Support NeoGAF

[AstroNut325]

I've been in Los Angeles since 1988. This is a good thing. I fully support it.

People against this haven't thought things through.

 

[Syriel]

The initial claim is that we should not spend money defending those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them. I argued that this was comparable to spending money defending those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them, which we already do in the form of public defenders, in that both involve spending money defending those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them. If you agree with him that we should not spend money defending those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them, then that seems fine to me.

But if you're in favour of spending money defending some of those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them, it's not clear to me why a guilty but not yet convicted murderer gets extra protection while a J-1 student who accidentally overstays their OPT period due to a lapse between their OPT expiry and their company getting an H-1B gets less protection (or any other number of contrived examples to show that immigration violations are largely less spectacular than criminal defence). What is the moral principle that extends state resources to citizens accused of crimes, non-citizens accused of non-immigration crimes, but not non-citizens accused of immigration crimes?

If you're going at it from a pure morality standpoint, the answer to that question is equality.

State resources (aka public defenders) are not extended to citizens accused of civil infractions.

Whether or not you agree with the stated goal, plans such as this offer a specific benefit that is not offered to citizens.

If someone wanted to attack the law, that would probably be a good place to start as national origin is a protected class.

In order to avoid such an issue, the law would need to provide a public defender to anyone accused of a civil infraction, just as it does for those accused of criminal infractions.

 

[numble]

If you're going at it from a pure morality standpoint, the answer to that question is equality.

State resources (aka public defenders) are not extended to citizens accused of civil infractions.

Whether or not you agree with the stated goal, plans such as this offer a specific benefit that is not offered to citizens.

If someone wanted to attack the law, that would probably be a good place to start as national origin is a protected class.

In order to avoid such an issue, the law would need to provide a public defender to anyone accused of a civil infraction, just as it does for those accused of criminal infractions.

First off, it is not clear that citizens or lawful residents would not benefit from such funding. Are you saying that a person that might be a citizen (due to being born in the US, but whose parents are not citizens) that faced a deportation proceeding would not benefit from this fund? Someone that qualifies for asylum?

Secondly, the implication that you think this would be unconstitutional really does not make sense. There are already plenty of case-specific public funding for representation, infraction-specific public defense funding (the LA Legal Aid Foundation, which provides eviction, family law bankruptcy and immigration defenders and legal representation--amongst others--is funded by federal, state county and cities) as well as status-specific funding (Public Guardians to represent children in civil proceedings are also state funded).

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

If you're going at it from a pure morality standpoint, the answer to that question is equality.

State resources (aka public defenders) are not extended to citizens accused of civil infractions
Whether or not you agree with the stated goal, plans such as this offer a specific benefit that is not offered to citizens
If someone wanted to attack the law, that would probably be a good place to start as national origin is a protected class
In order to avoid such an issue, the law would need to provide a public defender to anyone accused of a civil infraction, just as it does for those accused of criminal infractions.

It gets murky, since they are able bodies contributing to an existing economic system.
It's not a criminal proceeding per se. Being an undocumented immigrant still grants several legal rights, the right to an attorney, the right to legal consul etc.
This is just putting an earmark fund, which is handled by both city and private partners.
It's as if a city put funding towards wrongly convicted felons. They're still, "criminals," guilty or not.

And I don't get that moral relativism. Being guilty of a crime such as murder, theft, is not equal to a family immigrating to the US. Or having immigrated, and having US sovereign citizens as their children.

The law is not the law. You see this in police brutality/fatality cases, you see this in other minority involved cases, such as drug possession. The DEA Schedule system, which is not science based, the strict financial boundaries, in which you see where the "Welfare Queen" myth originated and most anecdotes of aid being used for drink or drugs. It's institutional classicism and racism.

 

[Syriel]

First off, it is not clear that citizens or lawful residents would not benefit from such funding. Are you saying that a person that might be a citizen (due to being born in the US, but whose parents are not citizens) that faced a deportation proceeding would not benefit from this fund? Someone that qualifies for asylum?

Secondly, the implication that you think this would be unconstitutional really does not make sense. There are already plenty of case-specific public funding for representation, infraction-specific public defense funding (the LA Legal Aid Foundation, which provides eviction, family law bankruptcy and immigration defenders and legal representation--amongst others--is funded by federal, state county and cities) as well as status-specific funding (Public Guardians to represent children in civil proceedings are also state funded).

