Support NeoGAF

[TheOfficeMut]

Let's put aside that the infractions you listed are single time instances and not a perpetual state of illegality the way the topic at hand is. Let's say I've done all of those things. I am willing to pay the price for each. Fines, detention, jail.

Why are people who entered a country illegally not willing to pay the price of possibly being deported?

I am pretty sure you'd be outraged being fined or thrown in jail for downloading music or any minor "infractions," yet it is more outrageous to have you and your family uprooted after years of living here just to be deported. That's not normal and really is inexcusable. You really sound like you speak from a position of privilege who knows nothing of sympathy or empathy.

 

[boring accountant]

I clearly answered: "Of course these things do have limits." Taking is to extremes is not useful, since of course if their superiors say "shoot these people on sight" or whatever, the situation is different and dealing with that is different.

But that is not the situation we are dealing with. I don't see how and why we should blame individual agents in this situation.

You might see it as a moral failing, but you can not see into these peoples life. Should they quit then, when they need to provide for their family? When other cases they handle might actually be good ones that need dealing with? What exactly do you want them to do here?


Nobody is saying the bolded should happen. You are making up scenarios in your head.

There was a poster here who said that his family after 18 years of being undocumented should be left alone. I disagree with that. I did not say I think they should be deported, but asked for a conversation on how people thought it should be handled.

Also I do not support the current form of the DACA but am not sure how the it will be handled or revisited once there are 9 justices again.

 

[Dali]

This guy was low hanging fruit for sure. An illegal immigrant with a steady life, a job, and a family is not gonna be hard to find. My question is why wasn't he deported when he was arrested for his other offenses?

 

[thehypocrite]

My beliefs are based on evidence I have encountered and interpreted. For all topics of the world. What specifically are you referring to in regards to this?

Well, can you volunteer this evidence that help form your claims on this topic? In this thread all you've given are anecdotes.

 

[The Salt Life]

A dad dropping his kid off to school with a job isn't the problem.

"But he's breaking the law!!!" isn't justification to be to Deport without context. It's just breaking up families.

I agree with what I snipped so I'm not going to speak on that.

But as a father myself I would never risk starting a family here if I was here illegally. There was nothing smart about that decision. He is lucky ice didn't deport him back then.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

There was a poster here who said that his family after 18 years of being undocumented should be left alone. I disagree with that. I did not say I think they should be deported, but asked for a conversation on how people thought it should be handled.

Also I do not support the current form of the DACA but am not sure how the it will be handled or revisited once there are 9 justices again.

Do you think someone who pops out the pussy of an immigrant on domestic soil is more a citizen than someone who's been here for 18 years undocumented?

 

[ClosingADoor]

There was a poster here who said that his family after 18 years of being undocumented should be left alone. I disagree with that. I did not say I think they should be deported, but asked for a conversation on how people thought it should be handled.

Also I do not support the current form of the DACA but am not sure how the it will be handled or revisited once there are 9 justices again.

Giving amnesty for people who are here 10+ years and have families would not be a blanket amnesty.

You can set a cut off date, only apply it to people with proof of employment for a decent amount of time, no violent offenses, etc.

 

[boring accountant]

This guy was low hanging fruit for sure. An illegal immigrant with a steady life, a job, and a family is not gonna be hard to find. My question is why wasn't he deported when he was arrested for his other offenses?

Completely agree with that being the real question. Immigration enforcement in the past is a real head scratcher and lead to situations like this.

Well, can you volunteer this evidence that help form your claims on this topic? In this thread all you've given are anecdotes.

I'm not presenting any case here that I need evidence for. You brought up the notion that there was evidence on this topic that should change or trump my belief. You are free to present it. My anecdotes were for comparison to other anecdotes. The individual's situation that this thread is about is an anecdote.

 

[sturgboski]

So ITT are a bunch of posters that are the type of people that for months folks on the left said we should reach out to, understand their anxiety, etc. Bullshit.

