Davin News Server

Were Any Immigrants Unjustly Deported From 2009 To 2017?

Yes, there were cases of immigrants being unjustly deported from the United States between 2009 and 2017, during the Obama 
administration. While precise numbers for "unjust" deportations are not officially tracked due to the subjective nature of the 
term, several factors and documented cases highlight instances where deportations were criticized as unfair or lacking due 
process. Below is an overview based on available evidence:

Context and Scale of Deportations

Volume: Approximately 3.2 million immigrants were deported during the Obama administration (2009-2017), with annual removals 
peaking at around 410,000 in 2012. These included both border and interior removals.

Policy Focus: The administration prioritized deportations of individuals with criminal convictions, recent border crossers, and 
those with final removal orders. However, the broad application of immigration laws and policies led to cases where deportations 
were seen as disproportionate or unjust.

Reasons for Unjust Deportations

Lack of Due Process:

Reports from organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Migration Policy Institute estimate that 75-83% 
of deportations during this period occurred without a hearing before an immigration judge, often through expedited removal or 
administrative processes.


Expedited removal allowed immigration officers to deport individuals without judicial review, particularly at the border, which 
sometimes led to deportations of individuals with valid asylum claims or strong U.S. ties.

Human Rights Watch noted that many deportations disregarded immigrants" fundamental rights, such as family unity or the right to 
seek asylum, due to fast-track procedures.

Deportations for Minor Offenses:

A 2014 New York Times analysis found that two-thirds of the nearly 2 million deportations by that point involved individuals with 
minor infractions (e.g., traffic violations) or no criminal record at all.

The 1996 immigration laws, particularly the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), expanded 
grounds for deportation to include minor, nonviolent crimes, often retroactively. Legal permanent residents (green card holders) 
were deported for old convictions, even if they had served their sentences and rebuilt their lives.

Impact on Families and Long-Term Residents:

Many deportees had deep ties to the U.S., including U.S. citizen children, spouses, or long-term residency. Human Rights Watch 
documented cases of long-term residents deported for minor or nonviolent offenses, separating them from families and communities.

A 2011 study estimated 5,000 children were in foster care due to a parent's detention or deportation, with some parents losing 
parental rights due to prolonged detention and barriers to participating in family court hearings.

For example, the case of Manuel, deported in 2017 after missing a court hearing he was unaware of, left his U.S. citizen wife and 
daughter in financial and emotional distress.

Asylum Seekers and Vulnerable Individuals:

Some deportations involved individuals fleeing persecution who were not given adequate opportunity to present asylum claims. 
Human Rights Watch reported cases where Border Patrol agents misrepresented or ignored asylum seekers" statements, leading to 
deportations to dangerous situations.

The 1996 laws imposed strict deadlines (e.g., one-year filing for asylum) and mandatory detention, which harmed vulnerable 
groups, including those fleeing persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Collateral Deportations:

Immigration enforcement actions sometimes swept up individuals who were not the primary target. For instance, workplace raids or 
community sweeps led to arrests of immigrants with no criminal history.

The 287(g) program, which allowed local law enforcement to act as immigration officers, was linked to increased deportations of 
non-criminals in participating counties.

Specific Cases

Luis Mayea Pulido (2017): A lawful permanent resident since 1986, Pulido was deported for a 2003 theft conviction that likely 
would not be deportable under later case law. He faced violence in Mexico after multiple unauthorized reentries to reunite with 
his family.

Diego R (2017): Deported to Mexico, a country he hadn't seen since age three, Diego was separated from his U.S.-based daughter on 
her fourth birthday. He had no significant criminal history but was caught in an immigration sweep.

Ricky (2017): A DACA recipient, Ricky lost his protected status and was deported after a minor drug conviction. He faced threats 
from a cartel in Mexico, who identified him as a deportee.

Criticisms and Consequences

Human Rights Violations: Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized deportations that violated 
rights to family unity, due process, and protection from persecution.

Economic and Social Impact: Deportations led to financial hardship for U.S. citizen family members, with studies showing 40-90% 
income loss in affected households. The housing market was also destabilized, as 1.2 million households with undocumented 
immigrants held mortgages.

Racial Disparities: Black and Latino immigrants were disproportionately targeted, with Black Caribbean immigrants facing 
deportations for minor offenses due to intersections of anti-Black racism and immigration enforcement.

Counterarguments

The Obama administration argued that prioritizing criminal deportations enhanced public safety and national security. ICE data 
shows 79% of interior removals from 2009-2016 involved individuals with criminal convictions, though many were for nonviolent 
offenses.

Some deportations were legally justified under existing laws, even if perceived as harsh. The administration also introduced 
policies like the 2013 Parental Interests Directive to mitigate family separations, though these were weakened in 2017.

Toward the end of Obama's presidency, enforcement shifted to provide some protections for long-term, non-criminal undocumented 
immigrants, though these did not prevent all unjust cases.                    

Conclusion

While the Obama administration's deportation policies were framed as targeting serious criminals, the broad and often 
indiscriminate application of immigration laws led to numerous cases of unjust deportations. These included long-term residents, 
parents of U.S. citizens, asylum seekers, and individuals with minor or no criminal records, often without adequate due process. 
Documented cases and statistical analyses from reputable sources confirm these occurrences, though the exact number of "unjust" 
deportations remains unquantified due to varying definitions of the term.

===============================================================================

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition

All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike 
of Donald Trump, to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."

Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into 
three distinct phases or stages:

"In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, 
as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world."

"The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting 
solely of hyperbole."

"As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality."

The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk opposition from liberals to anything and everything 
Trump does. If Trump announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would suggest he was up to something 
nefarious, according to the logic of TDS. There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be received 
positively by TDSers.

The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early 2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was 
a punch line for late-night comics and nothing more.

Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first coined by the late conservative columnist Charles 
Krauthammer back in 2003. The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people 
in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - the very existence of George W. Bush."