1) Citizens cannot be deported. Nor can citizens be barred from entry.
2) None of the other items you listed are based exclusively on a protected class.

I can't make any definitive statements on the proposal as I haven't read it in detail, but based on what's been discussed, what Stump highlighted seems to be its weakest aspect. If someone wanted to attack it, it seems like a likely place to start.

It gets murky, since they are able bodies contributing to an existing economic system.

It's not a criminal proceeding.

That was my point. It's not a criminal proceeding. Stump's example was comparing a criminal proceeding (which gives a public defender to everyone) to a civil proceeding (where you're always on your own).

A more solid argument, IMHO, would be that anyone facing off against the state (criminal or civil) should have access to the public defender system, simply due to the imbalance in resources.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Edit: why argue with empty minded individuals.

People who are trying to throw people I know, and families who I know out of this country for none other than "muh taxes."

Go move to Anaheim Hills, or whatever white, rich community you support.

 

[numble]

1) Citizens cannot be deported. Nor can citizens be barred from entry.
2) None of the other items you listed are based exclusively on a protected class.

I can't make any definitive statements on the proposal as I haven't read it in detail, but based on what's been discussed, what Stump highlighted seems to be its weakest aspect. If someone wanted to attack it, it seems like a likely place to start.



That was my point. It's not a criminal proceeding. Stump's example was comparing a criminal proceeding (which gives a public defender to everyone) to a civil proceeding (where you're always on your own).

A more solid argument, IMHO, would be that anyone facing off against the state (criminal or civil) should have access to the public defender system, simply due to the imbalance in resources.

Citizens can face deportation proceedings, as can legal residents. They can avail themselves of public and private funding for defense of deportation proceedings.

https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens

When Lorenzo Palma finished serving five-and-half years for aggravated assault in Huntsville, Texas, he was not allowed to leave the prison. Instead, immigration officials ordered the facility to detain him another year and then transferred him to an immigrant detention center in Houston, where it held him for another six months.

"It was pretty bad, the only thing I had in my mind was being deported and what would happen to me because of all the bad things going on in Mexico," Palma, 39, recalled last week. "My mom got sick then because she was very worried about me, and she even had a minor stroke. She was so nervous because my little brother had also been deported."

But on January 5 of this year, Palma was released after the government acknowledged that he was actually a US citizen. Though he legally entered the country from Mexico at the age of six, Palma is a citizen through his maternal grandfather, who was born in the US and lived there for many years. By law Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot detain or deport American citizens.

"I wanted to kiss the lawyer or the judge, I felt so good," Palma said. "But what I really don't like is that my little brother was deported, even though he's a citizen too."

The story is strikingly common: thousands of citizens have been unlawfully deported or detained by ICE in recent years, according to extensive research undertaken by Jacqueline Stevens, a political science professor at Northwestern University who directs the school's Deportation Research Clinic.

"Recent data suggests that in 2010 well over 4,000 US citizens were detained or deported as aliens, raising the total since 2003 to more than 20,000, a figure that may strike some as so high as to lack credibility," Stevens wrote in a 2011 report. "But the deportation laws and regulations in place since the late 1980s have been mandating detention and deportation for hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people each year without attorneys or, in many cases, administrative hearings. It would be truly shocking if this did not result in the deportation of US citizens."

US immigration courts have recognized some of these errors, adjourning 256 cases between January 2011 and September 2014 after finding that the presumed "aliens" were actually US citizens. Stevens exposed this record after filing a Freedom of Information Act request, and recently obtained case data from October 2014 to February 2016, which she said followed a similar trend.

 

[Syriel]

Edit: why argue with empty minded individuals.

If you care about supporting the issue, one would think that you would want a law that cannot be challenged. Dismissing any discussion around potential issues with the implementation that could make it vulnerable to challenge seems like an odd position to take unless you're hoping it fails.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

If you care about supporting the issue, one would think that you would want a law that cannot be challenged. Dismissing any discussion around potential issues with the implementation that could make it vulnerable to challenge seems like an odd position to take unless you're hoping it fails.

I think the relative majority of LA values it's undocumented workers, and see this as positive.

Because you a relatively loud, but limited individuals go on like, KFI doesn't mean the city stands for it.

Arguing with a "true believer," is mostly pointless.

