Explaining ideas to children that are second nature to us as adults is a useful exercise. It forces us to give real definitions to concepts that might seem simple at first, but are multi-layered and complex at their core.
Defining the concept of Liberty is one such endeavor. Freedom is certainly a component of Liberty, but Liberty is a larger concept, at least in this adult's internal dictionary. Freedom is, well, the ability to be free to move about and to do certain things physically. To say certain things, to write certain things, etc.
Liberty is larger than simply Freedom - Liberty connotes the ability to make decisions without oversight, worry or fear. Liberty is to have freedom on every level, including the emotional plane of our existence. It is a conglomerate of all of the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights, with the sum total of those rights adding up to it as a concept.
In short, owning oneself, or more accurately, being free from the fear of someone else owning you, is Liberty in a nutshell.
Defined in this way, we are in dire danger of losing a chunk of that concept.
As I pondered the draconian and cowardly acts of the government against the Parlak family that transpired nearly a month ago (and have for nearly 4 years now), I thought about other cases I am involved with that are startlingly similar. This happened in earnest while I recently watched a piece on Frontline about the domestic spying programs President Bush has instituted. I'd strongly recommend that you set aside an hour and watch the piece. You can do so online, and everyone should watch the piece, because after all, wouldn't you like to know who's looking through your emails, calls and tracking your web viewing to places like this? I now know, and will conduct myself with more caution with regard to my clients, and with less caution about my opinions on the topics at hand. Less caution because we are at a cross-road: we, the everyday folks who vote and who have a voice, can either look the other way and hope the government is telling the truth when they say that the compromise of our civil liberties will be as minimal as possible, or we can probe. We, as lawyers, can litigate. The press can write. People can become angry and can decide to turn off their TV on election day, get up off of the couch and vote for change.
I have some unbelievable stories from my practice that involve lots of lies, deceit and arrogance on the part of the government. I believe it's time to start telling them here. Not that I haven't told them in the past - I have, but usually to courts - both immigration courts and appellate courts. Usually I win and am happy that the cases are resolved in my client's favor and that's that. Occasionally I don't win, or suffer temporary setbacks, as with Huseyin, that we rectify though the federal courts. Telling the stories of injustice in court is obviously an important tool in my bag. But rectifying injustices case by case is a band-aid to the overall problem. We have an arrogant government with arrogant leaders, who boldly do things that are not in step with their mandate and sometimes violate the law. That is a problem. I don't want my children growing up with that problem, much less with what that problem could become in 10 years if unchecked.
I've spoken at my kids' school about the Bill of Rights and the Freedom of Speech. I take both very seriously. I tell the kids that our Bill of Rights, and our system in general, only works if you know your rights and are willing to assert them. I explain that like voting, standing up for your rights is each and every one of our responsibilities.
The soapbox on the street is now the world of blogs. Technology has led us to spend more time at a screen than at public debates. It has also made the debates online much more popular. This blog had more than 1000 views following Huseyin's deportation.
So, I'm going to practice what I preach to the grammar school kids. I have my soapbox out, but just to do some storytelling, with the permission of each client whose case is mentioned here.
****************
Juan and Maribel are both from Mexico originally. Maribel is a U.S. Citizen working for a major insurance company. The couple has two children and recently bought their first home. Juan has never been arrested, other than when a company that he working at in Michigan was raided by immigration in the early 1990s. He was arrested during the raid, released, and asked to assist with a criminal case against the employer, who was employing many illegal workers. Juan agreed to help. He was told by an Assistant Attorney General that they would send him a subpoena for his testimony in front of a Grand Jury. Juan's brother Ramon, worked with him and received the same offer of release in exchange for later testimony. He too agreed. Both were also told that their arrest and any deportation hearings or orders would be "wiped" clean so that they could acquire visas in the future so long as they honored their end of the bargain by testifying for the Grand Jury.
His employer learned it was under investigation and offered all of its illegal workers jobs in Mexico for more money than they made in the U.S. Presumably, the employer thought it could entice its workers to leave thereby taking their testimony with them.
Juan left with his brother for Mexico during the first week of November in 1992. He has proof of this, by virtue of payroll records and a Mexican national ID he was issued in person.
