JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And there also seems to be some confusion, Franco, doesn’t there, about
what—how this would affect the DACA, the young people, in terms of new policy?
Could you explain that, as well?
FRANCO ORDOÑEZ: Sure.
DACA—so, these proposals do specifically—or these orders specifically do say that DACA
is protected.
However, that hasn’t—that hasn’t calmed people’s concerns so much, because, one,
in other parts of the order, it also says that no protected—there will be no protected
class.
And these orders also go on to say that they expand the definition of who is a criminal
immigrant.
Not only do you have to be convicted of a crime, you could be charged with a crime.
You can actually also be believed to be—committed a crime.
So it’s a wide swath of people who could be targeted.
It is—DACA is mentioned; however, you know, there are some conflicting statements there
also. Also, we’ve all seen some of the leaked reports about potentially ending DACA.
So there are still, you know, big question marks out there about DACA.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the new DHS memos come on the heels of Friday’s arrest of Daniel
Ramirez Medina in Washington state.
Ramirez has permission to live and work in the United States under President Obama’s
program DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
His arrest alarmed immigrant communities, who fear the Trump administration could soon
target other DACA recipients.
This is Paul Quinones of the Washington Dream Act Coalition.
PAUL QUINONES: If any of us had any doubt that Trump’s regime has declared an open
war and open season on all immigrants in this country, that doubt should have evaporated
by now.
With Daniel’s arrest, we have seen the federal government breaking its promise and showing
that it cannot be trusted.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, also joining us from Seattle is Tim Warden-Hertz.
He’s the directing attorney for the Tacoma office of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
TIM WARDEN-HERTZ: Thank you.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Could you tell us about the situation with the arrest of Mr. Ramirez on
Friday?
TIM WARDEN-HERTZ: That’s right.
Well, on Friday, the judge in Seattle ordered that Mr. Ramirez remain detained in the Tacoma
detention center.
And, you know, right now we’re focusing on trying to ensure that his constitutional
rights are protected.
You know, he—like you discussed, I mean, he has no criminal record at all.
He’s been twice applied for and been vetted and been granted protection under Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals.
And despite that, he was picked up by immigration officials.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But—
TIM WARDEN-HERTZ: And so—go ahead.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But why are they holding him, then, if he is protected under DACA?
What are they alleging?
TIM WARDEN-HERTZ: Well, I mean, at this point, you know, they don’t—haven’t put forward
any evidence.
I think there have been some statements that they’ve made regarding a possible gang membership.
Again, I think we—Mr. Ramirez and we certainly dispute that.
And as I mentioned, there is absolutely no evidence of that given.
And, in fact, in the filings that we submitted to the court in Seattle, there is evidence
of even some fabrications of evidence regarding that.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, what are your concerns about not only what the Trump administration
has done so far, but now the word of this new—these memos that Secretary Kelly has
signed off on, on what—how that could affect undocumented immigrants or people who are—or
DACA recipients?
What are your main concerns?
TIM WARDEN-HERTZ: Sure.
Yeah, I mean, I think you touched on some of them.
I think that—and I think Mr. Ramirez’s case actually is a good example of sort of
the lack of process that we may be seeing sort of expanded under this administration.
So, I think the expansion of expedited removal is certainly one piece of that.
I think it is dramatic, as you mentioned, up to two years of having been in the United
States.
But I think it goes even further than that, because the memos discuss, you know, having
to prove to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that you’ve been in the United States
for two years, or else you’re subject to this expedited removal, where you’re deported
without a chance to even have a day in court.
And, you know, I mean, I think about that.
You know, if I were pulled over, I’m not sure that I could prove—right?—that I’ve
been in the United States for two years, just based on what I have in my wallet.
And so, you know, I think that there’s a lot of these other pieces, whether it’s
that or whether it’s hearing programs held at remote county jails or prisons, or, you
know, the protections being taken away for unaccompanied minors, that, again, really
chip away at the chance for people to even have a process to figure out whether or not
they might have protections under the laws that exist.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, if you could explain more clearly, so folks who are not familiar
with immigration law, on this expedited removal situation, how the changing of the definition
affects so many more people, because wasn’t it before this you had to have been found
within—what?—a hundred miles of a U.S. border or have been in the country less than—was
it?—two weeks or two months, and now they’ve expanded it to two years?
Explain the difference.
TIM WARDEN-HERTZ: That’s right.
Yeah, so, you know, the existing regulations around—that I think stem—that are from
2002, they limited the use of expedited removal to folks who are found within a hundred miles
of the border and within two weeks of having entered the United States.
So there’s that sort of time and location limitation on expedited removal.
And again, what these memos would do would remove that.
And so, it would leave anyone in the United States subject to expedited removal, unless
they could prove to the satisfaction of the immigration officer who’s arresting them
that they’ve been in the United States for more than two years.
So it takes away any geographic limitation and then creates at least—hugely expanded,
and, again, like I mentioned before, maybe not even that limited two-year temporal limitation.