This man’s story was covered twice on Democracy Now. Unfortunately, Amy Goodman
didn’t do nearly as good a job at explaining the constitutional issues involved
as does this article. She focused more on the human interest aspect. But this
is truly frightening, given the fact that so many right wing judges have been
appointed and now we have a completely right wing Supreme Court. Well, not
completely, but majority, and that’s what matters.
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mary Otten
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Can ICE Legally Force Immigrants to Cheer for Donald
Trump?
I’m not thrilled with this headline, which I think is a bit overly
melodramatic. But the facts of the case as outlined here, if accurate, are
chilling. The Supreme Court case referenced seems to have been a very narrow
ruling. For the government to claim that narrow ruling gas wholesale right to
deport anybody they want without a due process of law, it’s just not OK.
Mary
Can ICE Legally Force Immigrants to Cheer for Donald Trump?
The Intercept / Nick Pinto
Do the First Amendment’s protections prevent the government from targeting its
most vocal critics for deportation? That’s the central question that three
judges for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will be considering Monday, when
lawyers for Ravi Ragbir, a New York City immigration activist, will argue for a
preliminary injunction to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials
from deporting him before he can press his First Amendment claim in court.
In the case, which comes before judges Christopher Droney, Pierre Leval, and
John Walker Jr., the government contends that Ragbir’s situation is
straightforward: He was issued a final order of removal in 2007 and a federal
law <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1252> passed to prevent
protracted legal challenges to deportations all but shuts off any judicial
review of immigration authorities’ deportation decisions. “An alien like Ragbir
has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement to prevent his
removal from the United States in accordance with a valid order,” the
government argues in its brief
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5022240-Government-Brief-in-Ravi-Ragbir-First-Amendment.html>
. The authorities cited a 1999 Supreme Court ruling
<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/471/> , which held that the
First Amendment claims of people facing deportation for allegedly providing
material aid to a foreign terrorist organization didn’t outweigh the
government’s national security interests.
Ragbir’s lawyers note that he isn’t accused of contributing to foreign
terrorist groups. His work over the past decade — most prominently as the
director of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York — has been limited to
organizing immigrants and advocating against the increasing violence of ICE and
the deportation policies it carries out. Ragbir may have a final order of
removal, they argue, but so do an estimated 900,000 other people living in the
United States. And in the 11 years Ragbir has been under a final order for
removal, ICE didn’t try to deport him until this past year — after his
organizing garnered headlines and attracted public attention critical of ICE.
“If this Court were to adopt that view, nothing would prevent ICE from telling
noncitizens that it will deport them if they criticize any ICE official,
deportation policy, or immigration law in any way.”
The government’s argument that there is no constitutional bar to prevent ICE
from selectively deporting people based on their speech has extreme and
troubling implications, Ragbir’s lawyers argue in their briefs. “If this Court
were to adopt that view, nothing would prevent ICE from telling noncitizens
that it will deport them if they criticize any ICE official, deportation
policy, or immigration law in any way,” says a brief filed by Ragbir’s
attorneys
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5022239-Ravi-Ragbir-Brief-in-First-Amendment-Case.html>
. “ICE could even command noncitizens with final removal orders to publicly
voice support for ICE, or for pending legislation, or for a particular
political candidate. There would be no holds barred.”
The government dismisses these suggestions as “outlandish hypotheticals” and
counters that if political speech is enough to argue unconstitutional political
targeting, anyone facing deportation could criticize ICE and claim First
Amendment protections to stay in the country. And just because ICE didn’t
exercise its right to deport him for more than a decade doesn’t mean it doesn’t
still have that right, whatever its reasoning, the government claims.
Yet Ragbir isn’t just asserting that ICE is retaliating against him without
evidence. In March 2017, Ragbir was going for a check-in with ICE and was
accompanied by a host of local politicians and activists
<https://mic.com/articles/170754/ravi-ragbir-ice-deportation-activists-supporters-nyc#.pG4vWJUOQ>
; the event turned into a public spectacle. Scott Mechkowski, the deputy
director of ICE’s New York Field Office and one of the defendants in the suit,
told Ragbir’s lawyers in January that he felt “resentment” about the circus of
the political protest. ICE “didn’t want the display of wailing kids and wailing
clergy,” Mechkowski separately told a group of clergy that visited his office.
“That can’t happen this time around.” Ragbir’s brief alleges that an ICE
official warned his associates, “You don’t want to make matters worse by saying
things.”
In addition to the attempted deportation of Ragbir, the successful deportation
of fellow New Sanctuary activist Jean Montrevil, and the surveillance
<https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/ice-new-sanctuary-movement-ravi-ragbir-deportation/>
of their organization, Ragbir’s lawyers point to an emerging pattern around
the country
<https://theintercept.com/2018/02/09/ravi-ragbir-ice-immigration-deportation/>
, citing more than a dozen instances in which ICE targeted outspoken
immigration activists for deportation, including cases in Colorado,
Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Last week, NWDC Resistance, an immigrant rights group in Washington state,
filed its own lawsuit
<http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/PDFs/practitioners/our_lit/impact_litigation/2018_23Oct_seattle-ice-complaint.pdf>
against ICE and the Department of Homeland Security in federal court in
Seattle, alleging that ICE has a practice “to systematically surveil, detain,
and deport immigrant activists who speak out about immigration policies and
practices.”
A different panel of 2nd Circuit judges got a taste of these arguments in
August, when Ragbir’s lawyers sought a stay to keep ICE from deporting him
until the court could rule on the appeal now before the court. That panel was
clearly troubled by government lawyers’ flat refusal
<https://theintercept.com/2018/08/20/ravi-ragbir-immigration-first-amendment/>
to promise that they wouldn’t deport Ragbir before he could have his day in
court, but the judges declined to issue a stay.
With the question of the First Amendment rights of people facing deportation
now squarely before the court, human rights lawyers, unions, religious
organizations, civil liberties groups, and elected officials are rallying to
support Ragbir’s claim. Amicus briefs from more than 100 such groups and
individuals have been filed in the case, all warning that an interpretation
allowing the government to target any critic with a final order of removal will
have dangerous consequences for free speech.
As Ragbir told an audience at a teach-in on Thursday, “Once we curtail free
speech for me, we curtail the free speech of all.”
Top photo: Immigrant rights activist Ravi Ragbir attends a rally a day after he
was granted temporary stay of deportation in Foley Square, N.Y., on Feb. 10,
2018.
Original Article:
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/27/ice-first-amendment-rights-ravi-ragbir/
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment:
~WRD000.jpg
Description: Binary data
