The New York Times has a variation on its routine “Won’t someone please think of the good illegal immigrants’ children?” sob story; this time it’s “Won’t somebody please think of the good green card conditions violator’s disabled American friend?”
For four years, Alfredo Orellana, 31, has been a caregiver and pal for Luke Ferris, a 28-year-old with severe autism. “The pair worked out at the gym, got tacos and played video games together. They exchanged elbow bumps,” the Times says.
Awww!
But now Orellana has been taken by ICE and locked up in an immigration detention center. Orellana is a “permanent U.S. resident,” or green card holder, and green cards require their owners to avoid serious criminal activity. They can be deported if they engage in, 1., aggravated felonies (serious crimes, such as murder, drug trafficking, or fraud involving more than $10,000), 2., crimes of moral turpitude ( fraud, theft, or violence), plus 3., drug offenses (even involving small amounts of marijuana for personal use), or 4., other misconduct like domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and violating a protective order.
Eight years ago, Luke’s pal was convicted of trying to swindle a store out of $200. That’s “moral turpitude.” The “eight years ago” is the second part of the Times’ not-so-subtle argument that Orellana’s deportation is cruel, with the first part being Luke’s reliance on him. At the time of his crime, Orellana was “struggling with substance abuse,” his wife says. (Sounds like #2., doesn’t it?) That’s the third part.
The fourth part? Trump is a meanie. “The detention of Mr. Orellana and other green card holders,” says the Times, ” is the latest sign that the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration is expanding far beyond people who are in the country illegally. Tasked with fulfilling President Trump’s campaign promise to carry out mass deportations, federal agents have been detaining permanent U.S. residents convicted of years-old minor offenses and moving to deport them.” The fifth part is that “their families are reeling” as well as those like the Ferris family, who had come to rely upon, “and even cherish” “good deportees” like Orellana.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:
Is it fair and ethical to deport green card holders like Orellana who have committed only “minor crimes,” have been well-behaved for years, and who have helped others in their community?
My tentative view? He got eight years to stay here that he shouldn’t have had, and should be grateful for those. Once we start letting some “good” violators get away with ignoring the conditions under which they are allowed to sat here, the slippery slope is unavoidable. Strict enforcement is clear and responsible. But I can conceive of strong counter- arguments….
Ethics Alarms 
Let’s say he was a US citizen, convicted of the same crime, and let’s say he was sentencrd to 100 hours community service. Then his state or town imposes a mandatory minimum of 2 years jail time for crime. Would it be fair to retroactively impose such a sentence on him and others who were convicted of this crime? I’m pretty sure you can’t do that. I can certainly understand, even support, strictly enforcing rules for green card holders going forward, but re-sentencing old cases seems far too close to double jeopardy.
It’s not double jeopardy, it’s more akin to ex-post facto.
Except isn’t creating a new law then applying it to people who had committed the now prohibited act–the law has always been on the books, just hadn’t been enforced.
maybe there’s a statute of limitations thing to be argued, but then again there’s evidence of multiple violations that hadn’t been enforced. That’s a pattern… Continuing to look the other way just reduces respect for the law and emboldens the violations.
Yes, “ex-post facto”is better, I knew double jeopardy wasn’t quite right.But there’s still the fact that Orellana was already convicted and presumably sentenced (unless they literally put off the sentencing hearing for eight years). This isn’t a cold case that the authorities sat on until now, he was tried, convicted, sentenced, and that’s supposed to be the end of it. Unless he committed a new crime or violated parole or probation, the authorities should be done with him. Even if the Trump admin CAN just yank his green card, I don’t think it’s ethical in this case. Stare decisis also comes to mind.
Deportation isn’t “punishment,” it’s consequences of violating the conditions of a privilege. The crime itself had nothing to do with his green card—what he did would have been a crime for a citizen, with the same punishment. He hadn’t received any adverse consequences of violating the conditions under which he was permitted to stay here. That didn’t mean those consequences had been waived.
