Ouch. Despite what many of us believe the Western world is still a white man's world. Or maybe not. I dont think they would have deported a black man.

Has happened here in OZ where they locked up a schizophrenic German legal immigrant Cornelia Rau as an illegal immigrant.

Another similar case Vivian Solon where they deported her to Manilla, Phillipines

Damn that's horrible. So if one of my brown hipster friends gets strung out on too much peyote they could potentially be deported. Making the assumption that peyote or some drug can cause one to forget their last name/phone number.

Confused, he told Los Angeles county jail authorities that he was illegal and they summarily deported him without bothering to check his birth records, which would’ve proven that he was born in Los Angeles.

...when, in a screening of inmates’ status, he apparently indicated he was from Mexico and was turned over to the immigration agency, which deported him to Tijuana... An immigration agent, Pilar Garcia, said in a deposition that agents did not normally investigate whether someone claiming to be foreigner was a United States citizen.

ANNA, the NYT article says that he told them he was Mexican (not that he was illegal), and that he was "from Tijuana":

Camille, I'm reading (NYT) and hearing (NPR) different things! I transcribed the entire NPR story before blogging this, which is where I got that info from. I'm listening to it again, the reporter does say Guzman was confused and characterized himself as "illegal". Just wanted to clarify why I wrote that. :)

My larger point is, this could've easily been someone desi who was developmentally challenged, and they could have been sent to Mexico or who knows where else...and then what would have happened? The more I consider it, the luckier I think this man and his family are.

Not sure who is developmentally disabled here.

ANNA, no worries, I think the disability focus is actually much more important. Just wanted to offer another retelling that indicated that the mistake was even MORE ridiculous than originally thought. It seems like both cited the ACLU, so perhaps they interpreted differently?

Camille, I changed the post to reflect what you pointed out; the NYT article is now quoted. Thanks. :)

To #1 it depends on what part of the world you are from if that black man said he was from Haiti he just might get deported. So yes they would deport a black man.

Does anybody know how they go about verifying your status before they deport you? This is something I've wondered for a while, especially since there isn't a national database of citizens and some citizens don't have a passport, and may not even have their birth certificate. Is the onus on the suspected illegal immigrant?

AMfD? Any other lawyers out there?

I was never worried about this until I moved to the midwest. Out here you're not considered foreign American, even if you were born in this country or naturalized. And while I don't live in a locality where the police enforce immigration law, for quite a while I wouldn't go for a run without some form of ID on me, just in case there was some misunderstanding.

Life does imitate art.

Meanwhile, from this:

Sheriff's officials had turned Guzman over to federal immigration agents after he apparently indicated that he was born in Mexico.

But, don't let that possibility stand in the way of taking everything the ACLU says at face value. It's true that that organization has an indirect link to the Mexican government, so perhaps one of their handlers sources in the Mexican government is giving them good information.

Doug - thanks for the clarification.

Samir - so true about the cases in Oz. Cornelia sued the government and I believe she was compensated.

Ennis - In Oz everyone needs to have either a Birth Certificate / Citizenship certificate for absolute proof of identity. Without one of them you are screwed. There was a case about a lady whose parents did not register her birth and hence theoretically she did not exist.

There is a dual problem here. First, is the immediate assumption that Guzman was probably an illegal. Given that he lives in SoCAL, the probability of him not being an illegal is quite high. The other problem is the lack of observation of the Vienna Conventions (article V), which says that certain embassies need to be notified if their nationals are arrested. This includes legal residents. In addition, California passed a law recently requiring police departments to observe the Vienna Conventions and to determine within reason an individual's legal status. If the person is not legal. then the embassy should be informed of what is happening to their citizen.I found (see this url: articlec) in research I did, many California police departments either don't understand this requirement or give it lip service. As such, this situation has far-reaching implications for anyone not a US citizen and should not be tolerated by anyone.

Sorry- can't figure out how to do the url links.

here's the url:http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33344

Out here you're not considered foreign, even if you were born or naturalized.

Ennis, didn't you mean 'Out here you're always considered foreign....'.

a couple points.

