ProPublica is certainly full of itself.
“ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” it crows. “We dig deep into important issues, shining a light on abuses of power and betrayals of public trust — and we stick with those issues as long as it takes to hold power to account.” The reality is that whatever meaning “independent’ carries in that statement, it is deceitful. The companion word is supposed to be “objective.” Pro Publican only cares about Republican abuses of power, although it will occasionally tweak a Democrat to maintain the illusion of fairness. It is another Democratic Party ally, like CREW, Media Matters and (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), which has an Ethics Alarms dossier longer than my arm, that poses as non-partisan so its constant attacks on one side of the political spectrum are trusted by the inattentive and gullible.
Today it treats its readers to another “good illegal immigrant” story. The dishonest headline: Trump’s Latest Deportation Tactic: Targeting Immigrants With Minor Family Court Cases.
This is a lie. It suggest that legal immigrants and citizens of the U.S. may be deported based on child care violations. Here is the story behind the headline:
Ethics Alarms 
The same principle applies if the person who was apprehended was a military deserter.
The facts seem to say that the Obama administration did arrest the illegal and would have deported but the case was on appeal.
So it’s ok to arrest someone who is of no particular danger to anyone and put them in jail in another state just because their case is on appeal. This is the problem I have with the Trump administration. They just do things willy nilly and hope they get away with it. In this sense they are no better than the illegals who try to slip in and hope no one will notice or care.
I’ll accept the argument that it shouldn’t matter how long they have been in the US illegally. and that ProPublica is not using a good argument to let them stay. I get that I am somewhat on the Trump-deranged-spectrum because I am not too bothered by the number of illegals that are here.
It seems like the real problem is that Congress doesn’t want to spend money to have extra judges so that the backlog of cases can be dealt with.
What’s to appeal?
Jack,
I do not think you are appreciating how bureaucratically complex the immigration system is. And Pro Publica certainly does not aim to educate.
The system looks at the person every step of the way. At each step, there may be options. It would surprise me if a flow chart has not been created.
Whether you enter legally or illegally, your situation may allow you to stay legally. In this particular case, even if this guy is subject to removal, he may STILL have options. Even if you are ordered removed, i believe you can still get Voluntary Departure, where you leave voluntarily and so you are not officially removed, which leaves the door open to come back. (I think it is still available at that step.). Then, there is Withholding of Removal, where you are ordered removed, but they withhold the removal for certain reasons (asylum might be one of them, or country conditions). That is where some of these people are getting picked up (like the Maryland Dad); they have final orders for removal and Trump has decided not to withhold removal any longer. Then, there is Cancellation of Removal, where you have been ordered removed but your removal would be detrimental to a U.S. Citizen. In this instance, he has a child. Now, Trump has been having children leave with their parents; of course the Left says he is “deporting” them, but they would complain if they “separated” them from their parents. There is just no pleasing them. This allows them to cancel the removal, but it is a 2-strike rule. You can only get it once. Usually, it overlooks a crime that led to the order for removal. They will overlook the crime, and cancel removal, but the commission of any more removable crimes won’t be overlooked. And, the crimes that make you removable are more serious crimes, “aggravated felonies,” and “crimes of moral turpitude.” Here, the guy had a misdemeanor conviction, which, if it was something like child neglect or child endangerment, it might be considered a crime of moral turpitude. But, the article does not get into that; it just implies he is being deported for no good reason.
-Jut