On Feb. 3, it was reported that 21 Savage had been arrested in Atlanta,
along with his cousin and fellow rapper Young Nudy, and taken into U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. ICE alleges that the
father of three, who grew up in Atlanta, is a national of the United
Kingdom. The agency claims his visa expired in July 2006, when he was 14
years old. According to ICE,
Young Nudy “was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and
participation in criminal gang activity,” as part of an operation
targeting him and two other men, but not 21.
ICE was founded in
2003, with the purpose of “smart immigration enforcement, preventing
terrorism and combating the illegal movement of people and trade.” The
agency, along with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has faced heavy
scrutiny over the last few months for its role in President Trump’s
“family separation policy” at the U.S./Mexico border, which has resulted
in the separation of at least 2,737 children from their parents, as
well as the deaths of multiple children and adults in ICE detention centers. There is currently a backlog of 800,000 cases piled up in U.S. immigration courts.
The news of 21 Savage’s arrest has come as a shock to fans, most of whom were not aware that he was an immigrant. We’ve spoken with immigration attorneys about how this could have happened, and what the implications are for 21 Savage and other undocumented immigrants.
On Feb. 4, attorney Charles H. Kuck, who represents 21, released a statement revealing that the 26-year-old rapper’s family “overstayed their work visas, and he was left without legal status through no fault of his own.” Kuck also says that 21 currently has a pending application from 2017 for a U visa—a nonimmigrant visa for victims of crimes (and their immediate family members) who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse while in the United States, and agree to cooperate with government officials in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity. According to TMZ, 21 Savage was shot during a 2013 incident where his best friend was murdered, an event that Kuck says “severely affected” him, both physically and mentally. Being a victim of this crime could potentially put 21 Savage in a position for permanent residence.
An inmate population surge in the 1980s led to the growth of for-profit prisons. Today, despite their mixed record, private prison companies are overseeing the vast majority of undocumented migrants. Watch it here.
Democracy isn’t possible without the rule of law — the idea that consistent principles, rather than a ruler’s whims, govern society. You can read Aristotle, Montesquieu, John Locke or the Declaration of Independence on this point. You can also look at decades of American history. Even amid bitter fights over what the law should say, both Democrats and Republicans have generally accepted the rule of law.
President Trump does not. His rejection of it distinguishes him from any other modern American leader. He has instead flirted with Louis XIV’s notion of “L’état, c’est moi”: The state is me — and I’ll decide which laws to follow. This attitude returns to the fore this week, with James Comey scheduled to testify on Thursday about Trump’s attempts to stifle an F.B.I. investigation. I realize that many people are exhausted by Trump outrages, some of which resemble mere buffoonery. But I think it’s important to step back and connect the dots among his many rejections of the rule of law. READ MORE:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/opinion/the-lawless-presidency.html?ref=opinion
Jesse Jackson Jr.’s resignation from Congress might end his once-promising political career but it doesn’t mark the end of troubles for the civil rights icon’s son. Just two weeks after voters re-elected him to a ninth full term, Jackson on Wednesday sent his resignation letter to House Speaker John Boehner, citing his ongoing treatment for bipolar disorder and admitting “my share of mistakes” while confirming publicly for the first time that he’s the subject of a federal probe and cooperating with investigators. Federal authorities are reportedly investigating Jackson’s possible misuse of campaign funds and the House Ethics Committee is investigating his dealings with imprisoned ex-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. It was unclear how the committee would proceed following Jackson’s resignation. The committee could still decide to release a final report on him but it no longer has the power to punish Jackson. Jackson, 47, was never charged with wrongdoing and in his resignation letter wrote, “they are my mistakes and mine alone.” Jackson’s attorneys offered few details of the reported probe into misuse of campaign funds. “Mr. Jackson is cooperating with the investigation. We hope to negotiate a fair resolution of the matter but the process could take several months,” according to a statement from Jackson’s attorneys, including former U.S. Attorney in Chicago Dan Webb. “During that time, we will have no further comment and urge you to give Mr. Jackson the privacy he needs to heal and handle these issues responsibly.” CONTINUE READING
Yesterday, President Barack Obama nominated his first openly gay African-American judicial nominee for the federal courts. Judge William L. Thomas has been put forth for consideration for the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He’s one of seven judges nominated today and, if confirmed will be the second out African-American judge on the federal bench. “These individuals have demonstrated the talent, expertise, and fair-mindedness Americans expect and deserve from their judicial system,” President Obama said in a statement. “They also represent my continued commitment to ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves.” Judge William L. Thomas has served as a Circuit Judge in Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit since 2005, presiding over both civil and criminal matters. Prior to that, he was an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Florida, representing underprivileged clients in criminal cases. He received his B.A. from Washington and Jefferson College in 1991 and his J.D. from Temple University School of Law in 1994.
California voters overwhelmingly approved changes to the state’s tough “three strikes” law on Tuesday, ending a practice in which prosecutors could seek 25-years-to-life sentences for defendants even if their latest offense – their third strike – was neither serious nor violent. The law, approved by state voters in 2004, aimed to lock up career criminals like Richard Allen Davis, who a year earlier had kidnapped and murdered 12-year-old Polly Klaas of Petaluma after an earlier string of assaults, robberies and abductions. But the law came under criticism when lesser offenders – a man who stole a truck and two bikes at Stanford, for instance, and another who stole a pepperoni pizza in Southern California – got 25-years-to-life sentences. The change in the law will allow an estimated 2,800 third-strike inmates currently in prison to petition the courts for a reduced sentence, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, and prevent an untold number of people from being charged with a third strike in the future. Proponents said Prop. 36 restored voters’ original intent: to lock up the worst serial criminals. San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, a co-chair of the Prop. 36 campaign, said the measure’s passage would not only save money and allow nonviolent offenders to avoid spending the rest of their lives in prison, but also change the conversation in California.
With its passage, voters sent “a strong message to policymakers about what is considered acceptable to maintain public safety,” he said.