I’d liken this more to violating the terms of probation.
A fair point, but how often does someone violate probation once, keep their nose clean for years, and then only get hit because there’s a new sheriff in town?
What difference does that make? The question is whether it is ethical, not whether it is unusual, and whether “everybody does it” or not shouldn’t affect whether or not it’s a good policy.
Why wasn’t he deported after sentencing, if it is something he can be deported for? Why now?
Mostly likely the judge or whoever was in charge of his case decided to go easy on him, now Trump is leaning on ICE to go through every green card with a fine-toothed comb, and yank any that had a checkered past.
Why not then? Because the US was being a weenie about law breaking aliens then. Why now? Because it isn’t being a weenie now—it’s enforcing the law and upholding standards.
Trump rightfully took pride in supporting the First Step Act and signing it into law, supporting the principle that people are redeemable (in this life, not just the next). A similar principle should be applied to those holding a green card, which welcomed them to the country. A record of productivity and good behavior over an extended period of time greatly outweighs a relatively minor offense, especially one from long ago.
A Green Card tells an individual that, while not quite a citizen, he is welcome. Treatment by INS should reinforce that by treating minor offense as just that, not as a reason for deporture.
“Treatment by INS should reinforce that by treating minor offense as just that, not as a reason for deporture.”
This is an issue for Congress to address not the agency designated to enforce the laws they pass. If Congress wants to eliminate certain causes for deportation that is their prerogative, so the public’s ire should not be directed at the branch charged with executing valid laws it should be directed at Congress who created the rules.
My response was more from an ethics viewpoint. But, there is INS guidance that fits the situation as well: “It is estimated that there are more than 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable
noncitizens in the United States. We do not have the resources to apprehend and seek the removal
of every one of these noncitizens. Therefore, we need to exercise our discretion and determine
whom to prioritize for immigration enforcement action.”
Perhaps that guidance has already been shredded, given that government by chainsaw.
And, perhaps there is an argument for dispensing with discretion for green card holders and pursuing mass deportations across the board; I have not heard one that is convincing and those I have heard smack of racism.
As unlikely as it seems, I basically agree with the commentariat on this. One thing I do disagree with is Jack’s assertion that deportation isn’t a punishment. Of course it is, as is every consequence of an illegal action. And in particular, deportation to a vile, internationally renowned brutal detention site like Bukele’s hell pit in El Salvador. As bad as some US detention centers are/have been, that place is not comparable to where someone is sent in this country for minor violations.
How do we know that the Times is reporting this story in full and only giving us the anti-deportation narrative. Can we trust the reportage of the NYT. I don’t buy the idea that Orellana was just minding his own business being a caregiver to the other person and ICE just picked him off a list. Was his involvement with a person with “severe autism” brought to the attention of ICE because a family member became concerned that something was amiss in the relationship? I don’t know. Is it relevant as to when he got a green card? Was it before or after the run ins with the law? If before, did he disclose that to immigration officials?
Given his history of swindling a severely autistic person could be an easy target. Nonetheless, that is pure conjecture but if it was part of the rationale and left out of the story then any sympathy for the person is groundless and the point of the story was to be manipulative.
If everything in the article is true and all that happened was that ICE compared two lists, one of green card holders and another of people with criminal backgrounds and focused on him they had that right but that is not one that I would have picked. Unfortunately selective enforcement is how we destroy trust in the system.
The question seems to be who do we choose to give the King’s pass to.
Clearly by law he is deportable. However –
Is it ethical to find anyone gulity and apply all possible consequences to everyone for all time? I don’t think so. The immigration issue seems to me to be a messy one because while we need law and order, we are not robots. Immigration law, like in this case, is being wielded emotionally with the “law” as a crutch to avoid the difficulty of evaluating particular individual situations – when would the exceptions stop?
