Pulitzer Prize winner: illegal immigrant

Quad4_72 said:
This is the most irrelevant question in the thread, and probably one of the most irrelevant questions in the forum right now. Really is that how the law works? If there were no victims then it is ok to commit the crime? Please explain the relevance of whether or not there were any victims. This should be good.
Click to expand...

No, if there are no victims that doesn't automatically mean it's ok to commit the crime. But if there are no victims and the person committing the crime had no intention of harming anyone, and there was no likelyhood of anyone being harmed, then it's only a crime by legal standards, not by ethical standards. This is quite clearly distinct from a crime in which anyone was harmed, harm was intended, or anyone could reasonably have been expected to be harmed.

I'm of the opinion that the spirit of the law is what should be followed, not purely the letter. Identity fraud harms people in many cases, but if it didn't here and was never likely to, then why should anyone care?
 
Quad4_72 said:
This is the most irrelevant question in the thread, and probably one of the most irrelevant questions in the forum right now. Really is that how the law works? If there were no victims then it is ok to commit the crime? Please explain the relevance of whether or not there were any victims. This should be good.
Click to expand...

In a way, it does. The federal immigration enforcement policy is to focus on illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes.

It doesn't mean the others are "OK" legally. Any illegal immigrant is subject to deportation. But it's much more reasonable to focus limited resources on removing the violent criminals.

Or do you suppose the biggest problem our country faces is the presences of non-violent (and often non-criminal) illegal aliens such that we should raise the deficit limit to infinity and devote truly unlimited resources to deporting absolutely every single illegal immigrant?

Because short of that, we do have to pick and choose what to do with limited resources.
 
I'm curious how people determine what the "right thing" to do in this case is. Assuming you buy into some argument for democratic legitimization of political obligation, how can you argue that people who have assimilated--who bear every important cultural marker of American-ness, yet who are denied access to the political process--have any moral responsibility to the law?

It does seem to me that the whole notion of citizenship, a status that is acquired due to accidents of birth, is wildly illiberal. That's not to say that we don't have some pragmatic reasons for retaining it, but where we can err on the side of justice--or at the very least, self-interest (the CBO estimates that the DREAM Act would reduce budget deficits)--I think we ought to.
 
mumblethrax said:
(the CBO estimates that the DREAM Act would reduce budget deficits)--I think we ought to.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the CBO assume no new illegal immigration in its estimates?

I would support the DREAM act, but not without strict new policies designed to discourage new illegal immigration. Such as criminal penalties for employers who hire illegal alens, and requiring that job applicants have a valid SS# confirmed through E-Verify or similar check. And penalties for states (like Illinois) that actually make it illegal to use E-Verify or otherwise encourage illegal immigration.
 
stokes234 said:
No, if there are no victims that doesn't automatically mean it's ok to commit the crime. But if there are no victims and the person committing the crime had no intention of harming anyone, and there was no likelyhood of anyone being harmed, then it's only a crime by legal standards, not by ethical standards. This is quite clearly distinct from a crime in which anyone was harmed, harm was intended, or anyone could reasonably have been expected to be harmed.

I'm of the opinion that the spirit of the law is what should be followed, not purely the letter. Identity fraud harms people in many cases, but if it didn't here and was never likely to, then why should anyone care?
Click to expand...

You seem to be living in some sort of bizzarro world. Not only is he living in the Untied States illegally, he committed identity theft. No, it doesn't matter if it affected anyone or not. He committed the crime regardless. By your standards, I should be allowed to go commit any crime I want as long as I have no intention of harming anyone and no one was harmed in the process. So by your definition it is ok to commit crimes that don't harm people? Is this correct?
 
WildCat said:
Doesn't the CBO assume no new illegal immigration in its estimates?

I would support the DREAM act, but not without strict new policies designed to discourage new illegal immigration. Such as criminal penalties for employers who hire illegal alens, and requiring that job applicants have a valid SS# confirmed through E-Verify or similar check. And penalties for states (like Illinois) that actually make it illegal to use E-Verify or otherwise encourage illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Really??? E-Verify??? Please go ahead and Google "e-verify false positives". This is like promoting the use of polygraph tests to catch criminals
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
In a way, it does. The federal immigration enforcement policy is to focus on illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes.

It doesn't mean the others are "OK" legally. Any illegal immigrant is subject to deportation. But it's much more reasonable to focus limited resources on removing the violent criminals.

Or do you suppose the biggest problem our country faces is the presences of non-violent (and often non-criminal) illegal aliens such that we should raise the deficit limit to infinity and devote truly unlimited resources to deporting absolutely every single illegal immigrant?

Because short of that, we do have to pick and choose what to do with limited resources.
Click to expand...