I'm pretty strongly anti illegal immigration, but if he was deported without confirmation that he wasn't born in the US (i agree that the fact he said he was mexico born doesn't excuse authorities from not conducting simple procedural checks on whether he was born elsewhere and was here illegally) i hope he sues the government's pants off

Ennis, the burden is on the government in refugee and waiving of illegal immigrant status through hardship cases to prove their illegal or qualify under a number of different standards (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:n2h7NPRxH7QJ:www.wvdhhr.net/bcf/policy/imm/Archive_IMManual/Manual%2520PDF%2520Files/Chapter18/ch18_apa.pdf+status+verification+before+deportation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a). I believe its the same for deportation.

Zazou, I wonder how this would hold up after the Hazelton district court decision, which would presumably void the state rule by claiming some type of national supremacy http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070726immig,1,1433845.story . Though of course, thats assuming the Hazelton ruling will actually stand.

ce blast,

I don't know the Hazelton case but it doesn't really matter what they decide,if I understand you correctly, because abiding by the Vienna Conventions is not optional, no matter how much Hazelton dislikes the State's ruling. The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution makes US signed and ratified treaties "the law of the land." And unless Hazelton (or Alberto Gonzalez) has seceded from the state and the union- they are obligated to observe it, as last year's SCOTUS ruling indicates. And"law of the land" means even in Hazelton.

Ce Blast,

took a look at Hazelton and this is very similar to the city of Escondido in California- so the Vienna Convention in terms of arrests is not part of this situation on the surface. Escondido's problem was that the ordinances were aimed at Latinos, but the way that they were written was such that any Latino was subject to identity checks and not, by inference, white people. The other problem that Hazelton and Escondido have is that the US Constitution protects everyone currently residing in the US, citizen or not. Yes, certain rights are extended only to citizens- such as voting- but nowhere in the Constitution does it say, unless you are illegal. And that is one of the reasons the Hazelton ruling may not stand.

As for illegal immigration, if you are really against it, you need to talk to your reps about changing the visa/quote laws. The laws are such that legal immigration from Mexico is severely limited, and yet illegal immigration from Mexico supplies most of the manual labor in the Western States. You and I both know neither of us is going up to Northern California to pick apricots and strawberries, nor are we willing to dig trenches in 90 degree weather, and yet, contributions from illegals are what keeps California's economy relatively healthy, and social security out of the circular file for a few more years. The need is not for fortress America but for a humane and intelligent immigration policy and that's not going to happen because brown illegals are useful bogeymen. When was the last time you heard anyone complain about the damn Irish and not mean Notre Dame? And yet in 1987, there was a special amnesty for the Irish and you heard naught a peep against that.

2 things zazou.

First, read a couple articles on the Hazelton case. The district court judge there struck down a Anti-Illegal Immigrant Ordinance by the town by claiming that immigration was solely the jurisidiction of the federal government. Interesting reasoning and completely applicable here because the only way the vienna convetions would apply is if a body like califorina or an entity smaller than the national government tried to enforce them. This is because, while you have a somewhat reasonable grasp of the 6th amendment, it doesn't apply here because the US pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the convention which contains article V in 2005 i believe. So they can't be held liable to treaties they're not a part of. I'm not sure what SCOTUS case you're referring to. These are different from the Geneva Conventions, so it can't be related to those cases and the only other possibility--Sanchez-Llamas-- categorically said that defendents could NOT use treaty violation (in fact on the exact matter your referring to) to surpress evidence.

You have to pay attention to the law on this, because its pretty clear cut. In '05 the government withdraws form the Optional protocal in these vienna conventions (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/border/intlprotocol/vienna.shtml). Then Cali, deciding they disagree, adopt it as a state. Now a District Court Judge says Hazelton can't adopt anti-immigrant legislation because immigration is solely the arena of the national govt. The ACLU here obviously didn't think their cunning plan entirely through as that ruling coudl now presumably be used to strike down the California law.

ok. one more quick reply.