 

[thehypocrite]

I clearly answered: "Of course these things do have limits." Taking is to extremes is not useful, since of course if their superiors say "shoot these people on sight" or whatever, the situation is different and dealing with that is different.

But that is not the situation we are dealing with. I don't see how and why we should blame individual agents in this situation.

You might see it as a moral failing, but you can not see into these peoples life. Should they quit then, when they need to provide for their family? When other cases they handle might actually be good ones that need dealing with? What exactly do you want them to do here?

I don't see how they should be exempt when they target a parent dropping his children in schools. Are you telling me the rules forces them to do this? And they go a long because with it? OK. Show us then, where's the evidence? In every rule there's enforcers discretionary power, this power was what actually what Obama claimed to institute DACA, as good as it was seen then it should reflect badly on this agents doing this now.

 

[boring accountant]

Do you think someone who pops out the pussy of an immigrant on domestic soil is more a citizen than someone who's been here for 18 years undocumented?

No, I don't. That was my earlier point in this thread. Assuming you mean an illegal immigrant, neither are citizens from my perspective. However, under the current laws, the born child is indeed a citizen and I accept that. What I don't agree with is the illegal parent using that child as a bargaining tool. There is a post prior to this that said it best. If you are going to enter or stay in a country illegally, do it at your own expense. Don't have a family or drag them into it because it is unfair to torture them with your mistakes.

If you mean a legal immigrant, then absolutely they are a citizen.

 

[thehypocrite]

I'm not presenting any case here that I need evidence for. You brought up the notion that there was evidence on this topic that should change or trump my belief. You are free to present it. My anecdotes were for comparison to other anecdotes. The individual's situation that this thread is about is an anecdote.

I disagree with you. The lives of over 10 million people are not anecdotes. If you have no evidence to volunteer, then what do you have? Rationalizations of prejudice?

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm not presenting any case here that I need evidence for. You brought up the notion that there was evidence on this topic that should change or trump my belief. You are free to present it. My anecdotes were for comparison to other anecdotes. The individual's situation that this thread is about is an anecdote.

Applying all those rules right now would cost billions upon billions and is in no ones interests.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/labor-output-declines-removing-undocumented-immigrants/

Private sector employment would fall by 4 million to 6.8 million workers, and
This worker decline by itself would reduce private industry output by between $381.5 billion and $623.2 billion.

That is why you need to look at individual cases, give people already in the US amnesty and a path to citizenship, and apply tougher rules to new arrivals if you want to, not to people already there.

I don't see how they should be exempt when they target a parent dropping his children in schools. Are you telling me the rules forces them to do this? And they go a long because with it? OK. Show us then, where's the evidence? In every rule there's enforcers discretionary power, this power was what actually what Obama claimed to institute DACA, as good as it was seen then it should reflect badly on this agents doing this now.

Now you are changing the issue, going from arresting this man, towards the way how he was arrested which might have been handled better.

Yes, that could have been handled better. But that is not the issue. You are saying they should stand up and refuse to do the job, at least that is what I understand from your post. If you just think the way they handled this situation is wrong, then I mostly agree with that. They could have just as well knocked on his door and have him come along instead of blocking his car in and arresting him that way.

 

[Dude Abides]

ICE seems like the kind of job you'd get if you couldn't cut it in the military or as a real cop.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

ICE seems like the kind of job you'd get if you couldn't cut it in the military or as a real cop.

Which is why I'd rather work for FIRE.

 

[rjinaz]

I don't know about you all but I feel safer already. Thanks ICE and President Trump!

Spoiler

You pieces of shit.

 

[boring accountant]

I disagree with you. The lives of over 10 million people are not anecdotes. If you have no evidence to volunteer, then what do you have? Rationalizations of prejudice?

I'm not sure why a legal immigration experience I have encountered in my life is an anecdote in this conversation but the 10 million illegal people you do not know is evidence for you. Nor do I understand you again veering into a separate topic not pertaining to this one. I think for now you and I can end our conversation. I do appreciate the time.

