Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Non citizens can sue the government?DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
Non citizens can sue the government?
You're the bigot for thinking that up, TN.I noticed you ignored the bigot accusation.Thank you for explaining your code, though.I didn't put lol on there :/
So you work for the govt?DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
Sounds like there's plenty of wiggle room, either way. He would seem to have had "presence" here though after many years as a legal resident. From his behavior of illegally crossing the border while on probation, I wouldn't have a lot of patience with him, if I were the judge.Non citizens can sue the government?DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357Non citizens can sue the government?
I'm not an attorney nor have I searched for every precedent pertaining to standing. I recall a somewhat recent case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., that addressed the matter. It seems from reading the decision and multiple concurring opinions given in the unanimous decision, whether a foreign individual has standing to even bring suit depends on the nature and extent of their "presence" (legal sense of the word). There being multiple concurring opinions means essentially that foreigners may or may not have standing.
As goes the matter of bringing suit against the U.S. Government itself, Price v. United States is likely the predominant decision on the matter. The Constitution is silent on the matter, yet loose construction of that document allowed the Court to impute sovereign immunity as a principle of jurisprudence that the U.S. Government itself cannot be sued unless it accedes to being sued.
How various individuals apply the principle of sovereign immunity can present an interesting dilemma, depending on the approaches the individual in question advocates on other matters. Take, for example, strict constructionists who on a variety of issues argue that because the Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit or permit a given action, that action, thus the right by which one undertakes it, cannot by lesser laws be abridged. Clearly, one cannot be a person of principle who both stands on that notion yet also agree with the notion of sovereign immunity. A person who do that must rationally be construed not as a principled one, but rather as one who merely wants what they want when it suits (no pun) them.
In contrast, individuals who see the Constitution as one of several relevant guides for jurisprudential decision making don't have that problem. They don't because they don't "box" themselves into a binary position controlled by what one source, a 200+ year old document penned by fallible men, explicitly says or doesn't say.
?So you work for the govt?DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
Sounds like there's plenty of wiggle room, either way. He would seem to have had "presence" here though after many years as a legal resident. From his behavior of illegally crossing the border while on probation, I wouldn't have a lot of patience with him, if I were the judge.Non citizens can sue the government?DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357Non citizens can sue the government?
I'm not an attorney nor have I searched for every precedent pertaining to standing. I recall a somewhat recent case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., that addressed the matter. It seems from reading the decision and multiple concurring opinions given in the unanimous decision, whether a foreign individual has standing to even bring suit depends on the nature and extent of their "presence" (legal sense of the word). There being multiple concurring opinions means essentially that foreigners may or may not have standing.
As goes the matter of bringing suit against the U.S. Government itself, Price v. United States is likely the predominant decision on the matter. The Constitution is silent on the matter, yet loose construction of that document allowed the Court to impute sovereign immunity as a principle of jurisprudence that the U.S. Government itself cannot be sued unless it accedes to being sued.
How various individuals apply the principle of sovereign immunity can present an interesting dilemma, depending on the approaches the individual in question advocates on other matters. Take, for example, strict constructionists who on a variety of issues argue that because the Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit or permit a given action, that action, thus the right by which one undertakes it, cannot by lesser laws be abridged. Clearly, one cannot be a person of principle who both stands on that notion yet also agree with the notion of sovereign immunity. A person who do that must rationally be construed not as a principled one, but rather as one who merely wants what they want when it suits (no pun) them.
In contrast, individuals who see the Constitution as one of several relevant guides for jurisprudential decision making don't have that problem. They don't because they don't "box" themselves into a binary position controlled by what one source, a 200+ year old document penned by fallible men, explicitly says or doesn't say.
Sounds like there's plenty of wiggle room, either way.
that 50 dollar shirt he wears sure is nice$700? Just a guess.DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
Why didn't he become a citizen sometime during the 14 years he lived in the US?
When he wins or loses, it'll be worth knowing about the case and on what basis Juan wins or loses. Right now, so what? He'll either prevail in court or he won't.A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
To understand my point, if you don't, read this.
DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.
The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what the real facts are in this case and make a determination. DACA is still the law of the land and the people who are currently in it should be allowed to remain. That is the fair thing to do.
DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
If he didn't renew, he isn't legal. Period.DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.
The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what the real facts are in this case and make a determination. DACA is still the law of the land and the people who are currently in it should be allowed to remain. That is the fair thing to do.
DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.
The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what
Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.
He says he did and if he has proof that he filed then it is a new ballgame. I know firsthand how the government can screw things up.
if he had proof, don't you think they would have mentioned that?DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.
The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what
Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.
He says he did and if he has proof that he filed then it is a new ballgame. I know firsthand how the government can screw things up.
DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.
The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what
Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.
He says he did and if he has proof that he filed then it is a new ballgame. I know firsthand how the government can screw things up.
if he had proof, don't you think they would have mentioned that?
Look again. Bee messed up the quote..DACA recipient who claims to be first ‘Dreamer’ deported under Trump files suit
A 23-year-old so-called “dreamer” is suing the federal government over his deportation to his native Mexico earlier this year.
Juan Manuel Montes, who was 9 years old when he first came to the United States, claims he is entitled to remain in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. His attorneys said he is believed to be the first known person under the program to be deported during the Trump administration.
According to Montes’ attorneys, the 23-year-old qualified for DACA in 2014 and renewed his status for two years in 2016.
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputes that account. CBP said his DACA permit expired in August 2015 and, according to its records, was not renewed. The agency added that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.
His attorneys acknowledged Tuesday in the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California that he had a misdemeanor on his record and “minor traffic offenses,” none of which would have disqualified him from DACA
dude is illegal, failed to follow through with his agreements and gets mad?
View attachment 122357
I would tend to support the plaintiff. The fact is that the government cannot keep track of things and would even lie if necessary. A Indian husband wife doctor team was forced to reschedule surgeries because the government told them that they did not have to renew their status until this year. Turned out that they were wrong and their status expired last summer.
The plaintiff was legal so he should have standing. We need someone who can look at what
Not if they didn't renew their status, and it shouldn't be considered if they were in any conflict with our laws.
He says he did and if he has proof that he filed then it is a new ballgame. I know firsthand how the government can screw things up.if he had proof, don't you think they would have mentioned that?
LOL
What? Nothing, because that is what appears to be content the other member shared in the post to which you replied.