To read the ProPublica story, go here.
The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
Michael Dunne: I'm Michael Dunne. On the campaign trail, and once back in the White House, President Trump pledged that the mandate of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was to find and deport violent criminals from America. Now, in his second year back in office, there is ample evidence that many deportees are anything but violent offenders. Today on the show, you'll hear from a reporter at ProPublica about an Oregon man who was charged with a misdemeanor family offense back in 2010 only now to be threatened with deportation as a test case in stepped-up efforts to remove as many immigrants as possible, even nonviolent offenders. Then in the second part of the show, our reporter talks about efforts in Corvallis to recall all members of the local school board. Eli Hager, a reporter with ProPublica. Eli, thanks so much for coming on and talking to us.
Eli Hager: Thank you for having me.
Dunne: You wrote a story late last month about a person named Sotero Mendoza-Rivera. Start with what happened.
Hager: In 2010, Sotero Mendoza-Rivera, an undocumented farm worker in Oregon who had been in the United States since 2000, went with his girlfriend to a Walmart for about a half-hour to buy pajamas for their two toddlers and some brake fluid for their car. They were back within a half-hour, but a neighbor had called the police, and they received a misdemeanor citation for leaving their two toddlers home alone for that period of time. Now there is a court case about whether he should be deported for this crime from 16 years ago.
Dunne: I know you talked to child welfare experts about this issue. What did they tell you? What are their concerns about what looks like a fairly minor infraction becoming a linchpin for deportation?
Hager: There is this overriding concern among child welfare officials and experts across the country that the Trump administration could see this as a new frontier in their effort to deport large numbers of people. Until now, at least the rhetoric from the administration has been that they are going after people who have committed violent crimes and more serious crimes. But if they now use family court cases, in other words, lower-level allegations of parents having neglected their child for something minor, like leaving them in the car with the windows cracked while you run inside to buy diapers, or letting them play down the street unsupervised, that could be a new front in the deportation effort. That would encompass an awful lot of cases. It could also make immigrant parents afraid to attend family court.
Dunne: Could you give us a snapshot of Mr. Mendoza-Rivera since that initial incident and the misdemeanor charge? What kind of life has he led?
Hager: He is a farm worker who has worked for a quarter-century in this country, picking and packaging produce for the rest of the country to eat. That income has helped support his family, including his two kids, who were toddlers at the time but are teenagers now. If he were deported, his family would lose that income. They already have, in a sense, because the Trump administration has had him detained in a facility in Washington state for the past six months. So the family is already separated. Deportation to Mexico would make that separation permanent. He and his partner and their two kids have continued to live in Oregon without having committed any violent crimes or anything of that nature for more than 25 years.
Dunne: I know some listeners may think he made a terrible choice. But I want to pull the lens out a bit further. In your reporting, you look at statistics comparing immigrants versus U.S.-born citizens on issues of neglect or child abuse. Talk about that comparison.
Hager: Immigrants are not more likely to physically or sexually abuse their children than native-born American parents. Those numbers are not different. There is some evidence, at least according to some immigration and child welfare attorneys, that immigrants may be more likely to be accused of some of the lowest-level forms of neglect. For example, you can be charged with educational neglect if you keep your kids out of school because you are afraid to interact with public school officials as an undocumented person. Similarly, if you are afraid to take your child to a hospital because of your immigration status, you can be charged with medical neglect. Undocumented parents are also disproportionately likely to work long and unpredictable hours, may not have access to or income for good child care, and might have older kids look after younger ones. In some other countries, that is fairly normal, but in the United States, it can be deemed negligence. These kinds of supervision cases come up often, and that is exactly what is being argued in Mr. Mendoza-Rivera's case: whether this type of lack-of-supervision situation is really the kind of crime that is deportable under U.S. law.
Dunne: How do ICE and the federal government learn about these transgressions? How does data from a case in McMinnville, Oregon, roll up to ICE leadership?