 

[Jake.]

Not a fan of tax money being used for legal defense of people here illegally.

100%

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

100%

🙄🙄🙄

How dare people living in this city defend themselves against deportation. Of losing their livelihood. Of losing contact with their sovereign born children. Or how dare that child that isn't a citizen but has been here most of their cognitive life be sent to a foreign country that they themselves are alien to.

How.
Dare.
They.

This is exactly what The Wire was about. Institutional dysfunction.

 

[FyreWulff]

Not a fan of tax money being used for legal defense of people here illegally.

i like how people are ignoring that all these immigrants pay every tax, often including income tax (you can get a tax ID regardless of citizenship, IRS wants their money), but can't use any of the benefits of paying the tax.

yet they're the ones supposedly freeloading of your taxes.

"fuck you got mine and yours" basically

 

[dbztrk]

Not a fan of tax money being used for legal defense of people here illegally.

.

 

[dbztrk]

🙄🙄🙄

How dare people living in this city defend themselves against deportation. Of losing their livelihood. Of losing contact with their sovereign born children. Or how dare that child that isn't a citizen but has been here most of their cognitive life be sent to a foreign country that they themselves are alien to.

How.
Dare.
They.

This is exactly what The Wire was about. Institutional dysfunction.

They can defend themselves but not with taxpayers money. Furthermore, they would not be in the situation they are in if they had not come here illegally and to compare it to the Wire is an insult the issues that African Americans face.

 

[FyreWulff]

They can defend themselves but not with taxpayers money. Furthermore, they would not be in the situation they are in if they had not come here illegally and to compare it to the Wire is an insult the issues that African Americans face.

So, how do you think public defenders work

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

.

Again, why?
Quoting an ill informed post isn't making a case. Just showing a prejudice, or a knee-jerk reaction.

Or, are you not one of those articulate ones?

 

[Tagyhag]

They can defend themselves but not with taxpayers money. Furthermore, they would not be in the situation they are in if they had not come here illegally and to compare it to the Wire is an insult the issues that African Americans face.

Are you saying a 2 year old had the conscious decision to come here illegally?

Don't try to take the high road with what black people face if you're OK with leaving kids who were pretty much born into this situation out to dry at the same time.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

They can defend themselves but not with taxpayers money. Furthermore, they would not be in the situation they are in if they had not come here illegally and to compare it to the Wire is an insult the issues that African Americans face.

Wow.

Try opening a history book, or two, or several.

I'm also a Spanish citizen, and damn well know what they did with the Conquistadors. Stop whataboutism.

 

[dbztrk]

Are you saying a 2 year old had the conscious decision to come here illegally?

Don't try to take the high road with what black people face if you're OK with leaving kids who were pretty much born into this situation out to dry at the same time.

The parents fucked up and the American people should not have to be penalized for it.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

The parents fucked up and the American people should not have to be penalized for it.

They aren't because they contribute way more than you.

 

[dbztrk]

Wow.

Try opening a history book, or two, or several.

I'm also a Spanish citizen, and damn well know what they did with the Conquistadors. Stop whataboutism.

If they have their grievances about what the Conquistadors did, then they need to reach out to Spain.

 

[dbztrk]

They aren't because the contribute way more than you.

If they are using tax payers money, then American citizens are being penalized. It's not difficult to get. Going back and forth with me won't change that reality.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

If they have their grievances about what the Conquistadors did, then they need to reach out to Spain.

You're the one who brought up slavery as if that gives you closure.

If they are using tax payers money, then American citizens are being penalized. It's not difficult to get. Going back and forth with me won't change that reality.

They pay taxes and are in the books as labor. So yes, they get to have legal representation.

is the alt right of gaf?

 

[dbztrk]

You're the one who brought up slavery as if that gives you closure.

No I didn't. The poster compared what he deemed to be institutional dysfunctions to that of what was portrayed on the show The Wire. The two are not comparable at all.

 

[numble]

They can defend themselves but not with taxpayers money. Furthermore, they would not be in the situation they are in if they had not come here illegally and to compare it to the Wire is an insult the issues that African Americans face.

If they are using tax payers money, then American citizens are being penalized. It's not difficult to get. Going back and forth with me won't change that reality.

