Pulitzer Prize winner: illegal immigrant

[Ranb]

Yes, please protect us from Pulitzer Prize winners. We can't have these nasty illegals doing our jobs better than we do it.

For the 20,000,000th time, the question is not whether he broke a law, it's whether we should punish that violation harshly. We should not. You have no explanation for why deportation is preferable to a fine. You just caw over and over, "he broke the law, he broke the law."

Yes, the question is whether or not he broke the law because you prefer to deny that he broke the law, and then grudgingly admit that he did. Does this look familiar?

Yes, the terrible crime of getting an education and obtaining employment.

How many times do you have to be told that he broke the law before you stop denying it?

I was not aware that there was a fine that an illegal alien could pay that would allow them to keep living in the USA illegally. Got a link? That would be why I think paying a fine is not the appropriate thing to do.

Requiring Vargas to comply with the law is the right thing to do. He can do that by going back to the Philippines and applying with his own passport instead of using a fake one.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

This is just question begging. You're offering no rationale for the severe punishment, save the technicality of breaking the law. We don't have to punish all transgressions equally. We, as thinking creatures, can examine the facts and determine the proper sanction.

In this case, he should pay a fine for his wrongful behavior and we should keep this highly accomplished, highly productive individual in our nation.

There is no reasoning behind your argument, it's a bald assertion: "He broke the law, he should be deported."

Since when is returning to the Philippines such a severe punishment? Are there any Filipinos on this forum that take exception to this? I never thought the Philippines was the hellhole that it is being made out to be.

Vargas should not be deported for simply breaking the law. He broke immigration law and entered the country illegally. This is why he should be deported. The solution fits the problem in his case.

Ranb

 

[ThunderChunky]

We need to enforce the immigration laws and only allow a defined number of people with defined skills to live in the country. I would say send him back to the Philippines and then let him wait in line with the other people of his skill.

 

[Lamuella]

I don't think that's what you meant to say.

I think you're right. Flip illegal for legal.

 

[Lamuella]

I know, with the booming economy and full employment and wages going through the roof we could really use more workers to take all those open jobs!

What country do you live in?

Ironically, farmers in Georgia are loudly protesting a law designed to drive illegal immigrants out of state precisely because they can't find documented workers to fil their crop-picking jobs:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/06/17/gas-farm-labor-crisis-playing-out-as-planned/

 

[pipelineaudio]

I wish we could just allow them to come here to pick food so we could drop this red herring that hasn't been relevant since the 1950's and concentrate on the actual problems we are having right now

 

[pipelineaudio]

Since when is returning to the Philippines such a severe punishment? Are there any Filipinos on this forum that take exception to this? I never thought the Philippines was the hellhole that it is being made out to be.

It depends where you are and what you have. Where he would be deported to, and with the money he hopefully has, he would be ok. Move a tiny bit away from the money and you run into masses who were placated over the last 15 years or so with leaders who instead of giving them jobs or some semblance of security, running water, medicine or anything else the fatcats had, told them to blame all their problems on america and spend the hate for their government instead as hate for america. Ironically, when the hate finally shut down the US military presence, the hole in the economy made the situation far more dire, and they hated america even worse...damned if you do damned if you don't. Luckily the hate has stopped somewhat, at least with families in Hawaii, where we always seemed to be brothers in the same sea, though it did get ugly for a bit there.

Move past these slums and especially to the south islands and you are in third world hell, quite brutal, barbaric and bloody

 

[Beady]

You and he know about the same number of people in the Philippines, you wouldn't consider finding yourself forced to move there a fairly substantial event?

What *I* would think isn't at issue. Neither is what *he* would think.

The question is whether it should get him tossed.

I specified four to six counts of immigration violations, and at least one criminal violation. IMO the sheer volume alone *should* get him tossed. He apparently has no respect for U. S. law.

Vargas broke in and made the place better. He should be appropriately punished for the wrongful acts he took (a reasonable fine), and he should be allowed to work again as soon as possible.

The wrongful acts he took have a specified penalty of removal. Removal would be appropriate. There is no (that I know of) legal provision for levying a fine. A fine would be inappropriate.

We have enough trouble in this country. We don't need to be deporting people with jobs.

You have been making economic arguments, emotional arguments, theoretical arguments, everything but legal arguments. How does that go? "When the law is on your side, pound on the law; when the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; when neither is on your side, pound on the table."