I believe that we should indeed deport illegal immigrants once they are identified. That is what the law calls for. If we do not enforce the law, why have the law in place in the first place?
 
as a former immigrant to the US (now moved back to my home country) this is my take on the situation:

I can understand why he stayed after finding out what the real situation was, but there are consequences to his actions. There are several points in this where he knowingly broke the law. It might well be that the law he broke was a bad one, and I speak from experience when I say that the US immigration system is ridiculous and draconian, butin a purely practical sense he had to know there were potential consequences for his actions.

I feel sorry for his situation, but he brought much of it on himself.

In my ideal world, such restrictions on movement would not exist. If you want to live and work and pay tax in a place you should be allowed to. However, this is not my ideal world, and acting like it is will just get me in trouble.
 
Quad4_72 said:
So by your definition it is ok to commit crimes that don't harm people? Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Idealistically this is certainly correct for me, inasmuch as I think that things that don't harm people should be illegal.

If we do not enforce the law, why have the law in place in the first place?
Click to expand...

Good point. Let's get rid of that law.
 
Quad4_72 said:
I believe that we should indeed deport illegal immigrants once they are identified. That is what the law calls for. If we do not enforce the law, why have the law in place in the first place?
Click to expand...

Again, because we do not have infinite resources to enforce the law.

It's the same reason police don't actually ticket every speeder. The fact that they don't doesn't argue that we should do away with speed limits, does it?

Instead, we focus resources on the most significant violations, which is proper.

And the policy of focusing enforcement efforts on violent criminal illegal aliens rather than non-criminal illegals has probably contributed to reductions in crime rates. It has certainly resulted in all-time record numbers of deportations and other removals of illegal aliens.

ETA: And I realize this case is a bit unusual in that we know the guy is a criminal illegal alien, but he is not a violent criminal, and he is a pulitzer prize winner contributing to our society. The laws should be our tools, not our masters. I would much rather ICE focus on gang-bangers who shoot people and destroy property.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Doesn't the CBO assume no new illegal immigration in its estimates?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. I don't think so, and I don't see why it's relevant. Why do you ask?

I would support the DREAM act, but not without strict new policies designed to discourage new illegal immigration.
Click to expand...
I don't get it. This just sounds to me like "I would support gay marriage, but not without strict new policies designed to discourage bestiality." Why tie enfranchisement of a group of people to disenfranchisement of another if the first group is in no position to do anything about the second?
 
Last edited:
Quad4_72 said:
You seem to be [generic ad-hom]. Not only is he living in the Untied States illegally, he committed identity theft. No, it doesn't matter if it affected anyone or not. He committed the crime regardless. By your standards, I should be allowed to go commit any crime I want as long as I have no intention of harming anyone and no one was harmed in the process. So by your definition it is ok to commit crimes that don't harm people? Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, by my definition if nobody is harmed, harm wasn't intended, and harm wasn't a realistically likely consequence, then it's ok by me. For example, if someone saw a tenner on a train track at night after the trains stopped running, i'd be fine with them going to get it, even though it's technically trespassing. Or smoking marijuana in your own home, so long as you're not dealing, also fine by me.
 
stokes234 said:
Yes, by my definition if nobody is harmed, harm wasn't intended, and harm wasn't a realistically likely consequence, then it's ok by me.
Click to expand...

I wonder about the social security number he "borrowed." To whom does it really belong, and what has his use of it done to the real owner's taxes, bank accounts, whatever? What happens when the guy applies for retirement?
 
Last edited:
cwalner said:
I would tend to agree with you, if he had resolved this when he first found out about his status. Instead he chose to commit further crimes, including identity theft to avoid the issue. He consciously made some very bad choices. He should suffer the consequences of those. 5 years ban before he is allowed to return does not seem too extreme for what he did.
Click to expand...

Yes, the terrible crime of getting an education and obtaining employment.
 
Vargas would be a model immigrant, except he is breaking the law. He also seems to have some sort of sense of entitlement for staying the country illegally and continuing to use his SSN in a manner not allowed by law.

I was also struck by the attitude of his grandfather in the linked article. The grandfather was ashamed that his grandson was an illegal, but was willing to aid him in staying in the country instead of doing what was right.

I think he needs to go back to his mother in the Philippines and wait the ten years before requesting re-entry.

It is interesting that some people say he is doing no harm, so that he should be allowed to continue to break the law. Imagine if I said I was entitled to evade the tax on making title 2 firearms. I’m obviously not harming anyone if I made a silencer without ATF approval, but that is a 10 yr/$10k risk that many people would insist I pay.

Ranb
 
AvalonXQ said:
Do you advocate an open border policy?

[...]

Punishing those who jump the line encourages respect for the line, and incentivizes those who are willing to stand in line.
Click to expand...

I would say, in the least, that when someone is paying into the system, that makes up for the minor damage caused by circumventing immigration laws.

Have him pay a fine, move on. If they can't pay the fine (which could be taken out of salary over a number of years), then they probably aren't contributing much to the system, deport those people or find some way for them to work off the debt to society.

It really isn't that big of a deal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom