Sometimes illegal immigrants -need- deportationFollow

We're stuck in a weird political swell, where it has suddenly become somewhat fashionable to love your neighbor, even if that neighbor enters your country illegally, does not pay taxes, etc.

CNN has an article pointing out some of the dangers that can go with total immigration amnesty..

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/13/intruder.ap/index.html



Little Francisco, now 22, just got popped for not having gone back to Mexico. (He came over illegally - did they think he'd just leave?) Cops picked him up for home invasion, during a struggle with the occupant (who happened to be there).

I wonder how the folks in Minnesota feel about their pet?

I suppose the simplest way to handle things would be to just allow open season on illegal immigrants. It could be help with bringing cannibalism around as a sort of caviar for border state dwellers.

What does this have to do with amnesty? Was there a recent change where we stopped arresting citizens for breaking & entry and assault?

There's not an "amnesty" or "guest worker" or whatever program now and he still did what he did. I don't see how the two relate in this instance. I bet it'll make the rounds on talk radio though!

I'm not even arguing for or against the potential immigration bills here. I'm just questioning what this case realisiticly has to do with illegal immigration. If Serrano had been born in the U.S. and broken into a house would it have any impact on Wingchild's opinions on immigration?
He didn't even jump the border or anything. He had a friggin' expired tourist visa and lived in Minnesota. He wasn't "undocumented" -- he came into the country completely legally and overstayed the duration. So, yeah, let's build a giant fence between us and Mexico to keep out those illegal immigrants looking to get migrant farm jobs.

Edited, Fri Apr 14 15:05:06 2006 by Jophiel

Sure, it's ironic. But completely irrelevant to the discussion as a whole.

I mentioned the border because you explicitly stated he entered the country illegally. He did not. From how the article is written, all the border security and employer checks and social services limitations in the world wouldn't have made a single difference in this person's case. He entered the country legally, overstayed illegally, was caught and sentenced to deportation, skipped out on it and hid out. I won't defend the kid or his actions but his case doesn't build a strong argument against worker-guest programs or amnesty or whatever.

Edited, Fri Apr 14 17:06:17 2006 by Jophiel

As I said, I'm sure the Pubbie AM hosts will wave this case around like a banner, pretending that it has greater meaning and how it proves that we need to build a giant Plexi-glass dome over the United States.

What bothers me about this particular case was that he was told to go back to Mexico, but no one followed through to make sure he got on the plane.Because of this, he was able to duck out of the airport, make hius way to Boston, and broke into someones apartment. Why wasn't someone there to ensure that the courts order was followed through? Yeah right, like this guy was going to get on the plane willingly without having his hand held.

What bothers me about this case is that there IS a case.

USA: Sorry we're closed. Come back last century.

To which, the answer likely was: "Yup. It's a rite of passage. Deal with it...".


Just curious Nobby. What thinly veiled xenophobic and racist undertones are you getting in this thread? I see people pointing out how someone broke the law (stayed after his visa expired). Was found, but instead of being deported as the law states, was allowed to stay (more or less). Then ended up in Boston and broke the law again (this time a felony B&E).

Aside from your own assumption that immigration issues are about race, what racist undertones are being expressed? I'm just not seeing it. Has it ever occured to you that maybe the issue is about rewarding those who follow the law, and punishing those who don't? Has it occured to you that it's patently unfair to those immigrants (yes. Even the brownskinned ones!) who follow the rules and wait for years to get legal entry into the US, while we allow those who break the rules to get away with it?


I'm actually more or less in favor of some form of amnesty and guest worker program. I do think that any solution to this problem does require that we recognize the conditions of those already here illegally and figure out a way to legalize their status. But I *also* think that we need to figure out a way to lessen the numbers of people who come or stay here illegally. Whether that's a big freaking fence, or a guest worker program, or some other solution is up to debate, but I don't think that any solution will work if we can't do that.


Ultimately, that was the problem with the 86 amnesty. Republicans of the day were willing to compromise with the amnesty on the belief that we'd also institute some kind of guest worker program to reduce the number of future "illegal" workers. Of course, the Dems blocked that part (for the aforementioned "It's slavery" argument), so here we are, 10 years later, back in the same situation. Millions of people living and working in the US, with no legal status, and with no "good" solution.


I've said this every time this topic has come up, and I'll say it again. No solution will work unless we recognize that as long as there is a 10:1 wage difference between Mexico and the US, workers from Mexico will come to the US to work (legal or not). That's why some form of guest worker program is absolutely necessary (or at least the best solution IMO) if we want to reduce the numbers of people who come here illegally. If we do that, we also decrease the numbers of people who do sneak accross the border. Which in turn reduces the difficulties facing our border patrol guys. Which in turn makes it easier for them to find and catch "real bad guys", which is ultimately the whole point of this issue (border security, remember?).

See? That's better.

If I see your long, rambling paragraphs, I don't even waste time trying. When you have a valid point, your posts are brief (but rare).

When I see the rambles, I know you're off on a self-justificatory preach-athon.

The inference of the OP that immigration and criminality are ingrained screams from most of the posts that denouce America's "Hell in a handcart" approach to letting damned furriners in

Wow!

I'm not a racist, but. . .

Are you implying my statement is racist? Again. Please point out where I even *mentioned* race. I simply stated that people who are breaking the law are a problem.

If you'd bothered to read my earlier post, you'd see that I advocate a method for legalizing these workers, and coming up with a way to allow future workers to do so legally, not simply deporting them. But then. You'd rather call me a racist then listen to what I have to say.

Can't imagine why nothing ever gets done on the issue, when you've got people like you blanketly calling anyone who sees 10million plus people living in an illegal status in the US as a "problem" racists. And yes. I'm well aware that you aren't a US citizen, but your kneejerk reaction to the issue is typical of most people on the left in this country as well.

Edited, Fri Apr 14 21:15:45 2006 by gbaji