Hager: It is not clear that ICE leadership is directly involved in this particular case. I should also clarify that this case has been in the system since it began. He became involved in the immigration system essentially as soon as he pleaded guilty to the minor charge. But there has been a real escalation: the Trump administration decided last August to detain him in a facility in another state, where he has been held for six months. Now the case is reaching a decisive point at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court is essentially deciding whether his case and others like it should be considered deportable, and also whether he should be ineligible for the kind of relief that parents who have been in the country for a long time can ordinarily seek. Typically, if a deportation would cause extreme hardship to a person's children, they can apply for some relief. The court is deciding whether a low-level family court offense makes someone ineligible for that relief even after 25 years in the country, good moral character, and children who would be significantly harmed.
Dunne: What is happening now with these types of cases? Is this different from what the first Trump administration was doing?
Hager: It is an inverted form of family separation from what we heard about in the first administration. In those cases, families were being separated at the border, with the apparent goal of deterring parents from trying to cross. That was the more obviously upsetting form of family separation: mothers and fathers physically torn apart from their small children right at the border. What is happening now, as many experts and advocates for immigrant parents argue, is also a form of family separation. It is just that it involves families who have been together in the United States for a long time, with a parent now being removed based on something that happened years ago, something they argue was minor and does not reflect the person's parenting overall.
Dunne: As I was reading your article, you brought up the legal term 'cancellation of removal.' It applies in this case. Can you explain what that means?
Hager: That is the relief from deportation I was alluding to. If someone has been in the United States for more than 10 years, has good moral character overall, and if deporting them would cause extreme hardship to their children, they can apply for what is called cancellation of removal. That essentially means they receive protection against deportation based on what it would do to their kids.
Dunne: One thing that struck me reading your piece is the sense of an almost perfect storm. As a country, we look at parenting crimes differently than we did when this case first arose, and that shift is colliding with an especially aggressive stance by the Trump administration on immigration. Can you talk about how these converging attitudes are affecting this case and potentially many others?
Hager: I am glad you brought that up. For context, one of the main laws the Trump administration is using to pursue deportations dates to 1996, during the Clinton era, when there was significant concern about violent crime, domestic violence, and crimes against children. The law's chief sponsor, Bob Dole, was clear that the intent was to make violent crimes deportable: rape, assault, murder, domestic violence, gang violence and drug crimes. The legislation said that if you committed those crimes, you would be expeditiously deported and would not be eligible for cancellation of removal. But since then, a whole new category of parenting-related crimes has developed and been prosecuted more aggressively, centered on supervision. Listeners may have heard of the debate around free-range parenting. Essentially, child welfare agencies across the country have become stricter and stricter about investigating parents who leave their kids alone briefly and sometimes charging them with crimes for doing so. What was common parenting for much of the 20th century can now actually be criminal. And as you say, that can create a perfect storm with current immigration enforcement: parents who did something relatively minor are now subject to deportation under laws that were written with violent criminals in mind.
Dunne: My last question is perhaps a bit philosophical. You are looking at a case where a trivial amount of harm may have been caused by leaving a child alone for a half-hour back then, but now, through this enforcement action, those kids could lose their father permanently. The same legal system that charged the father with negligence is now potentially causing far greater harm to his family. What is your read on that?
Hager: It does seem like vastly different degrees of harm. That is an argument advocates for immigrant parents in these situations have made. I would also point out that the Trump Justice Department actually admitted that there does not have to have been any harm at all in the initial offense. There is a specific case I am thinking of: a mother ran into a store to buy diapers and left her child in a car seat outside with the window cracked for a few minutes. The Justice Department's position is that even though the child was not harmed, even though the mother intended no harm, and even though there was no actual exposure to danger, the act simply displayed a disregard for consequences that should be deportable. So we are talking about cases that are, in the literal sense of the term, harmless, and now deporting parents for harmless offenses, and in the process doing harm to their children.
Dunne: He is Eli Hager, a reporter with ProPublica. Eli, great piece. Really appreciate your reporting, and thanks for coming on and talking to our audience.
Hager: Thank you for having me.