 

[F34R]

... at the end of the article:

Update [1:45 p.m.]: Romulo Avelica-Gonzalez's family will be holding a vigil outside of Hollenbeck Police Station in Boyle Heights at 4 p.m. on Thursday. They are requesting certification from the LAPD to support their legal motions for him to gain a visa to remain in the country.

Why couldn't they do this before? Hard to understand why they would do this now, but not over the past 20 years?

I feel bad for the kids that don't have any control over this.

My great grandparents came from Cuba in 1917, and it took 7 years to become citizens.

 

[StarCreator]

... at the end of the article:

Update [1:45 p.m.]: Romulo Avelica-Gonzalez's family will be holding a vigil outside of Hollenbeck Police Station in Boyle Heights at 4 p.m. on Thursday. They are requesting certification from the LAPD to support their legal motions for him to gain a visa to remain in the country.

Why couldn't they do this before? Hard to understand why they would do this now, but not over the past 20 years?

I feel bad for the kids that don't have any control over this.

My great grandparents came from Cuba in 1917, and it took 7 years to become citizens.

That was literally a century ago. Do you really think the process hasn't changed in 100 years?

 

[numble]

... at the end of the article:

Update [1:45 p.m.]: Romulo Avelica-Gonzalez's family will be holding a vigil outside of Hollenbeck Police Station in Boyle Heights at 4 p.m. on Thursday. They are requesting certification from the LAPD to support their legal motions for him to gain a visa to remain in the country.

Why couldn't they do this before? Hard to understand why they would do this now, but not over the past 20 years?

I feel bad for the kids that don't have any control over this.

My great grandparents came from Cuba in 1917, and it took 7 years to become citizens.

Just FYI, in 1917 you could immigrate to the US as long as you arrived here, unless you were Chinese or considered a lunatic, or had an infectious disease. As of last year, a Cuban could still immigrate to the US as long as they arrived here.

 

[thehypocrite]

I'm not sure why a legal immigration experience I have encountered in my life is an anecdote in this conversation but the 10 million illegal people you do not know is evidence for you. Nor do I understand you again veering into a separate topic not pertaining to this one. I think for now you and I can end our conversation. I do appreciate the time.

I don't have to know them personally to gain evidence of their existence. Good, feel free to run along. Thanks for the vapid discussion.

 

[thehypocrite]

Applying all those rules right now would cost billions upon billions and is in no ones interests.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/labor-output-declines-removing-undocumented-immigrants/



That is why you need to look at individual cases, give people already in the US amnesty and a path to citizenship, and apply tougher rules to new arrivals if you want to, not to people already there.


Now you are changing the issue, going from arresting this man, towards the way how he was arrested which might have been handled better.

Yes, that could have been handled better. But that is not the issue. You are saying they should stand up and refuse to do the job, at least that is what I understand from your post. If you just think the way they handled this situation is wrong, then I mostly agree with that. They could have just as well knocked on his door and have him come along instead of blocking his car in and arresting him that way.

I'm not. As I said before enablers and enforcers have responsibility in this mess.

 

[F34R]

That was literally a century ago. Do you really think the process hasn't changed in 100 years?

Just FYI, in 1917 you could immigrate to the US as long as you arrived here, unless you were Chinese or considered a lunatic, or had an infectious disease.

Oh, I know. It was more of a comparison from how it was back then, to how it is now. They didn't just arrive here though.

http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration...aryOfNaturalizationLaws-US.html#axzz4aGqiddoF


Here's another case, but the immigrant supports what is being done.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/us/juan-carlos-hernandez-pacheco-undocumented-trump/index.html

 

[Swimmer9800]

From the humanitarian perspective this is a heartless act, but an undocumented immigrant is an undocumented immigrant.

 

[Whompa02]

Okay, so obviously that's fucked up, but why did ICE arrest him? Who put the call out for this guy? What did he do that was SO wrong? Not having legal documentation for over 20 years? Is that it? Was he dealing drugs? Was he doing anything terribly wrong outside of not having papers to confirm his citizenship? I respect the law but lets confirm this guy and get him some papers already. This is ridiculous.