First, Munley's main crutch is going to be his supremacy argument:
"Whatever frustrations ... the city of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme,"

and either way, the fact he included it makes it a precedent on the books regardless of the purported due process violations as well--this in itself can be effectively used to challenge Cali law. Just remaining on your first paragraph, on the merits of the due process argument I'm not sure why you're bringing up everyone has right except citizens have some special rigths that their citizenship entitles them to. I agree, and I think pretty much all mainstream legally interested people do. However, what's at issue is whether the special targeting of illegal hispanic immigrants violates due process. In this case first of all, the claim that only spanish people and not whites would be targeted when they go after landlords is confusing. There's a substantial ovelap of the 'white' race with the 'spanish' race and its not really that accurate. However, the more reasonable argument is that this is specificially hispanic targeted--there's some argument to be made there in the racial profiling vein, but that's why other towns have already indicated they're going to pass oridinances that don't specifially target hispanics but after all illegal immigrans (being illegal doesn't grand protected minority status, and obviously hispanic illegals probably comprise a good chunk of certain areas illegal populations) so the supremacy argument will be the only crutch.

As for your strawmen general arguments on immigration:

The US has the right to regulate its immigration policy and does so, they allow approximately 700k to 900k immigrants in legally and weigh it towards mexico despite qualification restrictions which work the opposite way. Mexico is gravely in violation of international non refugee emigration rules.

Mexico does not supply MOST of the manual labor force in the US. Illegal Mexican Immigrants do contribute substantially adn do dominate regionally, but are still not a majority of the manual labor force. Areas such as New England and other places without high illegal immigrant populations still have all of their manual labor position fulfilled without depressing wages like illegal immigrants tend to due. And on an anecdotal note, just because you don't want to get your hands dirty on a farm or doing manual labor in the hot weather doens't mean others don't. Most of my friends and even I worked manual labor--from warehouses to factories to farms--seasonally over summers when we were students. It was decent money, hard work and we got a tan (admittedly not as effectively on my already brown skin) so dont pretend you have some end all argument there.

Youre right though, the US is not a fortress. It allows almost 1000000 foreigners in each year. It also requires that those foreigners pass a certain set of qualifications. This isn't to try to be inhumane or racist. It's to regulate their effect on the economy and country so that when they come here and look for the American Dream, they not only find it intact, but actually contribute to make it even better.

I have no problem with arguments for raising quotas or relaxing restrictions as long as their logical and can win in the theatre of democracy they'll be subject to. Of course, bashing opponents as racist or inhumane will immediately set you back in that process.

ce blast,

First of all, I grew up on a farm in Northern California and worked in canneries.. My grandparents were tenant farmers so I know for a fact, I am not going that route. If you remember, I said Western US. And from California to Washington, the field labor is predominantly Mexican. As for the pull out you mention, the pull-out in 2005 was not of the Vienna Conventions itself but of the ICJ. See wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations

the SCOTUS case is Sanchez-Llams v, Oregon, see my article for IPS.org on the Vienna Conventions and Consular representation. In matters concerning the rights of foreign nationals, federal treaty trumps local law and custom- thus both the Constitution and the Vienna Conventions apply.

Again, from Wikipedia:
qual Protection under US law

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. It established that regardless of legal status, illegal immigrants are still “persons� and thus protected as such under some provisions the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, notably the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments…The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts …to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection."[39]

As for working for good wages- I'm not sure where you were working. here in California, field work barely clears $7/hr.

On a side note... Security is tighter in some Midwest airports (like Indy, where my family have been living last few yrs) than here in NYC (Laguardia is the one I go to). I was never searched here, but was once padded down in Indy and (most recently) had my carry-on stuff x-rayed and searched.

Out here you're not considered foreign, even if you were born or naturalized.

Ennis, didn't you mean 'Out here you're always considered foreign...

Well, the average Midwestern person hasn't had a LOTTA contact w/ browns until v. recently (mainly desis and Mexicans are in suburban Indy). My brother's suburban school there only recently had Mexican kids (immigrant and 1st gen)! It was a bit if a shock for my family when they moved (from Tucson, AZ) to Indy! They were not ready for the lack of browns (of any background)!!!

I'm pretty strongly anti illegal immigration, but if he was deported without confirmation that he wasn't born in the US (i agree that the fact he said he was mexico born doesn't excuse authorities from not conducting simple procedural checks on whether he was born elsewhere and was here illegally) i hope he sues the government's pants off

You and I both know neither of us is going up to Northern California to pick apricots and strawberries, nor are we willing to dig trenches in 90 degree weather,

Mexico does not supply MOST of the manual labor force in the US.