This is funding from the city of LA, they are LA taxpayers. These are the major sources of funding for the city:

Property Tax
Licenses, Permits, Fees and Fines
Utility Users' Tax
Business Tax
Sales Tax
Power Revenue Transfer
Documentary Transfer Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Parking Fines
Reserve Fund Transfer
Parking Users' Tax
Redirected CRA Tax Increment Monies
Franchise Income
Special Parking Revenue Transfer
Interest
Grants Receipts
Tobacco Settlement
Telecommunications Development Account Transfer
Residential Development Tax
State Motor Vehicle License Fees

http://cao.lacity.org/budget15-16/2015-16Revenue_Outlook.pdf

Can you tell me which of these taxes that they are not paying? If they are paying these taxes, should they be eligible for services for paying such taxes? This is not the federal or state government--nobody is paying income tax to the city of LA.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

No I didn't. The poster compared what he deemed to be institutional dysfunctions to that of what was portrayed on the show The Wire. The two are not comparable at all.

I'm that poster. Which means reading comprehension isn't a strong suit, or a skill you possess.

 

[dbztrk]

I'm that poster. Which means reading comprehension isn't a strong suit, or a skill you possess.

I wasn't going back to see who the poster was as I couldn't careless. Obviously you are too stupid to see how insulting it is to compare the situation portrayed on The Wire with what these people are facing which is of their own choosing but good luck to you and your crusade.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I wasn't going back to see who the poster was as I couldn't careless. Obviously you are too stupid to see how insulting it is to compare the situation portrayed on The Wire with what these people are facing which is of their own choosing but good luck to you and your crusade.

Racism.

You haven't understood David Simon's message at all.

And that is ghastly.

 

[Username1198]

The parents fucked up and the American people should not have to be penalized for it.

That's offensive. My parents brought me here in hopes of a better life for me and my siblings. Not sure how that's a fuck up.

And hey, guy, I pay taxes at every level just like everyone else.

Your argument sucks.

 

[E-phonk]

Don't know how it works in the US, but isn't it kind of normal everyone should have a right for legal representation?

We have this as part of the legal system in Belgium called a pro deo lawyer, funded by the state.

 

[ZackieChan]

Don't know how it works in the US, but isn't it kind of normal everyone should have a right for legal representation?

We have this as part of the legal system in Belgium called a pro deo lawyer, funded by the state.

In criminal cases. It's guaranteed by the Constitution. These are not criminal cases, though.

 

[Polari]

🙄🙄🙄

How dare people living in this city defend themselves against deportation. Of losing their livelihood. Of losing contact with their sovereign born children. Or how dare that child that isn't a citizen but has been here most of their cognitive life be sent to a foreign country that they themselves are alien to.

How.
Dare.
They.

This is exactly what The Wire was about. Institutional dysfunction.

The answer is that you don't migrate to somewhere illegally in the first place.

 

[E-phonk]

In criminal cases. It's guaranteed by the Constitution. These are not criminal cases, though.

No person can be illegal. You can reside in a country in a way that goes against it's migrationlaws, but in that case it's a legal matter and you should have legal representation.

Doesn't mean you can't be immigrated, just that it should happen within the right legal context.

 

[Khaz]

The answer is that you don't migrate to somewhere illegally in the first place.

Everybody has a right to a fair trial in the USA, regardless of where they come from. If that person cannot get legal representation, the community will pay for it so that culpability or innocence can be asserted beyond any reasonable doubt.

The crime of illegal immigration must be a terrible one for people to want to treat migrants as less than human beings, denying their most basic rights.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Empathy is definitely dead if these many people are arguing against this. Doesn't the American constitution protect everyone's right for a fair trial? Maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, if we're going by "the law is law" argument, I have to wonder how many people who argue against this would have said the same to African American people resisting segregation. The law isn't always moral, and I should be able to criticize it and fight it until politicians realize that they need to change it.

And even from an utilitarian way of thought, arguing against this is crazy. Don't these people put food in your table despite terrible work conditions? Don't they do a job that none of you want to do?

 

[Dusk Soldier]

Empathy is definitely dead if these many people are arguing against this. Doesn't the American constitution protect everyone's right for a fair trial? Maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, if we're going by "the law is law" argument, I have to wonder how many people who argue against this would have said the same to African American people resisting segregation. The law isn't always moral, and I should be able to criticize it and fight it until politicians realize that they need to change it.

