Pulitzer Prize winner: illegal immigrant

[TraneWreck]

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

Hmm, that does seem like the prudent course of action...damn my inability to let forum arguments die...

 

[Beady]

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

And who decides what they *should* do? I have said two or three times that Vargas' should argue his case before an immigration judge (to start with), but you don't seem to want him to enter that process. So, if the lawmakers are out, and the judiciary is out, who's left to decide?

 

[Ranb]

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

Quite the goal post shift there. We were discussing a loophole in federal law.

The law you quote makes it very clear that it is only transactions from licensed dealers to individuals that require the background check. It does not say what you claim.

If you want to discuss the gunshot loophole more, how about making another thread and keep this one about illegal aliens.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

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?

I would probably be very upset with those who deceived me and put me in such a difficult situation. I would also try to remain legal, whatever that took, even if it meant returning to my home country and applying the right way.

So how does this relate to Vargas? He fraudulently (no fault of his own) entered the country when he was 12. Four years later he found out he was illegal. From what I read in his article, trying to come clean and become a legal resident was something he never tried to do, or did I miss something? He already spoke english when he arrived in the USA and he probably still speaks filipino now.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

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.

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.

It was the issue when you denied he was breaking the law and it still is now. No one would be suggesting that he be deported if he did not break the law. I am not trolling when I remind you that he broke the law, especially when you were denying it. Denying he broke the law would make you the troll.

Vargas' home country is one he lived in from 1981-1993. He has family back there. There is no reason to think that Vargas would be in the same kind of trouble you claim you would be if you were deported to Japan.

Ranb

 

[Alt+F4]

Why didn't his grandparents, who were naturalized citizens, adopt him?

 

[TraneWreck]

And who decides what they *should* do? I have said two or three times that Vargas' should argue his case before an immigration judge (to start with), but you don't seem to want him to enter that process. So, if the lawmakers are out, and the judiciary is out, who's left to decide?

1) As long as we're still a democracy, we get to decide what they should do. Just like we changed the laws that prevented white and black citizens from marrying.

2) I'm not sure how to explain this point to you. I've tried this several different ways, here's antoher effort:

The question of how Vargas should proceed given the legal realities he faces is a distinct issue from my claim that the law is poorly constructed. I would not be upset with a prosecutor that seeks to have him deported, that's what the law says. In fact, if Vargas is allowed to stay through some sort of prosecutorial discretion for fear of a controversy, I would find that quite insulting. Either enforce the law against everyone, or don't enforce it at all.

The law, however, is not a good one. If proper adherence to a legal structure leads to harmful results to both individuals and society at large, it should be eliminated. Harsh drug laws fall in this same category.

 

[TraneWreck]

Quite the goal post shift there. We were discussing a loophole in federal law.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

The loophole in the Federal law exists because of the interaction between the States and the Federal government. The Brady Bill intended to require background checks for all firearm purchases, but the "regular dealer" language allowed a class of people to sell firearms without obtaining a federal permit.

From the perspective of the intent of the Brady Bill, this is a loophole.

The law you quote makes it very clear that it is only transactions from licensed dealers to individuals that require the background check. It does not say what you claim.

Uh...that's exactly what I claimed it says. The licensing requirement is not extended to people "not in the regular business" of selling or repairing firearms. They sell the guns at the gunshows without federal licenses and without a background check. That's the loophole.

If you want to discuss the gunshot loophole more, how about making another thread and keep this one about illegal aliens.

You're welcome to start the thread, you brought it up. You made this extravagent claim that I was "making up: the loophole. I've quoted you the actual law and you're still failing to understand, I don't know what another thread will prove.

 

[TraneWreck]

It was the issue when you denied he was breaking the law and it still is now.

Quote the part where I said that. I think you've likely failed to understand my arguments. Here is post #40 where I acknowledge that Vargas was in violation of the law:

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.

This has been my position. He technically broke the law, but there was no damage done. He got an education and became a productive member of society. It's like sneaking in a bank to money in the vault.

No one would be suggesting that he be deported if he did not break the law. I am not trolling when I remind you that he broke the law, especially when you were denying it. Denying he broke the law would make you the troll.

This is just a madening phrase. This notion of deportation without breaking a law seems to be purely a figment of your imagination. What the hell are you talking about?

Vargas' home country is one he lived in from 1981-1993. He has family back there. There is no reason to think that Vargas would be in the same kind of trouble you claim you would be if you were deported to Japan.

Deportion is a stupid solution regardless of how comfortable Vargas will be when he gets there. You are, of course, glibly underplaying the seriousness of such a life-altering change, but whatever.

The stupidity lies in the United States kicking out a successful member of our society because of a legal technicality. Pay a fine, let him continue to produce for our economy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not any you'd find on the internet unfortunately. This is one of those areas you'd have to go check for yourself or take an observer's word for it.

Or reject the claim as unsubstantiated. It's really not very credible that hotel management positions (except for the highest levels) are "almost exclusively" filled by illegal aliens. Barring any evidence, I reject the claim.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would probably be very upset with those who deceived me and put me in such a difficult situation. I would also try to remain legal, whatever that took, even if it meant returning to my home country and applying the right way.

How could you "remain legal" if you weren't legal?

And believe me, there are plenty of people who would like to enter the U.S. legally "whatever it took" but cannot. And if you returned to the home country you never knew and sought to return by applying the right way, you would likely be among that number.

But the solution would be easy. Federal authorities could take into account your circumstances and simply grant you amnesty and change your status to legal. (And I think they should do that even if you aren't a Pulitzer Prize winner!)

Again, in all other types of criminal law, prosecutors and law enforcement are allowed to exercise a lot of discretion and flexibility in choosing which case to prosecute, when to grant immunity, plea bargains, etc. Immigration law is no different.

