By now, you’ve probably heard the story of Daniela Vargas, a 22-year-old woman who, at the age of seven, was brought to America by her family from Argentina on a visa waiver program. On Wednesday, the Huffington Post reported that Vargas, a Dreamer, was arrested by ICE agents immediately after she spoke about her father and brother, both of whom were detained by ICE agents because of their expired visas, at a news conference put together by immigration advocates in Jackson, Mississippi. Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that her attorney said that Vargas was set to be deported without a court hearing because she entered the country using the visa waiver program, which abdicates an individual’s right to contest their removal.

Vargas is now being held at an ICE facility in Louisiana, and shared a message through her attorney that the Huffington Post has published: “I don’t understand why they don’t want me. I’m doing the best I can,” part of the statement reads. It continues:

There’s so much that I can bring to the table, so much, like I can even teach music, I’m an excellent trumpet player you can ask my mom about any of that.  I’m great with math, I speak Spanish. You know, there’s a lot of stuff that I can do for this country that they’re not allowing me to do. I’ve even tried to join the military, and I can’t do that. But, I mean that’s not the point, the whole point is that I would do anything for this country.

Her story has sparked outrage from many, and a petition started by the immigrant rights group United We Dream has collected almost 20,000 signatures. While there are many people on both sides of the argument, from people who are fuming at the injustice of the government’s treatment of Vargas to those who think an illegal immigrant is recklessly breaking the law, another perspective has emerged below the fold. It manages to walk the tight-rope between the two binaries and mixes performative empathy with a subtle “rules are rules” detachment. This perspective argues that this whole situation could have been prevented if Vargas had only managed her money better.

The reason why ICE has detained Vargas is because she is not technically a Dreamer with DACA status. According to the Huffington Post, Vargas’ DACA status expired in November and she only recently applied for DACA status again on February 10 because she was raising money for the $495 application fee that those under the reprieve of DACA are required to pay to renew their work permit.

Multiple immigration advocacy websites caution DACA recipients to be cognizant of their renewal dates and of the importance of saving up for the renewal fee. United We Dream recommends that one should renew their DACA status about five months before their status expires. The organization also outlines a variety of savings and fundraising advice for the renewal fee, as well as the opportunity for a fee exemption, though the chances of getting that exemption are very slim.

Some have pointed to Vargas’ inability to prioritize her DACA application fee as the reason why it is so hard for them to sympathize with her. Why didn’t she treat her payment with more urgency? Why doesn’t this 22-year-old have her priorities in order?

The $495 is a fee Vargas absolutely should have paid and planned for. Could she be characterized as mildly irresponsible for not paying this on time? Maybe. But according to the 2016 Consumer Financial Literacy Survey, one out of every five Americans do not pay their bills on time. The difference between these people and Vargas is that when they do have an overdue bill, a government official doesn’t show up to detain them and throw them in a detention facility to be deported.

A distinct freedom in America is the freedom to fail–the freedom to make a small mess and, as the saying goes, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on. This is a freedom that is not afforded to people like Vargas who were brought to this country with no choice. People who were raised as Americans and with the privileges that that identity allows, only to be brutally reminded when they reach adulthood that they are not Americans–that they are something else entirely, and every one of their failures is amplified to a dehumanizing degree.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Story of Daniela Vargas: The “Dreamer” About to be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

This is NOT Spinal Tap

Harry Shearer, along with three others, created “This is Spinal Tap”, a 1984 rock mockumentary that will go down in movie history as one of the best comedies to do laundry to on a Sunday. Harry Shearer on the other hand, got swindled. Big time. He claims that since the movie’s release, he and the other creators have not received a dime in royalties.

via GIPHY

He is suing Vivendi, the company that owns the copyright, for $125 million dollars.

Shearer and the gang co-created the music, the script, and played the lead roles in the film.

@theharryshearer i’m asking respectfully, is this due to “creative accounting” on Vivendi’s part, or did you sign a bad contract?

— do I care? (@BKeachDay) October 18, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 19, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Soccer star Lionel Messi has been sentenced to 21 months in prison, after he was found guilty of three counts of tax fraud in a Spanish court. But legal experts have cautioned that given the nature of his crimes and the length of his sentence, the Barcelona player probably won’t serve any time actually behind bars.

Messi’s father was also sentenced to 21 months in jail for tax fraud but he too probably won’t serve time. The two defrauded Spain of $4.5 in between 2007 and 2009. According to BBC they were found guilty of “using tax havens in Belize and Uruguay to conceal earnings from image rights.” In Spain, those found guilty of financial crimes and sentenced to under two years in jail are able to serve that time on probation. This will require them to stay out of legal trouble while they are on probation, as well as meet other requirements. They both could be facing hefty fines, as well, but given Messi’s enormous net worth, even hefty fines shouldn’t be a big burden for the star.

Messi’s team, Barcelona, has issued a statement of support for their player and his father, saying:

The club, in agreement with the government prosecution service, considers that the player, who has corrected his position with the Spanish Tax Office, is in no way criminally responsible.

At this point, Barcelona is the only team that Messi plays for, given that he recently announced his retirement from the Argentine national team and international soccer.

Both Messis are expected to appeal their cases. Here’s a press release explaining the appeal:

The Messi press release in English where it confirms he will appeal to the Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/v6QLS8xadG

— Guillem Balague (@GuillemBalague) July 6, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lionel Messi Sentenced for Tax Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Bieber can’t seem to stop getting into legal trouble whether in the U.S. or abroad. Bieber now has to show his face in an Argentinean court to provide answers to some assault allegation, or face arrest. Now Interpol has gotten involved, and it seems like Bieber is caught in an interesting Catch-22.