 

[Karkador]

But I didn't say I support the current government or the current strategy. I simply do not believe in a blanket, retroactive amnesty. But if a future government proposed exactly that as a strategy, then I wouldn't fight in any other way than I've fought any other policy - by voting. If the vote passed in their favor, then that's what it is. On to the next issue.

The point is escaping you a bit. It's not about a blanket amnesty, but about ordinary people who have families here, contribute to the economy, and are no more likely to commit crimes than average.

The problem is that the national rhetoric is selling it as a campaign against violent career criminals, to then easily say that ANY illegal immigrants are criminals in the same vein (using that word like a blunt object), simply because of their status as trespassers in this so-called nation of immigrants.

 

[0ptimusPayne]

I wonder how many that work there are the stereotypical immigration fearing racist



the family is the threat. if they're over here and Americanized they aren't 'going back where they came from', they're going to change things here. and stay.

Anecdotal, But my ICE contacts that I work every month with are very nice and professional. It might be where I live(Florida), but 99% of them that I work with are originally from South American/Central American/Mid-south FL. To be fair we only deal with the felony criminal side of immigration, but I couldn't imagine myself being in the business of screening harmless citizens and tearing families from each other.

 

[Vyer]

Oh, I know. It was more of a comparison from how it was back then, to how it is now. They didn't just arrive here though.

http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration...aryOfNaturalizationLaws-US.html#axzz4aGqiddoF


Here's another case, but the immigrant supports what is being done.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/us/juan-carlos-hernandez-pacheco-undocumented-trump/index.html

even in your pro trump example there the guy says he's been trying for 10 years but 'the system is broken'

for Mexican immigrants the process can reach as high as 20+ years

 

[supermarioworldE]

Ripping apart a family is naturally a main priority when it comes to dealing with immigration.

Fucking soulless. Everyday, I'm thinking about what will happen to some of my family members and many others like them.

 

[zeemumu]

Is the process long because it's congested, more complex than it needs to be, or both?

 

[boring accountant]

The point is escaping you a bit. It's not about a blanket amnesty, but about ordinary people who have families here, contribute to the economy, and are no more likely to commit crimes than average.

The problem is that the national rhetoric is selling it as a campaign against violent career criminals, to then easily say that ANY illegal immigrants are criminals in the same vein (using that word like a blunt object), I simply because of their status as trespassers in this so-called nation of immigrants.

The opportunity for an immigrant to work here or to create a family here is not a right. It must be earned. Thousands of people fight for that opportunity legally every year but don't make the cut. Some never make the cut. Those are ordinary people. People who bypass the system are not ordinary, they have made themselves extraordinary because they have taken advantage of a privilege they did not earn.

Trespassing is a crime. Violent trespassers aren't being deported because they're violent, they're being deported because they trespassed. Non-violent trespassers aren't being deported because they're non-violent, they're being deported because they trespassed.

That's the current system. I have advocated for a system that analyzes each individual situation's unique factors and assigns a relevant penalty. I have argued against blanket amnesty but also against mass deportation.

I do not think I have missed any major points of the topic.

 

[Tigress]

Seriously, I have to assume that some segment of Homeland Security agents are sick to their stomaches by how much their job has changed since Trump got into office.

DEA is undoubtably going to be coming after all those people smoking marijuana in "legal" states soon too. Once we get videos of this happening to a white guy dropping off his kid because the feds saw him buying some weed maybe then people will be more outraged and call for change.

I read some article saying some ice agents didn't like the new rules but some where excited and saying it was making their job fun now that they were no longer under so many restrictions.

 

[Jetman]

That's how hard it is to do it "legally." Now imagine how hard it is for someone who came here 10 years ago through another means.

Not to mention, the forms are intentionally difficult for a non-native speaker in order to disqualify them.