The INS sent a deportation court notice to his last address in the U.S. on December 15, 1992. He of course did not get it, and of course did not go to his hearing.
The Attorney General's office knew the brothers' location in Mexico and sent the Grand Jury subpoenas to them there a short time later. Both brothers returned, testified and there was a conviction of certain people in management of the employer. All good for everyone, or so Juan and Ramon thought.
Ramon eventually acquired his permanent residency and is now a U.S. citizen.
Juan is not so lucky. He faces deportation.
Juan married Maribel, started a family and applied for permanent residency. After nearly five years, they were interviewed with me present in 2004. Another year passed. I made some noise about the delays, and we were given another interview date on December 23, 2005. We attended the interview, and the officer asked about a deportation order that was entered in absentia (without his presence) in February of 2003. We explained that he was in Mexico at that time, and could not have had notice of the hearing. This was the first Juan had every heard about the order. The officer left for a while, and asked us to follow him to a conference room. Juan and Maribel's children were there, and were well-behaved.
A few moments later, the security guard who I had seen 1000 times came in and appeared to guard the door preventing us from exiting. I asked if we could leave. He said no. I explained that I certainly could leave anytime I wished unless I was under arrest, and demanded to know if that was the case. He didn't answer. I demanded to see a supervisor immediately, or there would be litigation over the situation (there was eventually anyway....see below). A supervisor came in and explained that they were going to arrest and detain Juan, and "reinstate the old order", but that I was free to leave. I left to make calls for case law, because I was quite sure the government couldn't re-instate an order that was entered when the foreign national had departed before the order was entered. His wife and children sobbed as he was taken away on the eve of Christmas Eve. The deportation officers yelled at me to be quiet or I too would be arrested when I explained that the law they were citing was wrong.
The day after Christmas he was released, after I delivered a lawsuit on December 24th to the Attorney General and ICE outlining why reinstatement could not possibly apply. I also filed an Emergency Motion to Reopen the case from 1993 in Detroit, citing the correct law and attaching evidence that showed Juan was in Mexico when the proceedings began and couldn't have received notice of the hearing. I attached an appearance, with my current address, to the Motion.
The Assistant Attorney General handling the case was previously a trial attorney for ICE, and knew immigration law well (Unfortunately, she is now on leave, and her case load is handled by 10+ other Assistant A.G.s, most of whom have little or no immigration background). We came to an agreement together that the way the government handled the case was wrong, and that the correct procedure, if the CIS wanted to deny his adjustment of status application, would be to issue a new removal court notice. That is what eventually happened.
Upon securing his release, I waited to hear from Detroit EOIR on the Motion to Reopen. And waited. And waited. Eventually, I received a notice from Chicago ICE requiring Juan to appear for deportation. I immediately called the deportation officer, who to her credit, was willing to listen. She explained that Detroit EOIR had denied the Motion to Reopen in January of 2006, nearly 18 months ago.
I called Detroit EOIR and spoke to the Clerk of the Judge who denied the Motion to Reopen. I asked where the denial was sent. She proudly proclaimed that they sent it to me. I asked for the address to which it was sent. It was sent to One E. Wacker Drive in Chicago. My firm resided at that address until.........1998. That's right, we haven't been there for nearly 10 years. I told her this, and pointed out that I submitted an appearance form with our correct address with the Motion. She told me, and this is a quote, "well, we don't even look at the appearance form. We use the address from the national database". National database?
After a few moments of trying not to explode, I calmly asked if they would be reissuing the decision now that their mistake had been brought to light. She laughed and said no, the mistake was ours, and that notice of the decision was accomplished under the law upon EOIR's sending it in the mail, regardless of the address. I swallowed hard, and again used every ounce of my energy to contain myself. I confirmed that her position was that notice was proper even if they sent the decision to the North Pole. She hung up. I was done talking to her anyway.
To date, I still have not seen the denial of the Motion, because Detroit EOIR won't send it to me. I've instead appealed the denial that I still haven't seen, and filed an Amended Motion to Reopen. For now, I've prevented the government from deporting Juan. I'm waiting for my appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals to be denied so that I can march into federal court and explain to a Constitutionally created judge what this agency is up to.......I can only imagine the reaction.
More later as this case develops.
0 comments:
Post a Comment