* * *
Dunne: Now let's chat with our reporter about the turmoil with the Corvallis school board. Macy Moore, reporter for us here at KLCC. Macy, so good to see you. How are things?
Macy Moore: Things have been good. How are you?
Dunne: Good here, though things are not so smooth up in Corvallis. Why don't you tell us about your story on the Corvallis school board?
Moore: I did a longer piece on the current recall petition efforts for the Corvallis school board. There are seven recall petitions out for all seven members of the board. The petitions were started by a parent coalition called Save Corvallis Schools, which formed after the board voted in November 2025 to close two schools for the upcoming school year: Leticia Carson Elementary School and Cheldelin Middle School. That decision deeply frustrated some parents, who feel the board has not been receptive to their concerns. That is what is driving the recall effort.
Dunne: The board chose to close these schools. What were the reasons given? I know many school districts are dealing with difficult budgets and low enrollment.
Moore: Definitely low enrollment was a factor. The district looked at a number of schools in Corvallis when considering closures. Closing these two has required a full K-8 academic restructure. For Leticia Carson Elementary, it had slightly lower enrollment than some of the other elementary schools, which makes redistributing its students somewhat more manageable. The parents in the coalition were frustrated, though, because it was also one of the most recently remodeled buildings, one that had just received a significant investment. Cheldelin Middle School also suffered from lower enrollment. As a result, Corvallis will now have just one junior high. There will still be two K-8 schools in the district, but only one junior high once Cheldelin closes.
Dunne: Has the district made any public comments about the recall effort? Has the superintendent weighed in, or is there any pushback suggesting the recall should not go forward?
Moore: I have not seen anything specifically from the Corvallis superintendent, and there have been no official statements or press releases. I have seen reporting from the Corvallis Advocate indicating that some board members are frustrated with local businesses that have allowed recall petitions to be placed at their locations for signatures. The board members I spoke with were willing to talk about why they believe the recall is not productive right now. Their basic argument is that the school closures are happening regardless. The recall will not change that decision. And this is already the biggest period of change the district has seen in a long time: sixth grade is moving from middle school back to elementary, an entire elementary school is closing, students are being redistributed, and the transition to a junior high involves two new sets of curricula. The board members I spoke with believe a recall at this moment would disrupt teachers, budget negotiations, and contract negotiations for educators and other staff. They think it will make a difficult transition even harder.
Dunne: Can you walk us through the timing and logistics of the recall? Have they gathered enough signatures? What does the timeline look like if this moves forward?
Moore: Signatures are being gathered until April 5. The petitioners need 4,577 signatures per petition to trigger a recall for each board member. To sign, you must be a registered voter residing in the Corvallis School District. You can sign just one petition or all seven. Each petition lists different reasons specific to each board member, and signing one does not commit you to recalling the whole board. If enough signatures are gathered, it would either go to a recall election or a board member could choose to resign.
Dunne: You mentioned that the reasons cited vary by board member. Can you give us a sense of that? It is not a uniform charge across all seven.
Moore: Right. The school closures were really the inciting incident that brought this coalition together, but the recall effort reflects an accumulation of frustrations. Some parents feel certain board members are not receptive to public comment. Others are upset that the board approved a raise for the superintendent while the school budget remains a challenge. Some are frustrated with communication from specific board members. There is also frustration over the board's approval of a plan to close the Osborn Aquatic Center, and concerns about a decision in 2021 to de-track math, which some say has affected student math scores. So the petitions share common threads but are tailored individually to each board member.
Dunne: Macy Moore, a reporter for us here at KLCC. Macy, really appreciate your reporting on this. Thanks so much.
Moore: Thank you.
Dunne: That is the show for today. All episodes of Oregon on the Record are available as a podcast at KLCC.org. Tomorrow on the show, a conversation with Rep. Val Hoyle about war with Iran, tariffs, and local issues, including the ongoing saga with PeaceHealth. I'm Michael Dunne, host of Oregon on the Record. Thanks for listening.
