Pulitzer Prize winner: illegal immigrant

[Ranb]

Deporting him is like punishing speeding with a trip to GITMO.

Just out of curiosity, did you read the NY Times article? I would recommend reading the whole thing.

I've been to the Philippines, it is not that bad. I did read both articles. He wants the law to change to accommodate him instead of obeying the law. People who respect the law change it to suit them, they do not break it just because it’s convenient to do so.

Your hyperbole is undermining your position on this thread.

Ranb

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Correct. I never understood some people's mentality of "Well if you didn't get caught breaking the law by illegally crossing the border and beat the system, you should be allowed to stay!" Makes no sense whatsoever. It shows complete disregard for the law and encourages crime. That is exactly like saying "Well if you rob a bank and didn't get caught in the process of robbing it, but were caught later you should not be punished! You beat the system!"

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?

The point I was trying to make is that he is breaking the law and supposedly not harming anyone. Do you that other law breakers are going to get the same sympathy that illegal immigrants get?

Why is it too much to ask him to simply obey the law? It appears that he considers himself to be above the law.

Ranb

I suppose this means when you guys break the speed limit you turn yourselves in at the end of the day to the local precinct? After all, the law is the law.

 

[TraneWreck]

both of which were of much more benefit to him than to society and which he could only achieve through the actual criminal action of falsifying his identity. Also you have just answered who was harmed. The person who was not accepted to college because of his acceptance and every person that did not get a job that he did. He used his fraudulent identity to get a share of finite resources that properly belonged to somebody who did not commit any crimes regarding his/her identity (most likely a Latino immigrant that had real and honest immigration paperwork).

If he was accepted to a college over someone else, that means he was a better student. I don't know about you, but I sort of like having the smart people in my country.

But, of course, that's hogwash. I don't know if you've noticed, but there really isn't a higher education shortage in this country. Whoever's spot he took found someplace else to go.

Such a strained notion of "harmed."

I do enjoy the attempt to set minority vs. minority, though. Classy.

 

[Beady]

Show evidence of harm or potential harm, and we can start to consider some moral outrage.

Yeah, what possible harm could there be in someone else using your SSN?

BTW, why the reluctance to allow a judge to make the decision whether he can stay or has to leave? Why shouldn't he present his case in a court of law? He seems to wants to, now; why don't you want him to?

 

[TraneWreck]

I've been to the Philippines, it is not that bad. I did read both articles. He wants the law to change to accommodate him instead of obeying the law. People who respect the law change it to suit them, they do not break it just because it’s convenient to do so.

Your hyperbole is undermining your position on this thread.

Ranb

As a lawyer, I generally ignore people who preach about the letter of the law.

But fine, he's a law breaker. As I said quite a few posts ago, fine him, move on.

You're trying to hide behind this "technically illegal" argument and pretending that the mere hint of a violated statute justifies the absurd, draconian punishment of deportation.

Sure, he violated the law. Punish him reasonably: fine him, and let him keep contributing to our system.

What kind of idiotic nation deports high achieving, successful people over a legal technicality?

"Sorry, Mr. Gates, we found out you were born in England. Take your incredibly successful business and get the hell out."

 

[TraneWreck]

Yeah, what possible harm could there be in someone else using your SSN?

Did any of that possible harm come to pass?

We typically don't punish people based on anticipatory crimes.

 

[cwalner]

He worked as a journalist, which is a creative industry. He was producing new work from scratch for a private industry selling to private consumers. If JK Rowling was an illegal immigrant and had been caught and deported, would someone else have written Harry Potter in her place?

most recently, but I am sure that before he became a journalist, he had other jobs to pay his way through college and thus gain the skills to become a journalist.

Please note: I do tend to favor more liberal immigration policies than we have now and I fully agree with JoeTheJuggler that we should not waste money looking for offenders like Vargas. However, my impression is that his transgression was not something INS actively investigated, but became advised of (by all means correct me if I am wrong). At that point, maintaining the rule of law is the most important thing to me.

This is why I support the idea of making him go through the normal process to get allowed entry starting now and if that means he has to spend 5 years in the penalty box, he has nobody but himself to blame. I am not claiming that we should lock him up, or refuse to allow him to get entry legally, and maybe one day get citizenship if he so desires. I just think that to maintain the rule of law, the crimes that he did commit need to have consequences.

