Bush Administration trying to deport an LPR after he was pronounced 'not guilty' by a jury of his peers...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

MIAMI -- The case of the "Liberty City Seven" stymied jurors. After a three-month trial late last year, they deadlocked on nearly all of the charges regarding the purported plot by several men to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.

The one thing jurors could agree upon, however, was that one of the men, Lyglenson Lemorin, 33, was not guilty.

...

Yet more than two months after his acquittal on charges of supporting terrorism, Lemorin remains incarcerated, and U.S. immigration officials are moving to deport him to Haiti, which he left more than 20 years ago.

...

The government's effort to punish Lemorin despite the acquittal is drawing fire from his attorneys and some legal observers as an attempt to seek retribution in a high-profile case that prosecutors lost after a fair trial.

Even the jury foreman -- who said he had been willing to convict some of Lemorin's co-defendants -- said the move to deport Lemorin seems unfair.

"It's kind of outrageous that the guy was cleared after we spent three months at trial, and now they're continuing to go after him," said Jeff Agron, 46, an educator.

...

Caught in the middle is Lemorin, a father of two, a Haitian immigrant who came here as a child and is a permanent legal resident of the United States.

"It's not just double jeopardy -- it's sour grapes," said Lemorin's criminal defense attorney, Joel DeFabio. "It's a mind set at the Department of Justice: 'We don't lose -- and if we can get you another way, we will.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0101566_pf.html

[mawilson 2,133]

What legal grounds do they have for deportation?

[yogib37 3]

What legal grounds do they have for deportation?

That F**KUP Document called 'THE PATRIOT ACT'

If he was found NOT Guilty, then he is freeded to go and they cant hold him. he is being heald as false imprisionment

yogi

[Jason-Sasha 1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't he have applied for citizenship a long time ago? Would have made a difference. I support the Patriot Act. I believe it is best for the greater good of the nation. But I do love how this has been titled "The Bush administration trying..." That's just as classy as something CNN would say.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't he have applied for citizenship a long time ago?

There is no legal requirement that one naturalize.

But I do love how this has been titled "The Bush administration trying..." That's just as classy as something CNN would say.

Is this or is this not the Bush administration's DOJ?

Edited March 3, 2008 by VJ Troll

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't he have applied for citizenship a long time ago? Would have made a difference. I support the Patriot Act. I believe it is best for the greater good of the nation. But I do love how this has been titled "The Bush administration trying..." That's just as classy as something CNN would say.

[Cassie 8]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't he have applied for citizenship a long time ago?

There is no legal requirement that one naturalize.

[Dan J 277]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't he have applied for citizenship a long time ago? Would have made a difference. I support the Patriot Act. I believe it is best for the greater good of the nation. But I do love how this has been titled "The Bush administration trying..." That's just as classy as something CNN would say.

There are many reasons why someone may not apply for naturalization. There is no obligation to do so either, unless you want to vote or hold office.

Being cleared of any involvement in what he was charged with should be the end of the story. Pushing for deportation on no real grounds is an abuse of power.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Pushing for deportation on no real grounds is an abuse of power.

An abuse of power by the Bush Administration's Department of Justice.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't he have applied for citizenship a long time ago?

There is no legal requirement that one naturalize.

No there's not. But you never know when the government is going pull the rug from under your feet if you don't.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's pretty outrageous - but then so are a lot of the rules that apply to LPR status - being acquitted of a crime is not enough - you need to not be accused in the first place

[Niels Bohr 72]

Well, you see...

I didn't get naturalized until 22 years after I become legal permanent resident. He may have his reason for not applying. I remembered my reason for not applying. It's because I was in school, and couldn't afford to pay for the fee. Yes, twenty two years will provide me with income enough to pay for the fee; however, I felt that there was no difference between LPR and citizenship rights besides voting.

[peejay 327]

This is nothing new nor is it another example of Gestapo tactics of the Bush administration in action.

Hundreds of foreign nationals were deported in the 1920's for being members of communist and anarchist organizations participating in subversive activities against the USA. It is one thing for a US citizen to plot against their own government and quite another for foreign nationals to do so.

This guy Lyglenson Lemorin may have been found "not guilty" of a crime for whatever reason, but that does not necessarily mean he is aquitted of being a participant in subversive activities in the USA. As such, the US government wants him removed from the USA as a threat. He will get his due process in the immigration courts.

Criminal and immigration laws are not the same. Neither is criminal and civil law. OJ was found "not guilty" of murder, but was found accountable in civil proceedings.

I may be mistaken since I am no lawyer, but that is how I understand the situation. I don't want to see anyone that is totally innocent to be deported for something they did not participate in, but if this guy is involved in subversive activities and is deportable as such...he needs to be returned to his own country.

[Caladan 19]

Actually, being found not guilty does mean he was found not guilty. On what grounds do your deport someone who wasn't convicted? That he *should* have been convicted? That he was accused and they musta hadda good reason?

It's not even just removing him from the U.S. This is a process to strip him of his green card.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When you apply for the K-Visa and subsequently LPR there are plenty of innuendo - guilty-by-association clauses in the immigration law.

You don't have to have done something to be stripped of your benefits, and/or deported - only for the immigration people to think you have. Its deliberately vague.

This seems rather similar that case in Australia last year - where not only was the guy found not guilty of any crime, but was apparently not in the least involved. That didn't stop the Australian authorities from revoking his immigration benefits.

Personally I think they should do away with the whole citizenship application. If you applied legally, have lived within the law for a significant amount of time - they should grant you citizen rights by default. This is a ludicrous situation to find yourself in after living here for 20 years.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Number 6