2 Judges Grant Stay For Exonerated Man Trump Admin Is Trying To Deport – NewsOne

Report on the Immigration Detention of Subramanyam Vedam Following Murder Exoneration

1.0 Introduction

This report details the case of Subramanyam Vedam, a 64-year-old legal permanent resident of the United States, who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immediately following his exoneration after 43 years of wrongful imprisonment for murder. The case presents significant implications for several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

2.0 Case Summary and Current Status

2.1 Background

• Mr. Vedam, a legal permanent resident since infancy, was released from prison after his 1980 murder conviction was overturned.
• Upon his release, he was immediately taken into custody by ICE for deportation proceedings.
• The basis for the deportation action is a drug-related conviction from when Mr. Vedam was approximately 20 years old.

2.2 Legal Proceedings

As of the latest reports, Mr. Vedam is being held at a detention facility in Alexandria, Louisiana. His deportation has been temporarily halted through two separate legal actions:

1. An immigration judge has issued a stay of deportation pending a decision by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals on whether to review the case.
2. The U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania has also granted a stay while his appeal of the immigration court’s ruling is pending.

3.0 Analysis of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Implications

3.1 SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

This case directly challenges the principles of SDG 16, which aims to promote just, peaceful, and inclusive societies.

• Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice): The 43-year wrongful incarceration represents a profound failure of the justice system. The subsequent detention, based on a decades-old offense, raises further questions about the application of the rule of law and whether justice is being administered equitably, especially after a significant miscarriage of justice has been acknowledged.
• Target 16.6 (Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions): The actions of federal immigration authorities in this matter are a focal point for assessing institutional accountability. The decision to pursue deportation despite the exoneration for a major crime highlights a conflict between punitive enforcement and rehabilitative or restorative justice principles, testing the transparency and fairness of the institution’s processes.

3.2 SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The case underscores the vulnerabilities and inequalities faced by non-citizens within a country’s legal framework, a key concern of SDG 10.

• Target 10.3 (Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome): Mr. Vedam’s situation, as a long-term legal resident, demonstrates how legal status can lead to disparate outcomes within the justice system. The effort to deport him after he served 43 years for a crime he did not commit points to systemic inequalities that affect migrant populations.
• Target 10.7 (Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration): While focused on migration policies, this target also implicitly addresses the treatment of established migrant communities. The attempt to remove an individual who has resided in the country since infancy challenges the concept of well-managed migration policies that respect human rights and long-term integration.

3.3 Other Relevant SDGs

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The prolonged and continuous incarceration, including the immediate re-detention after exoneration, has severe and undeniable impacts on Mr. Vedam’s mental and physical well-being.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The wrongful conviction denied Mr. Vedam nearly his entire adult life of opportunities for productive employment and economic contribution, directly contravening the goal of full and productive employment for all.

4.0 Stakeholder Positions

4.1 U.S. Government

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE maintain that the exoneration in the murder case does not nullify the legal grounds for deportation based on the prior drug conviction. A spokesperson stated that the vacating of a single conviction does not prevent ICE from enforcing federal immigration law. The administration’s position frames the action as a standard application of existing law.

4.2 Family and Advocates

Mr. Vedam’s family, including his sister Saraswathi Vedam, views the deportation effort as a further “untenable injustice.” They argue that the four decades he was wrongfully imprisoned, during which he pursued education and assisted other inmates, should be a primary consideration. Their hope is that the Board of Immigration Appeals will recognize the unique and unjust circumstances of the case.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most relevant SDG as the article centers on a case of profound injustice. It discusses the wrongful conviction of Subramanyam Vedam, his 43-year imprisonment, his exoneration, and his subsequent detention by immigration authorities. The narrative questions the fairness, accountability, and humanity of the justice and immigration systems, which are key components of this goal.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article connects the actions of ICE to broader issues of inequality and discrimination. It explicitly suggests a racial motivation behind the Trump administration’s immigration policies, stating, “These people just want brown people gone.” This directly relates to reducing inequalities based on race, origin, and migratory status.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   The entire article is an account of Mr. Vedam’s struggle for justice. After being exonerated for a murder he didn’t commit, he is denied freedom and must again turn to the legal system to fight deportation. The fact that “two different judges have agreed that Subu’s deportation is unwarranted” demonstrates his fight for access to justice against a government agency.

2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article critiques the lack of accountability and transparency in the actions of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. The justification for the deportation is described as having “no logic or reason,” and the official statements are characterized as “cold, substanceless” and glossing over the core injustice of the situation. This highlights a perceived failure of these institutions to be accountable and just.

3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

   This target is relevant because the article frames the deportation attempt as a discriminatory practice. The policy is being applied to a legal permanent resident based on a decades-old, non-violent crime, immediately after he was cleared of a wrongful murder conviction. The author suggests this is not about justice but about enforcing a discriminatory agenda against immigrants, particularly “brown people.”

4. Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.

   The case illustrates a migration policy that can be seen as punitive and not well-managed. The attempt to deport a man who “has also lived in the U.S. since he was 9 months old” and is a legal permanent resident, especially under such extreme circumstances, calls into question the responsibility and fairness of the existing immigration enforcement policies.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number of individuals detained by immigration authorities following criminal exoneration.

  The article focuses on one specific case of an exonerated man, Subramanyam Vedam, being “immediately detained by ICE agents” upon his release. Tracking this number would serve as a direct indicator of access to justice (or lack thereof) for this specific group.

• Number of deportation orders stayed or overturned by the judicial system.

  The article explicitly states that “an immigration judge stayed his deportation” and the “U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania also granted Vedam a stay.” The frequency of such judicial interventions against executive deportation orders can measure the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice and accountability.

• Proportion of deportation cases based on decades-old or non-violent offenses.

  ICE’s justification for deporting Vedam is a “no contest plea to charges of LSD delivery, filed when he was about 20.” The article emphasizes that this was a “non-violent crime more than four decades before his exoneration.” Analyzing the proportion of deportation actions based on such old or minor convictions could be an indicator of punitive or discriminatory policy application.

• Number of long-term legal residents facing deportation.

  The article highlights that Vedam is a “legal permanent resident of the U.S.” and has lived there since he was an infant. Tracking the number of individuals with long-standing legal status who face deportation would be an indicator for measuring the stability and fairness of migration policies (Target 10.7).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: newsone.com