job and a family to take care of when a black suv pulls up and hauls him off.
Sick and sad that this is happening. This nationalism crap is going way to far.
They are, they're using the data bases of law enforcement to find any infraction to use against immigrants, legal or, not.
This article is basically suggesting that it’s unfair to deport people for old offenses except this view is unclear in just what ICE should doing. Domestic violence is a deportable offense whether the alien is here illegally or not and regardless of how many years have passed. So is ICE supposed to ignore the fact that domestic violence is a deportable offense altogether? Should they ignore it if it’s 20 years old, 10 years old, 5 years old, happened last week? Will this be pursuant to an established law or rule or do they just arbitrarily decide it depending on their mood? Same goes for possession of a controlled substance.
The whole article is written to make ICE seem like a pack of wolves that run the easiest prey to the ground so they can tear them to pieces out of sheer cruelty. And the article is written from the perspective of the helpless prey. That, plus the fact that the press is part of the Trump resistance, is probably why many Trump supporters would simply ignore it as another “Trump is a rat” article.
It seems to me like both aliens should have proceedings initated against them but the circumstances should be factors in whether or not they’re actually deported. I’m not sure why they were arrested as legal residents but at least one of them lives in the illegal alien hideout called California and that may impact on whether ICE thinks they’re a flight risk and should be detained — but the article didn’t seem to think it was important enough to even mention.
The seeded article was published by LA Times this morning, but it's inaccurate, old news. The man was released on FRIDAY. Please see the LA TIMES article I linked in comment 7.
Old or new, and whether a particular alien was released or not, the article’s general point remains the same so I still have the same comment.
Perhaps you didn't understand my point. I agreed with you.
Thanks for the clarification.
You're welcome. I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly!
So, a person, doesn't matter if that person is a citizen or, not, if they commit the smallest offense and, serve their time, should be randomly picked up after being "clean" for decades just because the police or, any LEO thinks they should be picked up, sounds like a police state. Let's break out the Jack Boots and, Swastika's now.
He’s a lawfully present alien, not a citizen. The conditions to remain present apply to him like everybody else. There is no time limit. If applying the law makes this a police state with swastikas, then ignoring it makes us a lawless society of loons.
I have bolded the words that are important here, lawfully present alien, it means his papers are in order and, that he hasn't committed a crime in a LONG TIME, so, why pull him in now? The answer is a simple one, to make Trump look good to his base.
According to the article, being lawfully present doesn’t mean that aliens can commit crimes and stay here. If they commit crimes, then their lawful status can be revoked and they get sent home.
I agree that if they continue to commit crimes, such as dealing drugs, being gang members, etc., etc, then they should be deported but, if they commit ONE crime, such as domestic abuse, and, don't commit any other crimes for DECADES, that should be taken into consideration, which is the case here. What you are suggesting is, "If you're here legally and, you get a parking ticket, you should be kicked out of the U.S., even if you got that parking ticket 20 years ago when you first arrived."
Nothing gives them a free pass for ONE crime nor is there a time limit. They shouldn’t be committing ANY crime at all. I’ve managed to stay crime free all of my life covering DECADES, so have others, and so can aliens. If an alien has committed only one crime and stayed crime-free since then, an immigration judge can take it into consideration but the passage of time doesn’t automatically insulate the alien from deportation.
Did you ever get a traffic ticket? Even a parking violation? I'm saying that this gentleman committed one crime DECADES ago and, wasn't even looked at, at the time for deportation AT THAT TIME, why now?
Traffic tickets and parking violations aren’t usually considered criminal offenses. Data bases have improved. All crimes may not come to the attention of ICE immediately and/or jurisdictions may be impeding the transmission of information. And during the last 20 years, you have 8 years of Obama (who restricted ICE enforcement) so the matter may have just laid dormant.
Seeded article:
------------------
Time to calm down, people. Jose Luis Garcia was freed ON FRIDAY, JUNE 29.
How did we get from "bad hombres" and going after criminals first all the way to putting kids in cages and going after legalized citizens.
I thought the GOP supported "legal" immigration. Guess not. Lie after lie after lie.