"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Political Correctness Becomes Outright Racism
By Greg L | 7 November 2008 | Illegal Aliens, Crime, Prince William County | 59 Comments
As the leaders of the Peace & Justice Committee at All Saints Catholic Church would put it, the cost of the crackdown on illegal immigration is that illegal aliens who behave themselves in such a way that casual observers might feel that there’s a case of domestic violence in progress should not be arrested because the illegal alien might end up getting arrested and processed for deportation. Somehow, I had the impression that the Catholic Church opposed domestic violence. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe violence is OK when special people commit it.
The leaders of this little social justice committee buried within one of the conservative strongholds within Manassas and Prince William County are deeply concerned that a convicted felon with a history of domestic violence ended up getting arrested after a concerned citizen reported a domestic assault. When police arrested the guy, he was processed at the intake unit of the Prince WilliamAdult Detention Center and found to be an illegal alien with a felony record for previous instances of domestic violence, but not deported. He was processed by jail personnel for deportation under the Section 287(g) Program and either has been, or will be deported. Most of us might think that this story demonstrates success, since we don’t really need illegal alien domestic abusers in the community — we have enough home-grown domestic abusers already. If anything, this guy should have been deported the first time he decided to smack around a woman.
But some “leaders” at All Saints see it differently. They see this as a case of breaking up a family (of illegal aliens?) because one illegal alien just happened to plead guilty in the past to a domestic violence charge because ‘it was convenient to do so’, and that some “obviously racist” passerby called the police to report that this guy same was attacking a woman. Maybe they’d rather everyone in the community who observes a crime in progress think for a moment whether they might be causing harm to a protected minority before reporting a violent crime. Yeah, that’s it — we shouldn’t report violent crime if a minority is the perpetrator because we don’t understand the entirety of the situation and don’t appreciate that if this minority person is apprehended he might end up being an illegal alien that deserves to be deported. Can’t have that happen now, can we?
This is pretty stunning political correctness, even for the times we’re living in. That it’s being promoted under the guise of the policy of All Saints Church makes it even moreso.
Forget this complete and utter baloney. If you observe a violent crime in progress, report it to the police and let the professionals sort it out. Our local police departments generally have an excellent reputation for fairness and equitable application of the law, and we should be able to trust them to handle crimes in progress in a professional manner that we will be proud of. Anyone promoting the idea that crime reports are nothing more than racist personal vendettas that law enforcement won’t bother to discover as such is irresponsible beyond the pale.
Minority populations are typically subject to a greater incidence of domestic violence thanb non-minority populations, and if we care about these folks, we will be just as diligent about reporting violence targeting them as we would report violence against any other segment of the population. To promote any behavior contrary to this is to demean our minority populations and assign to them an unequal protection of the law that is contrary to our Constitution and what should be considered Christian values. The minority victims of violence are just as worthy of our care and protection as anyone else, and to complain that someone with a record of domestic violence should have gotten special favorable treatment because he is an illegal alien is utterly outrageous.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
59 Comments
Views: 1466
Loading ...
You might want to read the attached piece again. It doesn’t address illegal immigration. The parishioner they’re talking about is described at the beginning of the piece as being here legally. There is no mention that his prior plea was to a “domestic violence” charge. Nor could I find any place in the article that advocated support , condonation or non-reporting of domestic violence. What did I miss in that article?
Give me a break! The police would never have taken him in if they didn’t witness an assault, and his wife made no complaint. The man was up to something illegal at best.
Even if the guy was here with a green card, the authorities screwed up earlier when he pleaded guilty and could have should have deported him then. PWCPD is just correcting someones previous mistake.
Round em up, move em out
NoVA Scout,
I want you on my jury! How does this one sound: “I wanted to show Bob how the bullets look when they’re coming out of the barrel….you know, see the spin caused by the lands and grooves.” You will believe anything they put in a newspaper, won’t you? I’m doing an ed piece on a magical fairy that takes kids teeth from under their pillows and leaves a quarter in it’s place. Gonna believe that, too?
“Fake”
You’re actually worse than Scout. All you did was blather and spew ignorance. At least Scout showed that he read the article. I’m afraid you get an “F” for the day.
Nova, the law enforcement authorities in the county are pretty darned sensitive to the potential for charges of racism, profiling…even to an extreme, I’d say. However, I’m not a police officer and I’m not “on the front line,” so I have to leave that to them.
So, if Frederico is in fact a legal resident, if there was no assult, if his prior conviction was “conjured up” against the poor guy, if his lawyer in the prior case gave him bad advice, if there was no basis for denial of bond, and if there was no basis for the most recent arrest, he need not worry about deportation. …and you need not worry for him.
On the other hand, if he’s determined NOT to be here legally, what would you propose? I don’t believe that the police officer arrested him without cause.
All Saints is wacky and has been for a longgg time. The more a parish focuses on “social justice”, the less doctrinally sound it becomes, which if you’re not catholic, or you are catholic-light is probably viewed as favorable. But for traditional, practicing catholics who want to adhere to the tenets of our faith, these types of parishes are hijacked by the social justice crowd, who often appear trying to overcompensate for their failure to live the more personally-difficult rules (e.g., contraception), by being so *nice* rather than *good*.