I think to my situation as a citizen married to a Canadian for 20 years, and we have 5 children. If for some reason 19 years ago she had, as an activist of some cause, had been found guilty by a politically motivated conservative judge of some moral turpitude similar to Trump being found “gulity of rape”. She would possibly now be subject to deportation almost 20 years later.
If she were deported:
Woe is me, right? I got myself into this problem via marriage and children.
Yet, the law is not present for the purpose of enforcement. It is present for the purpose of redressing wrongs to society. True justice is not merely administration of judgement and consequences but rather a restoration of property and relationships.
Currently, this guy’s arrest and potential deportation seems to me to be an unfortunate swing of the pendulum that may not have reached its furthest extent yet.
A three strikes policy would be a place to start for green card holders.
I am going with unfair, but primarily for things we do not know.
Here are a bunch of things to keep in mind:
Deportation is not mandatory for lawbreakers. If I had to guess, the immigration judge who looks at this would have discretion to order removal or not. What can be part of that discretion? Exactly what has been talked about: he is nice to an autistic guy; it was eight years ago; it was not a lot of money.
(In this regard, the Times’ reporting is culpable. He has been detained; he has not (yet) been deported; he may never be deported.)
In addition, there are due process protections (which, again, the Times does not appear to address). Does he have a child here? Is he married to a U.S. citizen? He may qualify for certain types of relief that would prevent him from being deported. The mere fact he has been detained means nothing more than being arrested does in a criminal context.
(In this regard, it may be a waste of time to detain him if he has obvious defenses. But, if he has obvious defenses, the prosecutor may simply drop the case.)
Where I find the biggest problem is the thing I do not know: why was this not addressed before? Typically (and I am not going to look it up), a green card a good for 5 years. I think a conditional green card is good for 2 years and then the conditions can be removed, giving you a 5-year card. The 5-year card then has to be renewed. Typically, renewal involves a review of your record. Doing the math, it would seem to me that he had to renew his green card at some point AFTER the conviction for which he is being detained. That would suggest to me that Homeland Security already looked at this and decided not to deport him for it. If that is the case (and, like I said, I don’t know), then it would be unethical to detain him now, if the decision had already been made not to detain him.
By the way, I believe a similar review is done if there is an application for citizenship. Homeland Security will postpone decisions on renewal applications if someone is on probation (meaning they know the person has committed some form of crime-though maybe not a deportable offense). In that process, I believe that, once certain crimes become too old, they are no longer a consideration. In that respect, I think it would be fair for Homeland Security to say, “we will renew your green card even if you have this conviction, but we will not approve a citizenship application because of it.” (That does not apply to certain of the offenses Jack mentioned-I have a client who is being deported and he has no options for relief because in 1996, when he was 22, he had sex with a 15-year old (which was not unusual for their culture). But for that conviction, he might have had options to stay.)
So, my educated guess is that, at some point, Homeland Security looked at this guy and decided not to deport him for this offense. If that is the case, it is not fair to deport him now if there is no NEW reason to look at him. If my educated guess is not correct, then, I think it is fair to deport him. (Then, I shake my head and ask, “why are you breaking the law when you are not a citizen? Have you no sense?”)
-Jut
Minor correction: a “permanent” Green Card only has to be renewed every 10 years, not 5 (How do I know? I was on one.)
More interestingly, after 5 years on a Green Card one is eligible to apply for citizenship. And I strongly believe that anyone who does not do it without a very good reason is giving a strong signal that they do not actually intend to move permanently to the US.
thanks, Alex.
call it strategic ignorance. Instead of knowing just enough to be dangerous, I want to be dumb enough to be unhelpful. My two partners both do immigration law, so I have absorbed a lot of knowledge about immigration law by osmosis. But, I do not want to do it, so I have to maintain a certain level of ignorance, which I do with bankruptcy and workers comp, as well.
the plight of the general practitioner.
anyway, so it is possible that Homeland Security did not pass on this before.
I would want to know that before judging further.
-Jut