While I would favor comprehensive immigration law reform to take into account our economic dependence on currently illegal labor (among other reforms), I have no problem meanwhile with the current federal enforcement policy that focusses most of its resources and attention on prosecuting violent criminal illegal aliens--especially over non-criminal illegal aliens (though I recognize that the present case is not a non-criminal illegal alien, but again, ICE is free to take into account everything about the case, and he's certainly never committed a violent crime).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The stupidity lies in the United States kicking out a successful member of our society because of a legal technicality. Pay a fine, let him continue to produce for our economy.

Or simply grant him a pardon or amnesty or whatever and issue him legal immigrant documentation. Again, we aren't slaves to our own laws--just as in any other area of criminal law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

And even if it were a valid analogy [ETA: and I'd accept it since I personally have repeatedly said that discretion and flexibility is available to enforcement of ALL criminal law], you want to guess whether or not at least some of the criminals involved in the Watergate break-ins and coverup were offered immunity, plea-bargains, or simply not prosecuted?
____
Back to speed limits for a moment.

Just to satisfy some people's sense that law-enforcement officers and prosecutors are automatons who enforce absolutely every violation they can equally, we would need to do away with speed limits or raise them to something like 90 to keep that sort of purity. But we have plenty of evidence that keeping the speed limits where they are with half-assed, sometimes selective prosecution, often ignoring hundreds of violators, offering routine plea bargains to violators, and so on. . . . still benefits society by saving significant numbers of lives.

So should we give up that benefit, just for this misguided sense that we have to prosecute every criminal violation we possibly can? We aren't allowed to use common sense, take into account humanitarian concerns or even overall benefit to our country?

 

[Beady]

Why didn't his grandparents, who were naturalized citizens, adopt him?

It's difficult to establish a valid adoption for immigration. First, you have to establish legal custody. Second, you have to establish a minimum of two years' parental relationship before the petition is filed. Third, the two years' parental authority must be completed before the child's 18th birthday.

 

[Giz]

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."

If the law is an ass, we should change the law.

If we (as a democratic society) don't want the law changed, then the law should be respected (even if some people think the law sucks).


I am surprised that a lawyer could be so blithly unconcerned about abitrary and capricious enforcement of the law, or the flouting of the wishes of the legislature.

 

[TraneWreck]

If the law is an ass, we should change the law.

If we (as a democratic society) don't want the law changed, then the law should be respected (even if some people think the law sucks).

Most of the time, yes, all of the time, no.

Laws against people of different races marrying, for example, were incredibly popular. Were I alive at that time I would hope people flagrantly ignored them and when given the choice, prosecutors refused to move forward.

I do not, however, think this is one such circumstance, which leads me to:

I am surprised that a lawyer could be so blithly unconcerned about abitrary and capricious enforcement of the law, or the flouting of the wishes of the legislature.

Yeah, that's not even close to my argument. If Vargas is prosecuted, it will be appropriate under the law, just like putting someone in California in prison for the rest of their life because the steal something of just enough value to qualify as a felony isn't wrongful. It's in accordance with the law.

But in both cases the laws are stupid and counterproductive. They harm society rather and should be changed. It's idiotic to harshly punish productive members of society for stupid trivialities.

Fine him for his past wrongs, move on.

 

[Giz]

But in both cases the laws are stupid and counterproductive. They harm society rather and should be changed. It's idiotic to harshly punish productive members of society for stupid trivialities.

Fine him for his past wrongs, move on.

Then, again, you should try and persuade society that the law should be changed. Applying deportations to some illegals but not to others would be unjust, to both:
1) illegals that did still get deported in accordance with the law, and
2) US citizens, whose ability to set law would be rendered irrelevant by the ability of Tranewreck et al to arbitrarily apply criteria and sanctions not found anywhere in statute.

 

[TraneWreck]

Then, again, you should try and persuade society that the law should be changed. Applying deportations to some illegals but not to others would be unjust, to both:
1) illegals that did still get deported in accordance with the law, and

I agree. Apply it equally or don't apply it at all.

2) US citizens, whose ability to set law would be rendered irrelevant by the ability of Tranewreck et al to arbitrarily apply criteria and sanctions not found anywhere in statute.

Keep waving at that windmill, sport.

ETA: It occurs to me that this may be the source of your confusion: When I say, "Fine him, move on," are you taking that as an assertion of the current state of the law? Because, for the 20 millionth time, that's not my argument. I'm asserting what the proper punishment would be if the law were more reasonable.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If we (as a democratic society) don't want the law changed, then the law should be respected (even if some people think the law sucks).

So should we either attempt to enforce every infraction of speed limits or do away with speed limits (or raise them to something like 90mph a level when we surely should attempt to enforce every infraction)?

And when I say "enforce" I would include doing away with any discretion in prosecution, plea bargaining, etc.

Before you answer, I would again point out that we know for certain that current speed limits, even with the half-assed and far less than consistent enforcement we currently pursue, does benefit our society in measurable ways.

I am surprised that a lawyer could be so blithly unconcerned about abitrary and capricious enforcement of the law, or the flouting of the wishes of the legislature.

Ah well, you're just ignoring the fact that federal immigration enforcement policy isn't in fact arbitrary and capricious. It focuses enforcement efforts on violent criminal illegal aliens, and this policy has resulted in record number of removals and probably contributed to reduction in violent crime.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree. Apply it equally or don't apply it at all.

I disagree. I think it makes perfectly good sense to spend limited enforcement resources disproportionately more on removing violent criminal illegal aliens than either non-violent criminal illegal aliens or non criminal illegal aliens.