 

[TraneWreck]

What *I* would think isn't at issue. Neither is what *he* would think.

Yeah, on a discussion forum it really is. That's what we're doing, arguing about what we think.

Unless you're of the opinion that we must silently accept whatever our rulers decide.

I specified four to six counts of immigration violations, and at least one criminal violation. IMO the sheer volume alone *should* get him tossed. He apparently has no respect for U. S. law.

Yes, that's your opinion. You've said that before, I disagree. Lot's of people don't respect US law, we don't kick all of them out.

This law is very flawed, and very silly. Ejecting a productive, highly successful member of society because of minor transgressions that caused no actual harm (in fact, they caused a benefit) is a stupid thing to do.

Fine him for the transgression, allow him to continue to be productive.

The wrongful acts he took have a specified penalty of removal. Removal would be appropriate. There is no (that I know of) legal provision for levying a fine. A fine would be inappropriate.

That is up to the discretion of a prosecutor. More than likely, they will choose to do nothing in this case because of the negative publicity fall-out.

But again, just because the law prescribes a specific punishment, that doesn't mean we have to agree that it's just. Consider the "three strikes you're out" laws, or mandatory minimums for marijuana possession.

Our legal code is replete with stupid laws and stupid punishments. This is one of them. Simply repeating what the statutes say gets your argument no where because nobody is disputing the letter of the law as it currently exists.

It is incumbent upon you to offer some type of reasoning justifying the punishment of deportation. So far you've said, "Must deport cause law says deport."

Yes, we get it, you're at least the 4th poster who has evinced this elegant line of argumentation.

Laws were written by people, not Gods, we should evaluate the logic behind them. Adhering strictly to the letter of this law leads to a self-destructive national policy.

You have been making economic arguments, emotional arguments, theoretical arguments, everything but legal arguments. How does that go? "When the law is on your side, pound on the law; when the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; when neither is on your side, pound on the table."

That's because the law isn't in dispute, as I've said from the beginning. Vargas could very well be deported and that would be consistent with the state of our laws. It would, however, be a really bad decision because it's a really stupid law.

Once again, the argument is not about what the authorities could do based on the law, it's what they should do.

It is a retarded culture, indeed, that writes something down and then pretends like they have no power over the content. We made the goddamn law in the first place, we can modify it if it's leading to unacceptable results.

 

[TraneWreck]

Your link is to wikipedia, not the relevent law. Here are the relevent laws; http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/laws/

If you could be bothered to read the actual text of the law and not someone's short synopsis on what they think the law is, then you might embarrass yourself a bit less on this forum. Federal law actually states that a dealer is always required to obtain a background check whenever transferring a firearm to an unlicensed individual. The law also says that an unlicensed individual is never required to obtain a background check when transferring a title 1 firearm. The law is quite specific on the matter, so there is no loophole. Some free advice, stay away from Wikipedia when trying to talk about the law.

Of course, you don't cite the actual text, you just list the statutes, which were contained in the wikipedia article, so you're back to square one.

The gunshow loophole is the result of a conflict between state and federal laws. Not all states allow the gunshow exception.

Once again, the 1994 Brady Bill requires background checks. The authority was the Commerce Clause. Here is the stated intent of the Brady Bill:

To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of any firearm.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blbradyact.htm

That's pretty clear. It doesn't say, "background checks for any firearm, unless they're sold by someone without a federal license within a state."

Here's the portion of the bill that sets out the background check:

Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and ending on the day before the date that is 60 months after such date of enactment, it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless--

[Conditions including the background check]

When the Bill was written, they intended to require all firearm sales to be made by people with a federal license. The Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986 amended the 1968 version and set out conditions for firearm purchases. From the FBI's page:

The older Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits firearms ownership in the US by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list differed between the US House and the US Senate versions of the bill, and led to great confusion. This list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is:

Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state.
Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment.)
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[6]
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.

http://fbinicsystem.com/federal-and-us-gun-laws/firearms-owners-protection-act-1986.html

How would you propose learning whether someone fit in those categories when selling them a gun? What would have to be done, do you think?

