The incident regarding an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, Eligio Valerio, created a ripple effect in New York City and beyond, forcing a number of politicians to come out in support of this individual.  

Valerio's situation demonstrates the imperfection of our immigration laws and the necessity for large-scale immigration reform.

Valerio entered this country 30 years ago, has a green card, works as a cab driver, pays his taxes on time, and will soon become a grandfather. Things were going well for the immigrant—or so it seemed.

In October of last year, an employee of Immigration and Custom's Enforcement (ICE) knocked on Valerios' door. The surprise of this man, who had been living in the USA on lawful grounds for thirty years, is understandable. Why had a representative from an organization evoking feelings in immigrants comparable to the feelings the NKVD (The People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs) evoked in residents of the USSR come to visit him?

"Get dressed and come with me," the representative said to Valerio, "I have orders to send you to immigration prison."

"But I haven't done anything illegal," the New York cab driver objected, knowing in his heart that if "they" were to come for you, they would not be leaving without you.

After finding himself in a prison cell, Valerio learned that they intended to deport him for an act of transgression committed in 1982. Having owned a grocery store in Washington Heights, Valerio kept an unregistered handgun under the counter for self-defense. Today, grocery store owners are as alluring a target for thieves as they were in the 80s.

It is notable that Valerio did not serve time for his transgression, having received a three-year conditional sentence. What is this man being deported for—or committing a relatively insignificant offence 30 years ago?

The employees of the immigration authorities possess special deportation lists: the statute of limitation does not extend to those on these lists. The hunt for illegal immigrants and permanent residents of the USA is conducted within the limits of the 287 (g) – the Secure Communities program created by the George W. Bush administration and extended by the Obama administration.

I would like to make myself completely understood—I am not opposed to immigrant criminals being deported to their homelands; however, there are differences among crimes and the statute of limitations does not deserve to be ignored. Why deport someone who made a mistake 20-30 years ago and hasn't had any problems with the law since?

New York City Council member, Ydanis Rodriguez, came out in support of Valerio, calling him "the Rosa Parks of our time." The comparison to Parks, a symbol of the African-American struggle for equality and civil rights, is, in my opinion, somewhat exaggerated. But it is difficult not to agree with Rodriguez on the need to correct this country's immigration legislation.

"Eligio Valerio is a normal person who has suffered as a result of the imperfection of American laws," said the council member during a press conference.

The detainment of candidates for deportation demonstrates the poorly concealed desire of the ICE to complicate the lives of those that are being held and cause trouble for immigration lawyers. According to Rodriguez, after Valerio had been taken to prison, representatives of the immigration authorities announced right then and there that he would be sent to a Texas jail. This is not the first year that ICE has made use of this tactic; according to lawyers, their aim is to prevent communication between the imprisoned and their defenders.

We will note that the rules governing the detainment of candidates for deportation do not contain a provision for assignment of legal representation. Immigrants must overlook the hiring of a lawyer himself or ask relatives or friends for assistance. It is evident that, having been torn from his family and sent to the American "backwoods," ones chances of defense have been significantly diminished. Hiring a lawyer in New York is unequivocally easier than in rural Texas or Louisiana.

As for Valerio – he was very lucky; his daughter works at a law firm and was quickly able to quickly consult her colleagues, who protested her fathers transfer to Texas and were able to obtain his release with bail. However, most detainees in immigration prison do not have these options. Without sugar-coating it these people have been completely deprived of their rights.

"I can confirm that the people who were imprisoned with me had extremely limited access to phones," declared Valerio, "Reaching your relatives by phone was nearly as difficult as jumping to the heavens."

Valerio was in luck with regards to things other than his daughter's workplace. New York City Council member Rodriguez, his colleague Diana Reyna, and New York State Senator Adriano Espaillat came out on his side.

Today, thousands of immigrants who had problems with the law ten, twenty, thirty or even fourty years ago are finding themselves in the position in which Eligio Valerio found himself. They might all be deported for crimes committed during their youth—despite living normal lives, working and running their own businesses for many years.

As the Daily News writes, the American courts are drowning in appeals from former law-breakers, requesting that their matters be reviewed. For what reason? Their petitions indicate that their lawyers did not inform them of the possibility that they might be deported, even in the event of a guilty plea to a "minor" crime.

The Supreme Court decision regarding Vietnam War veteran Jose Padilla brought hope to thousands of immigrants with criminal records. In 2001, this man, a truck driver, was held by the Kentucky police for transporting marijuana. Padilla's lawyer told him that pleading guilty would not result in deportation. "You've lived in the USA for over 40 years; you don't have to worry."

In the petition given by Padilla, it was stated that his lawyer did not warn him that acknowledgment of the perpetration of a punishable act could entail deportation from the country. The Supreme Court's verdict (March, 2010) read that "lawyers are required to warm their clients of the possibility of deportation in the event that they acknowledge their guilt."

The Daily News states that over the course of the last 8 months, the public prosecutors office in Queens has passed 75 motions to the courts, petitioning to overturn a verdicts made 10 or more years ago. Before the Supreme Court verdict regarding Padilla, there had only been six instances as such. Without bringing in concrete statistics, the employees of the Brooklyn and Bronx public prosecutor's offices both corroborate the increase in the number of such cases.

The concern exhibited by immigrants with criminal charges is understandable. The technology currently being used by the Department of Homeland Security makes it easy to find one's place of employment and home address. During the 2009-2010 fiscal years, ICE deported 550 immigrants with criminal records from New York alone. They deported 195772 people from the entire country.

Do many verdicts get overturned? As was written in the Daily News, state courts very reluctantly approach petitioners with matters of this nature.

P.S Governor David Paterson pardoned Eligio Valerio and 23 other immigrants who live in New York. Their deportation has been annulled.

Things have ended happily for these people. However, ICEs' "black list" contain the names of thousands of immigrants – candidates for deportation. And most state governors are not as merciful as Paterson.