Deporting Oneself Not Same As Stopping Deportations: Addressing Deportation Myths By DreamActivist.org Co-FounderSaturday, November 9th, 2013
Prerna Lal is the co-founder of DreamActivist.org and helped the National Immigrant Youth Alliance (NIYA). She is on record for stating Fiji is better than the United States as an undocumented immigrant before she got married to a legal citizen of the United States.
Since Rep. Luis Gutierrez pulled his support from those who are working in concert with NIYA and DreamActivist.org, there has been a lot of temper tantrums given in the mix because they were hoping to garner more Congressional support thru Rep. Gutierrez. Gutierrez withdrawing support from DreamActivist and NIYA efforts via Dream9/30 was a huge political loss for pseudo activists who are on the record for supporting legal coyote work and/or wanting to kill immigration reform efforts.
Now Prerna Lal, the Fijian immigrant is wanting her followers to believe there is a growing clash regarding those who want to stop deportations.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Dream 9 consisted of immigrants who deported themselves for a publicity stunt while wasting American tax payer dollars in an already bloated detention centers.
Dream 9 efforts encouraged self-deportations; it did not stop them.
Since Prerna Lal (Fijian immigrant) went to law school but not yet admitted, I am surprised she is not concerned with how this affects my Mexican people in the long run.
Since 3 of the Dream 9 were DACA eligible, why didn’t Prerna encourage them to fill out their DACA papers before they removed themselves? DACA was supported by the Obama administration and it is a tool for those who want relief. Why didn’t at least 3 take the relief before their stunt?
Did Prerna via DreamActivist and/or other lawyers warn the Dream 9 with regard to being being prosecuted for just applying for admission at a port of entry? If the Dream 9 were not given sufficient warning and/or consequences, they may have a reason to file a bar complaint against those who gave them some bad guidance.
Notice the phrase “enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States” in the below INA: ACT 276 .
Sec. 276. [8 U.S.C. 1326](a) Subject to subsection (b) any alien who- ,
(1) 1/ 2/ has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed 3/ , unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this or any prior Act, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.