So based on this, he should have gotten his citenship in 6 to 7 years? Do we know how far along in the process he was? Maybe he can get a lawyer to defend him if the process has been broken or delayed at some point for him?

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

Is the process long because it's congested, more complex than it needs to be, or both?

It's always both.

There should be repercussions to illegal immigration but ripping apart families is not it.

 

[numble]

Oh, I know. It was more of a comparison from how it was back then, to how it is now. They didn't just arrive here though.

http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration...aryOfNaturalizationLaws-US.html#axzz4aGqiddoF

Your link is about naturalization as a citizen. It was legal to just arrive here and start living and working.

If you argue they required getting an immigrant visa before arriving here, I do not think you would be able to support that argument.

 

[F34R]

Anecdotal, But my ICE contacts that I work every month with are very nice and professional. It might be where I live(Florida), but 99% of them that I work with are originally from South American/Central American/Mid-south FL. To be fair we only deal with the felony criminal side of immigration, but I couldn't imagine myself being in the business of screening harmless citizens and tearing families from each other.

Same, but in SC. The unit I worked along side were really good with helping the families we had to make contact with.

 

[F34R]

Your link is about naturalization as a citizen. It was legal to just arrive here and start living and working.

If you argue they required getting an immigrant visa before arriving here, I do not think you would be able to support that argument.

If we're going to get into picking straws... they followed the laws back then. I'm not going to argue over semantics here. I feel bad for the kids in the family, and I think this guy should go about and get things in order to make things up to par with the current laws.

 

[numble]

If we're going to get into picking straws... they followed the laws back then. I'm not going to argue over semantics here. I feel bad for the kids in the family, and I think this guy should go about and get things in order to make things up to par with the current laws.

I am not picking straws. You claimed they didn't just arrive here. I challenged your claim.

Again, even last year, it was legal for Cubans to just arrive here without any visa or other permission and they would be given a path to citizenship.

 

[F34R]

I am not picking straws. You claimed they didn't just arrive here. I challenged your claim.

Again, even last year, it was legal for Cubans to just arrive here without any visa or other permission and they would be given a path to citizenship.

The whole point is that they followed the laws as written. I don't see what your problem is with that.

Could this gentleman not follow the rules starting 20 years ago and be in a completely different situation now?

 

[numble]

The whole point is that they followed the laws as written. I don't see what your problem is with that.

Could this gentleman not follow the rules starting 20 years ago and be in a completely different situation now?

I don't have a problem with that? Where did I say I have a problem with that.

You claimed they didn't just arrive here. I said it is very likely that they just arrived here. You are taking issue with me saying that for some reason.

 

[fixedpoint]

edit

Fuck this. Human rights do not have to be earned.

 

[F34R]

I don't have a problem with that? Where did I say I have a problem with that.

You claimed they didn't just arrive here. I said it is very likely that they just arrived here. You are taking issue with me saying that for some reason.

I took what you were saying out of context then.

 

[boring accountant]

The "major point" you're missing is that, in this and many other cases, families and lives may be ruined. To no end whatsoever. It's indefensible.

Maybe you can document for us a day in your life that doesn't include breaking a law.

The person who trespassed ruined their family's life when they chose to create a family in an illegal situation or involve their family with their illegal act. The government of the country that was trespassed upon is not the one ruining lives. That's the major point.

Your second paragraph is a variation of the same point I answered above, disregarding the fact that I would safely say I live a majority of my days without breaking the law. But if I do break the law I am doing it understanding the consequence. Can you document for me why someone who actually is breaking the law daily isn't willing to do the same?

Your edit is actually more absurd. It is not a human right to be allowed into the United States. I think I'll have to bow out at this one.

 

[catbird]

Does this not violate the rights of American-born citizen children in anyway? Is there a good source to read up on this type of argument?

 

[fixedpoint]

The person who trespassed ruined their family's life when they chose to create a family in an illegal situation or involve their family with their illegal act. The government of the country that was trespassed upon is not the one ruining lives. That's the major point.