Also had he taken action to correct this when he first became aware, I would have had no problem forgiving his entry as he was a minor when that happened. I also would have not had a problem at that time making a deal to allow him to stay in in the country while he worked on correcting his immigration status. The issue that I have is that once he became aware of the problem with his status, he chose instead to compound it by breaking more laws rather than looking for a way to resolve the issue. If we want to be a nation that follows the rule of law, there has to be consequences for those kind of decisions.

 

[cwalner]

I do enjoy the attempt to set minority vs. minority, though. Classy.

Um, the guy's name is Vargas, I was assuming he was Latino himself. I was trying to point out that the person harmed was likely somebody in the same postion as he was, but who did not break the law, not to set one minority against another.

I see now that he is Filipino, not Latino and I apologize for that comment as it conveyed a sentiment that was not my intent.

 

[Ranb]

For the record, staying in the country illegally isn't itself a crime. It is a federal violation that makes one subject to removal, but not, in itself, grounds for any criminal prosecution.

Interesting point. I have found the regulation that says he is here illegally, but it does not provide for any punishment or prosecution..

Ranb

 

[TraneWreck]

Um, the guy's name is Vargas, I was assuming he was Latino himself. I was trying to point out that the person harmed was likely somebody in the same postion as he was, but who did not break the law, not to set one minority against another.

I see now that he is Filipino, not Latino and I apologize for that comment as it conveyed a sentiment that was not my intent.

Fair enough, no worries.

 

[Beady]

Did any of that possible harm come to pass?

We typically don't punish people based on anticipatory crimes.

You're moving the goalposts. I was asked about potential harm and responded. Now, suddenly, potential harm has been removed from the equation.

He stole someone's identity. That is a crime; it is not anticipatory, it is accomplished. It happened. Hackers steal people's identity and go to jail for it, even if they don't misuse the stolen identities. This guy stole an identity and misused it.

 

[Ranb]

As a lawyer, I generally ignore people who preach about the letter of the law.

You're trying to hide behind this "technically illegal" argument and pretending that the mere hint of a violated statute justifies the absurd, draconian punishment of deportation.

Sure, he violated the law. Punish him reasonably: fine him, and let him keep contributing to our system.

I have noticed (based on this and other threads) that you tend to ignore what the law has to say and just make stuff up to support your position; doesn't seem to matter whether it is true or not.

I am not the one who is hiding, that would be Vargas until recently. Ask him to obey the law? Obviously he is unwilling to do that.

In what way is sending a person back to the Philippines to his family draconian? The Philippines is not "hell on Earth". It is his county of citizenship and there is no reason he cannot go back and apply to re-enter like anyone else who follows the rules.

I have relatives from the Philippines that were able to enter the USA legally. They did not consider their home a draconian thing to be left behind. They left, they traveled back and forth, and they did what they pleased because they did it legally. They can do these things because they choose to obey the law instead of breaking it.

Vargas is not a victim. He could have done the right thing and returned to the Philippines when he was 16. He chooses not to and may now find it difficult to continue to pursue the activities he desires.

Ranb

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's interesting that people who are normally boosters for the free market, the "I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative" crowd, change their tune when it comes to immigration. Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism both lead us to supporting reform in the direction of liberalized immigration and naturalization, especially in the narrow case of immigrant minors.

I would agree with this, but I'll also note that the liberalization of immigration and naturalization is not necessarily the same as amnesty for existing offenders.

A lot of libertarians are also strong believers in the rule of law. They may very well believe that a lot of these laws should be substantially relaxed or repealed, but still believe that those currently breaking them need to be dealt with harshly.

Similarly, a libertarian can want most taxes to be repealed and income tax to be greatly reformed or even eliminated, and still want harsh penalties against those who refuse to pay their taxes under the current system.

To put it another way, many conservatives and libertarians don't generally support civil disobedience, or only support it under very narrow circumstances. Work within the system to change it; in the meantime, obey the law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Interesting point. I have found the regulation that says he is here illegally, but it does not provide for any punishment or prosecution..

Just as I said, ICE distinguishes between criminal and non-criminal illegal aliens. Being here illegally itself makes one subject to removal, but not to criminal prosecution.