Areas such as New England and other places without high illegal immigrant populations still have all of their manual labor position fulfilled without depressing wages like illegal immigrants tend to due.

Also, I think zazou (?) argued that undocumented Mexican labor drives the manual labor supply in Western States, not the U.S., so I just wanted to restate that point because there IS an important regional distinction. I would also add to that, for California, undocumented labor from Asia and documented immigrants all around. In the case of migrant farmworkers, for example, many are fully documented but constantly underpaid and harassed with threats of deportation, reporting, etc. Many lack full English fluency, and their language vulnerability, coupled with their immigration status (both documented and undocumented) compounds their lack of access to legal protection and resources. Just as we complain about H1B-visa holders being held hostage to "white collar slavery," the landscape is similar, although environmentally more severe (generally), for documented immigrants on the "bottom" of the labor-wage market.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that migrant workers are the primary agents of "depressed wages," not because I don't understand the economic rationale here, but because there is a huge push-pull factor coming from businesses, etc. These "depressed wages" also subsidize our cost of living and our extravagant spending for those in the middle class and higher in this country, and in the West specifically where many (documented and un-) immigrants engage in the manual service industry. Additionally, for California, anyway, studies find that even without manual labor wages in "unskilled" industries would remain artificially low, and unemployment would persist as well. I'll find a link, but this was covered in the LATimes 2-3 years ago. Whether people like it or not, specific jobs taken by limited English speakers and immigrants are seen as unworthy or "dirty" by native-born, low-income, unemployed folks. Being a member of an immigrant community in the south/west is not easy, and it guarantees that you will be treated with less respect, will be underpaid, and will be subjected to "3D" jobs. The fact of the matter is, if your sweatshop-boss threatens deportation, even if you're legally here, they can then threaten family (even if you're second gen), or, as we've seen from this article, they could deport your ass and you could be here as a citizen!

Oh, and in New England there is a rapidly growing immigrant population, including Mexican immigration. And, similarly to the southwest, most folks are entering the service economy. I also think it's important to note the high levels of unemployment among rural and post-industrial rural communities in New England -- both pre- and post-immigration. That unemployment was NOT immigrant-created, and its amelioration is NOT a product of how many (documented and un-) folks we have in the region. If we're going to do an economic analysis, we also have to look at how the systems differ. Also, cost of living is cheaper in many areas of New England than in, oh, say, LA or the Bay, and real wages have greater purchasing power than they do in the SW.

The ACLU here obviously didn't think their cunning plan entirely through as that ruling coudl now presumably be used to strike down the California law.

whats the south asian angle here?

whats the south asian angle here?

Try reading the actual post vs. skimming or whatever it is you did, before trolling. That's right, I said "trolling". I just checked your comment history and what a shocker, you have a bit of a history of flaming this blogger.

whats the south asian angle here?

It's pretty clear - this is a story that shows how easily mentally disabled immigrants (first or second gen) can get deported. ANNA told the story of Pedro, and then talked about how easily this could have happened to Mona.

I've had my eye on this story ever since he was first deported but never got around to blogging it. It's firmly within our ambit.

Thanks Camille. I have read your opinion on immigration elsewhere on this blog and you have a very sound understanding of it. There is nothing illegal about the Hispanic/Mexican immigration to the US. I'll explain it some other time. For now I just want to say to the misguided South Asians so smugly opposed to ' illegal ' immigration that the White people who are against it are hardly favorable towards ' legal ' immigration. They are working to reduce, not increase legal visas and in many cases even talking about a moratorium on any furure immigration ( which of course is non White ). I can promise you that if there were no Mexicans risking life and limb to come to America to make an honest living doing the thankless jobs that no American would touch and instead it were an Indian wave of English speaking technology immigrants, you'd see similar rancor from talk radio, Lou Dobbs, the conservative base e.t.c. Have you forgotten the anti H1B trash talk?

There is something else that has been bothering me;this is a commendably progressive blog which has disappointingly been ambivalent about comrehensive immigration reform.

There is something else that has been bothering me;this is a commendably progressive blog which has disappointingly been ambivalent about comrehensive immigration reform.