Your second paragraph is a variation of the same point I answered above, disregarding the fact that I would safely say I live a majority of my days without breaking the law. But if I do break the law I am doing it understanding the consequence. Can you document for me why someone who actually is breaking the law daily isn't willing to do the same?

Your edit is actually more absurd. It is not a human right to be allowed into the United States. I think I'll have to bow out at this one.

I understand your position. I still think the government's actions in this case, and many like it, are indefensible, cover of law be damned.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

The opportunity for an immigrant to work here or to create a family here is not a right. It must be earned. Thousands of people fight for that opportunity legally every year but don't make the cut. Some never make the cut. Those are ordinary people. People who bypass the system are not ordinary, they have made themselves extraordinary because they have taken advantage of a privilege they did not earn.

Trespassing is a crime. Violent trespassers aren't being deported because they're violent, they're being deported because they trespassed. Non-violent trespassers aren't being deported because they're non-violent, they're being deported because they trespassed.

That's the current system. I have advocated for a system that analyzes each individual situation's unique factors and assigns a relevant penalty. I have argued against blanket amnesty but also against mass deportation.

I do not think I have missed any major points of the topic.

What's the point of penalizing people who have lived in a country for 20 years causing no issues? Like besides arbitrary standards of fair and just what is the point? America has refused to deal with its immigration problem and now undocumented migrants make up a significant part of the work force and economy.

Today March 3, 2017, what is the purpose of penalizing these people besides retribution? They have kids, they have lives, they have communities, they have jobs. What is the actual purpose. As a tax payer and just a human being, why would you want this?

If you want a stronger border and tougher enforcement of immigration fine. But what benefit to the everyday citizen is there to break up a family and deport them?

 

[Karkador]

The person who trespassed ruined their family's life when they chose to create a family in an illegal situation or involve their family with their illegal act. The government of the country that was trespassed upon is not the one ruining lives. That's the major point.

And you still claim you're not for mass deportation? You're arguing for a penalty (deportation) to be applied to everyone for trespassing (and you're saying that un-ironically). The entire founding philosophy of this nation disagrees.

Also, do you think a lot of people who emigrated illegally had a choice, or at least options in their original country? Keep in mind where a lot of people fled from.

I'm sure you'd be upset and a little helpless to have forgotten your keys and be locked out of your car one day. Yet you seem to think it's a simple punitive measure to deport people with lives here.

 

[Kai Dracon]

"Law is law is law" people often try to shift attention away from a simple and obvious fact. There is a difference between enforcing a law, and how it is enforced. Despite the way some seem to view the world, Judge Dredd is not reality. (Yet.)

The law is meant to serve humanity, not the other way around. In the case of a father with an ancient DUI who is a member of a community with a family, the sane and human thing to do would have been to inform the man that his residency status is in error and there are various fines or penalties that may be due. Then allow him a chance to correct it.

But no. Secret police stalk children to school and throw parents into vans to be whisked away to private prison black sites. People then rationalize that every single thing happening there is the fault of the person being treated like an animal.

 

[Vyer]

Laws can be initiated and manipulated to help to deny human rights.

There have been attempts to create other ways to help this immigration issue that don't involve (or at least try to minimize) breaking up families or victimizing hard working, harmless people, and they have been blocked at various points for various reasons.

The current enforcement and policy attempts are framed and fed by a very dehumanizing and racist narrative. That is by design.

It is disingenuous to pretend that some of these politicians and policy makers goals are not nuanced for what can be a very complex issue. 'It's the law!' - while I'm sure certain politicians in the Trump admin appreciate it - is far too much of a simplification that ignores those complexities. The very blatant attempts to further demonize minority groups by this administration should not be ignored.

 

[The Salt Life]

I understand your position. I still think the government's actions in this case, and many like it, are indefensible, cover of law be damned.

You can't let empathy dictate laws on immigration(ie "but he is a dad" / "but he has a family" ), if we did that nothing would get done.