That's the reason for the background check. As the Brady Bill statement of purpose indicates, that background check was meant to extend to all firearm sales, but through the Commerce Clause they only had the authority to regulate federally licensed dealers, thus this loophole in the 1986 Act became very important. It revolves around who is considered to engage in the firearm business:

(21) The term "engaged in the business" means -
(A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who
devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a
regular course of trade or business with the principal objective
of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the
firearms manufactured;
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section
921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to
dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with
the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the
repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall
not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or
purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal
collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his
personal collection of firearms;
(D) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section
921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to
engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit,
but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional
repairs of firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels,
stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt

There's the actual code, should give you a little tingly feeling. I would recommend reading through it for a while and you'll see why summations of code are often more useful than direct quotes. Here's a little taste:

2006 - Subsec. (a)(33)(A)(i). Pub. L. 109-162, which directed the
general amendment of "section 921(33)(A)(i) of title 18", was
executed to par. (33)(A)(i) of subsec. (a), to reflect the probable
intent of Congress. Prior to amendment, cl. (i) read as follows:
"is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and".
2002 - Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 1112(f)(2),
substituted "Attorney General" for "Secretary of the Treasury" in
concluding provisions.
Subsec. (a)(4)(B). Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 1112(f)(1), substituted
"Attorney General" for "Secretary".
Subsec. (a)(13), (17)(C). Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 1112(f)(6),
substituted "Attorney General" for "Secretary" wherever appearing.
Subsec. (a)(18). Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 1112(f)(3), added par.
(18) and struck out former par. (18) which read as follows: "The
term 'Secretary' or 'Secretary of the Treasury' means the Secretary
of the Treasury or his delegate."
Subsec. (a)(19). Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 1112(f)(6), substituted
"Attorney General" for "Secretary" in two places.
Subsec. (a)(35). Pub. L. 107-273 added par. (35).
1998 - Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 105-277, Sec. 101(h) [title I,
Sec. 115(1)], substituted "an explosive" for "the explosive in a
fixed shotgun shell".
Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 105-277, Sec. 101(h) [title I, Sec.
115(2)], substituted "an explosive" for "the explosive in a fixed
metallic cartridge".

Good stuff.

So let's review. Brady wants background checks for all firearm purchases. They do this through regulation of licensed federal dealers. Anyone "regularly engaged" in the business of firearms sales must be licensed. Thus, a group of people define themselves as "not regularly engaged" in the firearm business, go to gun shows (make occasional sales), and don't use background checks.

Clearly this was not the intent of the Brady Bill, which is why it's called a loophole.

As for the rest of your rant, it is just excuses for why a person should be allowed to continue to break the law and not do anything to stop it. Vargas is an adult, he can go back and apply for entry into the USA the right way like many of his compatriots do.

Making him a citizen and giving him proper papers, even temporary passes that need to be renewed, after having him pay a fine, takes care of the problem.

This is just not a major issue, all of your consternation aside.

 

[TraneWreck]

exactly. If the only law he had broken was to enter the country without proper paperwork, it would something different. The issue most of us are taking with him is that once he found out the problem, he compounded it by covering it up with more criminal activity.

Kind of reminds me of a some guy back in the 70's who found out that some of his friends and supporters had committed a crime (fairly minor one, breaking and entering, nobody hurt, just some papers taken) to help him keep his job. Instead of doing the right thing, though, he tried to cover up their crime and made matters worse. He ended up having to quit his job in disgrace (and was the only person in history to ever do so from that job).

But according to TraneWreck's logic, he was otherwise being a productive member of society and actually managed to do some very good things in his job, like opening up trade relationships with the most populous country in the world. So I guess he should not have been punished at all because nobody got hurt and used his position (which the crime helped him maintain) to do good.

Haha, seriously? You're really trying this.

Holy ****. Incredible. You have achieved a new level of terrible analogy.

Are you really demanding that someone explain the difference between a guy forging a Green Card so he can go to college and get a job vs. Watergate?

At no point you felt shame for trying that? Incredible.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes, the question is whether or not he broke the law because you prefer to deny that he broke the law, and then grudgingly admit that he did. Does this look familiar?[

How many times do you have to be told that he broke the law before you stop denying it?

Are you doing this on purpose? Trolling? Because I've explained in great detail that his law breaking is not at issue. Yes, he broke the law, it's a question of the proper sanction.

