I Have a Legal Argument for Dreamers

[louis c]

Let's take a hypothetical case.

A young boy, say 3 years old, is brought to this country by a parent or relative. He goes to school here, graduates high school here, goes to college here and finds a job here. He has lived in the United States every day for 27 years. He is now 30 years old.

Wasn't his supposed crime committed before his age of consent. Wouldn't "state of mind" and maturity at the time of the supposed offence make this 30 year old innocent? Since, in our judicial system, a 3 year old cannot be held responsible for any crime, doesn't that mean no crime was committed.

And, since the state moved him through our governmental system, (school, health care, drivers' license etc.), wasn't the government consenting to this person's status?

Without any change in the law, shouldn't we win every case that a minor cannot be held responsible for a violation of law?

and that's not even talking about the situate of limitations.

[HopeAgain]

1. Unfortunately

It probably looked at as an ongoing violation, which would negate both arguments.

[louis c]

4. That's where government consent comes in

If officials of the government knew of this boy's status and provided him public education, health care and other governmental "standing", it would be reasonable for any person to assume that they had the rights of an American, even without citizenship.

It would have been the government's responsibility to deport the individual upon first finding out his status. By allowing him to remain, for 2 decades, would be 'implied consent", in my opinion.

[Igel]

7. Then the government,

upon finding out his status, would either have to take action or stand accused of not upholding the law and even enabling breaking of the law.

There's the whole "mercy" thing, but Americans threw mercy under the bus a long time ago with zero tolerance policies and such. Forgiveness isn't a virtue these days for most.

[louis c]

9. It's more or less a past practice

and a kinda ex post facto argument.

I came to America at 3 years old. I was undocumented. I entered the public school and the government was informed of my status and educated me. I graduated high school and attended a pubic college, and was accepted. I worked and paid taxes, mostly. I was granted a drivers' license.

At what point has the government tacitly recognized my status and when was it that I should have realized I broke the law?

[spiderman17]

2. that's not how immigration law works

if it does, anyone who evades detection for xx years would be able to claim amnesty.

In fact, immigration law provides more severe consequences for overstaying of a visa for longer periods.

[louis c]

5. That's OK for age of consent at time of entry

but not for a young child.

[Skidmore]

3. Except the crime wasn't committed by the Dreamer. nt

[louis c]

6. Then the government is prosecuting the wrong person

[jberryhill]

8. No. State of mind is irrelevant to status offenses

[lunatica]

10. If it comes to that someone will use your argument in the Supreme Court

Because there will probably be a stay of any DACA deportations or punishments by State Supreme Courts.

I think you're as American as any and all US Citizens.

[oberliner]

11. How did this hypothetical person obtain a drivers license?

What documentation did he provide?

[louis c]

12. Here you go

<snip>Immigrants in the country illegally cannot produce the necessary documents (like a social security card) to obtain a driver’s license under state laws. Beginning in 1993 with Washington state, 12 states and DC have changed their laws to allow immigrants in the country illegally to obtain driver's licenses. Those states hope to encourage unlicensed drivers to pass the driver's license test and obtain car insurance. <snip>

Link:
https://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005535

[oberliner]

14. Those states make a point of noting their immigration status on the DL

So they are not implying for that person any kind of legal immigration status.

[Lee-Lee]

13. Where that argument fails

Is that immigration is a federal issue. All the things you mentioned like schools, drivers license, health care etc are managed by state and local governments, even if there is federal funding it's managed and run by local/state authorities.

Even if state or local governments allow something or tolerate it doesn't change if it is legal or not under federal law. And on those things federal law has supremacy.

For example machine guns are illegal under federal laws unless a lot of criteria are met. If a local sheriff knew someone had one and didn't take action against them and even helped them store it or let them shoot it at the Sheriff's range that wouldn't mean that the federal government couldn't prosecute the person just because a local authority tolerated it.

Heck, if your argument help and tolerance of illegal acts by local authorities could mean federal authorities couldn't prosecute that would make enforcement of federal civil rights laws almost impossible is local authorities turned a blind eye to the discrimination... think about how bad that precedent would be.

[louis c]

15. I didn't say I would win the argument

I'm saying there is a viable, probable way to make it.

Enough so, that these individuals could remain in this country for 2 or 3 years, pending appeal, until wiser heads change the law.