This is a sad story but blaming it on Spanky is a stretch. Back in the Clinton years I represented a man who had ratted on a guy that the people who ms-13 answer to, answers to. The state departments position was always they would step in if he faced final deportation but not until he had exhausted every avenue available for him to stay without them being involved.

Since someone in position to rat on a internationally known criminal is probably not going to be able to establish the "good moral character" needed for a discretionary form of relief from deportation this was a no go from the start. There was a discretionary form of relief available with a waiver ( I think 212(h) but it has been awhile) but since from the time he aided the government and his hearing that form of relief had gone from requiring 7 years of continuous physical presence ( suspension of deportation) to 10 years ( now called Cancellation of removal) and the waiver had been eliminated. Fortunately the judge he was in front of, whenever I would ask for a continuance ( i think it was three times) rather than moving him to the next available date would put him at the end of her calendar to let him acquire the extra years. Then when the date finally rolled around and I argued that removal of the waiver after his crime was an ex post facto enhancement to its punishment she continued the case again for two more years to let a richer law firm run that argument though the courts.

In the interim I left immigration law and passed the case to another attorney and have no idea what ever happened to the guy.

The point is the snitch visa is not something the government has ever liked to hand out.

In your opinion, are the Children's Advocates correct in warning their teens to avoid the police? It seems like the over authoritarian position law enforcement is taking is just one of many ways they're ruining their legitimacy.

While I tend to think, given the current climate, that everyone should avoid the police to be a bit less cynical - it depends ( an almost universal answer in law). First, I haven't read about that so I assume it is referring to undocumented children. The issues that come in to play are if they or parents on whom their status depends are in proceedings, would have some relief from deportation available if they were, or if they ( or the parents) are already under orders of deportation. So let me just put out some basic principles.

The main ways people find to stay are getting a visa ( family, work, the lottery ( very very rare) snitch ( even more rare)),etc, through asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the convention against torture ( these three are a variations of the same principals), or the aforementioned cancellation of removal that requires 10 years of continuous physical
presence and the existence of a qualifying relative (citizen or legal permanent resident spouse parent or child) who would suffer if they were removed. Being Cuban and deferred action programs are their own categories.

Almost all forms of relief are discretionary in nature (that is, if you otherwise qualify, the judge in his discretion may offer relief - there is a presumption of relief so if he does not positively exercise this discretion he must have an articulable reason.) Most forms also require the applicant have "good moral character." This is usually proven in the negative - no criminal record - at least no serious crimes and no lesser "crimes involving moral turpitude." A proactive showing by an applicant that they are actually of good moral character rather than that minimum, ( community service, support for extended family (here not abroad) volunteer work, etc) is very valuable in close cases. A positive showing of good moral character can help with the judges analysis of credibility ( often there is little to no evidence for some forms of relief other than the applicant's testimony) and a judge who is positively disposed towards the applicant is more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, excuse explainable but unfortunate gaps in the record, etc. On of the things a judge may consider in this analysis is if the person protectively applied for relief from deportation or if he only applied after being caught and forced in to proceedings.

Deferred action hinges on the political climate both here and, sometimes, in a specific country ( like deferred action for Haitians as opposed to deferred action for the young) and can have different effects based upon how it is written up to giving relief to those already ordered deported.


Okay that is some basics.

If you are a teen who has no basis to claim relief from deportation on your own, you probably want to avoid the police. Most teens have no independent form of relief available, ( they are neither being targeted for persecution allowing asylum, nor the 10 years physical presence and qualifying relative for cancellation) but might be riding on a parents application.

If the parents are in proceedings and the child is a rider, running from the police can make things worse as it could lead to a negative exercise of discretion in an otherwise winnable case.

If you are a person ( teen or not) with no present basis for relief but might have in the future ( for example you are trying to accrue your 10 years) it may depend on who close you are. If you are within a year or so of qualifying most judges will set the case far enough out to allow that relief to become available ( at least they would when I practiced) some would not. In some of the immigration courts the backlog is so long it will be set far out anyway. So if you are five years from being able to apply you might not want to get caught now. The odds are you will be deported before the relief becomes available. If you are already eligible or are close, you must weigh the ding your hope for a positive exercise of discretion may take if you are caught running from the police.

If you are a teen with no basis for relief or with a previous order of deportation who absolutely does not want to leave, avoiding the police in the hopes that something will come up in the future ( deferred action, marriage to a citizen, your home country falling in to anarchy were they are specifically targeting people like you) might really be your only option.