This is the sentence that I wrote to which your post was a reply:

For the 20,000,000th time, the question is not whether he broke a law, it's whether we should punish that violation harshly.

At some point this conversation becomes useless because you don't appear to understand plain English.

I was not aware that there was a fine that an illegal alien could pay that would allow them to keep living in the USA illegally. Got a link? That would be why I think paying a fine is not the appropriate thing to do.

Again, this is your ingenuous faith in our legal code. There are at least two separate questions:

1) What does the US law say?
2) What should the US law say?

Clearly deportation is available in Vargas' case. I am arguing that this a stupid stance for a nation to take. Harshly punishing a productive member of society for a victimless crime (in fact, we benefited) is a dumb, dumb way to run a society. We should not be in the practice of stopping people from earning a salary in exchange for their labor.

Requiring Vargas to comply with the law is the right thing to do. He can do that by going back to the Philippines and applying with his own passport instead of using a fake one.

No, it's not. It's a dumb thing to do, regardless of what the law says.

When the law puts someone in prison for 5 years because of marijuana possession, that's stupid. It's costly to society. Just because some politician wrote a law does not mean it's divine authority. There is a lot of dumb **** in our legal code, and these immigration laws are pretty high on that list.

But again, you have no reasoning. This is your argument:

"Following the law is the right thing to do because following the law is the right thing to do."

Who cares if it's destructive to the economy, destructive to our nation, destructive to individuals and families, there's a piece of paper with words on it that says we can kick him out, so we should stop thinking and just do what it says.

Since when is returning to the Philippines such a severe punishment? Are there any Filipinos on this forum that take exception to this? I never thought the Philippines was the hellhole that it is being made out to be.

Oh god. The level of argumentation in this thread is sad.

Japan is a great place. If someone sent me there right now and told me I couldn't come back to America, I'd be in big trouble.

The question is not whether the Philippines are a good or bad place to live, it's whether it's appropriate to destroy all of this person's professional and private relationships to drop him a country where he has no connections.

Vargas should not be deported for simply breaking the law. He broke immigration law and entered the country illegally. This is why he should be deported. The solution fits the problem in his case.

Again, that's not reasoning. That's just a reiteration of the mind-numbingly banal position that "the law says what the law done says." Yes, we get it. But once more, it's a dumb law.

 

[TraneWreck]

Duplicate post

 

[BobTheCoward]

I am emotionally unmoved by deportation because no party is punished by deportation. It is simply matching the situation to the paperwork. Moving this writer in the Philippines is no different than moving someone out of the way of machinery at a factory.

 

[TraneWreck]

I am emotionally unmoved by deportation because no party is punished by deportation. It is simply matching the situation to the paperwork. Moving this writer in the Philippines is no different than moving someone out of the way of machinery at a factory.

If moving the worker caused a drop in the factory's productivity, it would be a poor choice.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If moving the worker caused a drop in the factory's productivity, it would be a poor choice.

Factory owner has a right to make that choice. Therefore I find every choice equally valid.

 

[TraneWreck]

Factory owner has a right to make that choice. Therefore I find every choice equally valid.

Haha, ok. You do have a right to run a ****** business. ****** decision is still ******.

I enjoy the notion that "every choice is equally valid." This stupid thread is moving quickly towards solipsism.

The difference in a democracy, however, is that we exercise elective control over the people writing the laws. When they engage in behavior harmful to the country, we should exercise that authority.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Beady, RandB, et al,

If tomorrow you found out that your parents brought you here from country X when you were a month old but never filled out the paperwork to make you legal, would you have no objection to leaving your job, your house, your friends, and your family, everything you are familiar with, in order to return to country X (where you may not even speak the language) until everything is sorted out?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Haha, ok. You do have a right to run a ****** business. ****** decision is still ******.

I enjoy the notion that "every choice is equally valid." This stupid thread is moving quickly towards solipsism.

The difference in a democracy, however, is that we exercise elective control over the people writing the laws. When they engage in behavior harmful to the country, we should exercise that authority.

I agree. Therefore I concede my last point, and surrender my argument in this discussion.

 

[Alt+F4]

I can't recall the source for this right now but I remember reading about a joint program between the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Dept. of Education and the Social Security administration to develop a computer program so schools can check a child's citizenship status before registering them in school. Part of the proposal also called for cash rewards for teachers who turn in illegal students.