But we aren't a progressive blog in the least. We're a motley crew (unfortunately not a motley crue), a random assortment of people most of whom are far from ideologically consistent themselves. We don't try to stick to one ideological line or another. Pass The Roti is a progressive blog, we are a mutiny.

I agree with Ennis, in that the overarching idea is that overzealous police or whoever, are perfectly capable of making your life miserable because of a perceived immigration status. And Camille is absolutely right is saying that SoCal is by far more anti-immigrant, anti-brown than most areas of the US, in some very important ways. ICE, for example, in San Diego, can ride the trolley and ask for your papers. The Minutemen are harassing day laborers, legal and not. The police will stop you more often when you're brown just for being somewhere where they think brown people "don't seem right." (happened to a friend of mine." And No Child Left Behind? You think they're recruiting n La Jolla? No way- recruiters are targeting mostly Mexican neighborhood schools for their recruits.

overzealous police or whoever, are perfectly capable of making your life miserable because of a perceived immigration status.

Absolutely... and not just the police, but neighbors as well. In Hazleton there are lots of reports of white neighbors calling police or ICE on their brown neighbors, assuming that brown = illegal. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're legal, and sometimes annoyed Puerto Ricans have to explain once again that they are US citizens. The point is that anyone with brown skin or a perceived Latino identity gets harassed by the authorities and by their neighbors. I think it's less about punishing landlords than it is about creating an atmosphere so hostile to Latinos of any kind that people just move out rather than deal with it-- and then Hazleton gets to be lily-white again just like the 'good old days'.

Thanks, Posterity :) Although I do echo Ennis on this one -- SM is not progressive; they cover a wide variety of topics, and the political perspectives differ, as does the commentary. I think the only unifying factor, actually, is that generally the theme is that it's South Asian American-oriented. :)

zazou, a resounding, "thank you!" I should qualify, though, and say that I don't think the Central Valley or Bay is dramatically better on how it treats Latinos and Latino immigrants, save for possibly the western side of the east Bay + SF. While ICE probably won't stop you on the BART, they've raiding Latino homes and neighborhoods for months now -- they show up in the middle of the night, and if you cannot produce papers on demand (or do not let them enter your house), they arrest you and keep you in holding. And, from what I've heard (and this may not be legally correct), the onus is on the arrested to prove they're a citizen. Honestly, it sounds like a police-state, to me.

I forgot to mention, in my long explanation, that California is also unique in that it has a large indigenous Latino population -- i.e. the Californios, people who've been around since pre-/post-Mexican American War and California's induction into the union. All our big cities are named in Spanish, and yet there is this vicious, anti-Latino sentiment that lumps all Latinos together as "Mexicans" (used at best as an ignorant generalization, and at worst as a slur).

The burden of proof is on the US citizen as far as I understand. Birth records, witnesses, family registry or anything that can show that the person was born in the US. I know cases where people have been able to prove their birth on US soil by mere affidavits from witnesses.

Camille is correct on this- and here in SoCal ICE is doing similar things, as well. As for the "indigenous" population- again, the Californios/hildagos were the majority when the area went over to the US. There are a number of families here and throughout the Southwest who can truly say "the border crossed us, we didn't cross the border." I really have a problem with being asked for my papers, especially since I only carry my driver's license and not even that when I'm out walking around. If I really wanted to live in an id-card obsessed environment, I'd go back to Europe tomorrow.
But to get back to the probalem of assumed identity- fun little story- about 7 years back when ex and I were crossing the border by car, we got stopped and sent to secondary for inspection. When I got out to look at the sticker, I noticed the statement possible fake id. Now, mind you, ex looks sort of Mexicican but is actually Moroccan (there you go, Conditioner...). But think of it, what Mexican in their right mind would pose as an Arab? What, like he doesn't get enough grief being Mexican? Such is the stellar logic of the charming people who work so terribly hard trying to save us from ourselves.

"I guess the moral of this story is, Lock up your vulnerable loved ones, lest they get “accidentally” deported"

No, no, no! You got it all wrong, the moral is to tattoo serial numbers on those who are undesirables. This is to keep them safe from mistaken misclassification, of course.

This is almost like the storyline of the movie, Born In East L.A. Wow, amazing that something like this can happen in real life.