The case started on November 9, 2013, when Bieber was partying in a nightclub in Buenos Aires called “Ink.” A paparazzo named Diego Pesoa was there and attempted to take pictures of the singer. Bieber’s bodyguards were not having that, and apparently chased and beat Pesoa, who is now claiming that his injuries were bad enough to require hospital attention. Bieber is being accused of sending the body guards to go beat Pesoa up.

Bieber has obviously since left Argentina, but the Argentinean courts are demanding that he provide information about what happened. Now, an investigative judge, Magistrate Facundo Cubas, has demanded that Bieber provide a statement about what happened, although no charges have been filed yet.

Bieber now has 60 days to return to Argentina and give his testimony. Interpol, the Argentinean branch of the international police force, is tasked with locating Bieber and notifying him of Cubas’s request.

This creates a weird choice for the singer though–if he does choose to go back and give his testimony, and it results in charges being filed against him,  and he is found guilty, he could spend up to a year in prison. If he doesn’t show up, an international arrest warrant will be issued.

This is by no means the first brush with the law for Bieber, nor is my money on it being the last. Consider the time that he was deposed as a result of a battery suit brought against him by a photographer. Said deposition led to one of the most spectacularly asshole-like performances of all time, chronicled in this excellent mashup video created by TMZ:

I have to say, my favorite part is right at the beginning when he pretends to not know what Australia is, but he also calls the lawyer deposing him “Katie Couric,” which is pretty good. He also appears to mix up the words “instrumental” and “detrimental.”

There was also a case earlier this year when a neighbor in Calabasas, California accused Bieber of egging their house. The neighbor claimed that the incident led to damage to the house to the tune of thousands of dollars. Bieber ending up pleading no contest to the charge of misdemeanor vandalism, and was put on probation, ordered to pay restitution, do community service, and go to an anger management course. He has also been caught drinking while driving, and plead guilty to a DUI.

Overall, Bieber is pretty much the living embodiment of what can happen when a young person gets way too rich way too young and never really has to deal with any consequences of their actions. Hopefully this Argentinean suit, as unlikely as it may be, will provide some real consequences for the singer.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where in the World is Justin Bieber? His Legal Troubles Continue appeared first on Law Street.

Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner declared Thursday that her country would not pay back its $1.5 billion debt to American Paul Singer’s NML Capital Ltd., after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Argentina must pay back its loans. The ruling was meant to finally put an end to a decade-long dispute concerning loans Argentina received during its 2001 economic crash. While it is easy for the U.S. courts to simply demand full repayment, plus interest, this decision could prove disastrous for Argentina.

Argentina’s government has made it very clear that being forced to pay off these old debts in one fell swoop could land them in a second economic crisis. Argentina had originally defaulted on nearly $100 billion and has $24 billion remaining unpaid. Therefore, with the precedent set in this case, its debt holders may be much more inclined to sue for the full repayment and interest of those debts. Unfortunately, that amount of money accounts for almost all of the Argentinean Central Bank’s foreign reserves, which would leave the country penniless. Even worse, the Supreme Court’s decision specified that Argentina would not be permitted to continue paying current “restructured” debts until these old ones were taken care of.

Argentina is already seeing the negative ramifications of this ruling. The anticipation of Fernandez de Kirchner’s non-compliance alone caused a swift economic drop in Argentina’s top three stocks: Merval, Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales, and Edenor Clientes. Given that those three companies have seen some of the few economic wins since the 2001 crash, such losses could hit pretty hard. If Argentina does pay, the money used would be taken from a pool of national subsidies that have helped encourage economic independence since 2001. Argentina would therefore not only lose foreign financial support, but also bankrupt its domestic coffers and ruin the morale of its people — something a country in crisis can never afford.

The final aspect of the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves Argentina especially vulnerable. It ruled that the American debt holders are able to force Argentina to disclose other property around the world, leaving the country with basically no alternate resources. This option makes it even easier for the holders to aggressively pursue what they’re owed. Even more importantly, the debt holders could reveal critical assets, like military resources, that could limit Argentina’s ability to protect itself and its allies.

After over a decade of waiting to be repaid for their debts, the U.S. holders may seem justified in such a harsh and unyielding proposal. Even with genuine promises from President Fernandez de Kirchner to comply with negotiations, this course might still be justified.

But here’s where the hypocrisy comes in.

This ruling is coming from the U.S. perspective, a view that sees all debts as impossible to default on, and one that Argentina is definitely not privy to. While this could just be another symptom of America’s excessive culture, there is actually some truth behind the statement. According to economist Alan Greenspan, “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that.” So, because America’s leaders accrued debt only in U.S. dollars, it is technically impossible to default on any loans. The keyword there being technically.

Anyone can see that this is neither a very sound defense nor a good economic plan. And for those who don’t, history can be very enlightening. Germany followed this logic in the early 20th century and ended up with such high inflation that its paper money was more valuable as kindling than currency. A nation in $5.6 trillion of debt and abiding by this blind logic is maybe not the best judge for other countries in debt. Perhaps America should step back and consider the fact that it owes China and Japan a combined $2.4 trillion, and would definitely appreciate some leniency if it were in Argentina’s position.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Teegarden/Seniorliving.org via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Argentinian Debt and American Hypocrisy appeared first on Law Street.