(Again, I recognize that in this case there are other crimes involved--but relatively innocuous ones, and certainly no violent crimes.)

 

[AvalonXQ]

Sure, he violated the law. Punish him reasonably: fine him, and let him keep contributing to our system.

What kind of idiotic nation deports high achieving, successful people over a legal technicality?

"Sorry, Mr. Gates, we found out you were born in England. Take your incredibly successful business and get the hell out."

Just to make your position clear. Are you advocating a two-tiered system where those with visible wealth/success can ignore the law and stay in the country, where those of modest means need to go home and reapply for citizenship?

I'm aware that we have a tiered system of justice in this country, but I would hope we'd be working to make it less blatant rather than more.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

He stole someone's identity. That is a crime; it is not anticipatory, it is accomplished. It happened. Hackers steal people's identity and go to jail for it, even if they don't misuse the stolen identities. This guy stole an identity and misused it.

As I've already pointed out, the current enforcement policy focusing on violent criminal illegal aliens has resulted in record number of removals. All other criminal law enforcement enjoys the same sort of discretion in deciding how to spend its finite resources. All other criminal law enforcement routinely use discretion in deciding which crimes to prosecute and routinely employ plea bargaining, grants of immunity and so on. All other criminal law prosecution also is allowed to take aggravating and mitigating factors into account.

Why should we be slave to the letter of the law wrt to illegal immigrants only?

In the real world (one where enforcement doesn't have infinite resources) what enforcement policy do you think would be superior to the one currently in place (that focuses primarily on violent criminal illegal aliens)?

 

[AvalonXQ]

In the real world (one where enforcement doesn't have infinite resources) what enforcement policy do you think would be superior to the one currently in place (that focuses primarily on violent criminal illegal aliens)?

Sounds good to me.

Although if that's what our policy is going to be, we should change the law to match it. How about open borders (with I.D.) for anyone not convicted of a violent crime in their home country, with immediate deportation upon convinction of a violent crime in the U.S.?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just to make your position clear. Are you advocating a two-tiered system where those with visible wealth/success can ignore the law and stay in the country, where those of modest means need to go home and reapply for citizenship?

I believe he is advocating the same thing I just did--that enforcement of immigration laws continue to be allowed to use discretion in which cases to prosecute and be allowed to take aggravating and mitigating circumstances into account.

Are you suggesting that enforcement of immigrant law should be the ONLY area of law where this sort of discretion and flexibility is not allowed?

If so, what policy do you propose in place of the current policy that has resulted in record levels of enforcements and probably has contributed to the reduction in violent crime?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In the real world (one where enforcement doesn't have infinite resources) what enforcement policy do you think would be superior to the one currently in place (that focuses primarily on violent criminal illegal aliens)?

Sounds good to me.

I don't understand this response.

Although if that's what our policy is going to be, we should change the law to match it. How about open borders (with I.D.) for anyone not convicted of a violent crime in their home country, with immediate deportation upon convinction of a violent crime in the U.S.?

I'm in favor of immigration reform that takes into account our economic dependence on labor currently provided by illegal aliens and a generally loosening of the prohibitive application for legal immigration, but otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Does it follow that because we don't prosecute all speeders that we should do away with speed limit laws? (Or raise them to the speeds where we would prosecute every single violator?)

I think you still view law enforcement and criminal prosecution as a very rigid inflexible thing, when it's far from that.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I believe he is advocating the same thing I just did--that enforcement of immigration laws be allowed to use discretion in which cases to prosecute and be allowed to take aggravating and mitigating circumstances into effect.

Are you suggesting that enforcement of immigrant law should be the ONLY area of law where this sort of discretion and flexibility is not allowed?

I think you're forgetting that high-profile violations are also pursued across the board. I can't think of any area of law where a public, notorious, ongoing violation doesn't pretty immediately result in an investigation and arrest.

Sure, the cops don't raid Celebrity X's home looking for drugs. But if Celebrity X pulls out a joint while on stage at the Academy Awards, do you really think the cops will let it slide?

If Celebrity X said on the Tonight Show that they had been cheating on their taxes for 10 years, do you think they wouldn't be audited?

Why should illegal immigration be the one area where open, notorious violation of the law doesn't get you harsh consequences?