And even from an utilitarian way of thought, arguing against this is crazy. Don't these people put food in your table despite terrible work conditions? Don't they do a job that none of you want to do?

What exactly would a fair trial accomplish?

At the end of the day, would they not still be illegal immigrants?

 

[FyreWulff]

What exactly would a fair trial accomplish?

At the end of the day, would they not still be illegal immigrants?

constitution applies to anyone on us soil breh

 

[Deleted member 80556]

What exactly would a fair trial accomplish?

At the end of the day, would they not still be illegal immigrants?

Aside from what the poster above me said, what about those who are wrongfully accused? Should a natural US citizen be deported?

 

[Spring-Loaded]

What exactly would a fair trial accomplish?

At the end of the day, would they not still be illegal immigrants?

Even ignoring how vall people herestill get trials, there's a story just posted in this thread about a citizen almost getting deported.

Ostensibly, a fair trial would determine whether someone actually has citizenship.

 

[Vicetrailia]

"It's the economy, stupid"

 

[Dusk Soldier]

Aside from what the poster above me said, what about those who are wrongfully accused? Should a natural US citizen be deported?

When I quoted you originally, you made it sound like you thought a trial could save an illegal immigrant from being deported.

Maybe I just read your intent wrong.

 

[trembli0s]

constitution applies to anyone on us soil breh

It's rather more nuanced than that, particularly in the immigration context.

 

[EMT0]

I like how we're another page in yet the same 'Muh law` crowd continues to ardently do their best to avoid quoting anything that says that undocumented immigrants pay taxes or contribute to society other than Trojita who at least argued their case and isn't really using the law as a backdrop anyways. Shit, we're stealing from their tax money, says baseless post #xxx. I wonder, where's the line when a mod steps in and we stop pretending this is willful ignorance and calls it what it is? I don't know how much intellectual dishonesty it can take to make bigotry apparent.

 

[ZackieChan]

Empathy is definitely dead if these many people are arguing against this. Doesn't the American constitution protect everyone's right for a fair trial? Maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, if we're going by "the law is law" argument, I have to wonder how many people who argue against this would have said the same to African American people resisting segregation. The law isn't always moral, and I should be able to criticize it and fight it until politicians realize that they need to change it.

And even from an utilitarian way of thought, arguing against this is crazy. Don't these people put food in your table despite terrible work conditions? Don't they do a job that none of you want to do?

Everybody has a right to a fair trial in the USA, regardless of where they come from. If that person cannot get legal representation, the community will pay for it so that culpability or innocence can be asserted beyond any reasonable doubt.

The crime of illegal immigration must be a terrible one for people to want to treat migrants as less than human beings, denying their most basic rights.

As I and others pointed out above, it's not a criminal proceeding. You're not put in jail, you're deported. Therefore those constitutional protections of a right to an attorney don't apply.

It's possible to both empathize with their plight and not think that this is a good use of limited resources, btw.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

It's possible to both empathize with their plight and not think that this is a good use of limited resources, btw.

It's $5 million pledged out of many billions. We'll live.

 

[Tagyhag]

As I and others pointed out above, it's not a criminal proceeding. You're not put in jail, you're deported. Therefore those constitutional protections of a right to an attorney don't apply.

It's possible to both empathize with their plight and not think that this is a good use of limited resources, btw.

"Limited resources"

1) $10 million may be a lot to us, but it's a drop in the bucket for LA.

2) The people who would be using the funds have already contributed more than $10 million to the system, why not help them out a little bit? Especially since if they all left, LA would be fucked, and I'm not exaggerating.

 

[GK86]

"Limited resources"

1) $10 million may be a lot to us, but it's a drop in the bucket for LA.

2) The people who would be using the funds have already contributed more than $10 million to the system, why not help them out a little bit? Especially since if they all left, LA would be fucked, and I'm not exaggerating.

It isn't even $10 million, it's $5 million from LA and $5 million from private foundations.

 

[StopMakingSense]

It isn't even $10 million, it's $5 million from LA and $5 million from private foundations.

And it's not even a '$10 million legal fund', the money is going in several directions, including immigration law training for lawyers.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It's $5 million pledged out of many billions. We'll live.

The 8th biggest economy in the world, and some dudes have the nerve to say "limited resources". I know exactly where their head is at, and it's not "empathizing with their plight".