I’m just saying, whether you agree with Church teaching or not, that this has been proven repeatedly, and that the social justice concept that took a foothold in the 1960’s sprung from LatinAmerica’s Liberation Theology, condemned by the Vatican, but repackaged in the seminaries. In the case of All Saints, it comes from the top.
An objective reading of the article is this: “an immigrant father and husband who was here legally was arrested because of witness misinterpretation of a roadside exchange with between the man and his wife. This resulted in a two month incarceration before the charges were dismissed. Unfortunately for the man, a previous conviction (the result of a plea bargain on an assault charge) was discovered during his incarceration. The latter event bears on his immigration status and will (or may - not sure which) result in his deportation. ”
It’s always dismaying when you have to read to adults because they can’t read themselves.
Just because one happens to be a legal immigrant does not mean they cannot be deported for criminal engagement.
NoVA Scout,
I disagree that your account is “objective.” How do you know there was “witness misinterpretation”? This could be a completely founded case where the wife refuses to testify and/or refuses to admit there was a crime.
Without the information on the prior felony committed, it is impossible to be “objective” when considering his case.
citizen of manassas, you are correct. however does it mean that there should be a correction above every time this post says the man was an illegal alien? Should the thread be factually accurate or remain as is?
“The illegal immigrant crack-down in Prince William County continues.”
“The human cost of PWC’s immigration enforcement for Federico and his family has been enormous”
Opening sentence is accurate and unbiased. The closing sentence is, as the rest of the article, pretty much bleeding heart drivel.
While it was stated “Even legal immigrants, like Federico”, there is far more to this story than what has been said in the article. No one has bond refused and sits in jail for two months before trial for “tugging”.
You can bet the “immigrant community” would be screaming a different tune if this lady was found face down in a ditch two days later.
The actions of the Cathloc church aiding law breakers should come as no suprise. They have been shuffling child molesters around the world for years in order to avoid the law as well.
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, and as a result I am no longer Catholic. The Catholic Church has a lot of issues, and I just don’t know where they are coming from anymore. This illegal immigration non-sense has pushed the church way far left, and it’s just one more reason I don’t attend church anymore. Call me an apostate, because their hypocracy knows no bounds.
“All Saints is wacky and has been for a longgg time.”
You’re way over-generalizing the population of a very large parish.
MdMan said on 7 Nov 2008 at 10:34 am: Flag comment
“I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, and as a result I am no longer Catholic. The Catholic Church has a lot of issues, and I just don’t know where they are coming from anymore. This illegal immigration non-sense has pushed the church way far left, and it’s just one more reason I don’t attend church anymore. Call me an apostate, because their hypocracy knows no bounds.”
MdMan, that’s a weak excuse for no longer going to mass. I would hope that you would go to worship God, regardless of the politics of the church. Immigration aside, the Catholic church is quite conservative. I feel very comfortable saying this as a converted southern baptist, and you DON’T get more conservative than that.
craig, sorry but you know them by their fruits. know plenty of *nice* people there who haven’t passed on the faith to their own parishioners/kids/immigrants, take your pick. yes, a large parish with large numbers is being cheated from the top down. an exercise in false charity.
I stopped attending and supporting the Presbyterian Church USA twenty years ago when they established an anti-gun postion. I went to my then-Pastor to discuss it and was told that the church’s position would not change, even though most of the membership was conservative and pro second amendment. I firmly believe that organized religion has no place expounding on politics. I don’t believe in state-sponsored religion.
That said, appraising the story as it was (slanted liberal) written with the facts available, the immigrant was previously convicted of a felony and was found to be deportable by an immigration judge, who no doubt weighed all the facts. It makes no difference how Federico came up on the radar. All criminals should understand that any sort of behavior that attracts the attention of law enforcement is unacceptable. Appeals can be pursued with the alien outside the U.S. Having responded to many domestic disputes as a deputy sheriff, the only people who really know what happened are the witnesses, because the participants will never give an unbiased version.
All of our religious institutions need to adapt to the times. All churches need to start to start counseling on having smaller families. The Muslims must police their own and stop allowing hatred in the name of Allah. Instead of aiding criminals, our churches should be helping people who are truly in need instead of grandstanding for donations. Faith does not equal money or power.
Remember, you do not need a microphone (or church or religious leader) to talk to God. It’s free.
and jfk, i agree with you. i wouldn’t leave the church because of these failures. as someone at all saints once pointed out to me, if Jesus has to put up with this nonsense, at least we can keep him company.
MdMan, be assured that it’s not just the Romans….Episcopalians are the very same way….and in my opinion, it all began with the departure from traditional services to the loose “rock band, social reengineering” basic tenets be-damned type of service and mentality that has taken over the whole country.
“I stopped attending and supporting the Presbyterian Church USA twenty years ago when they established an anti-gun postion.”
I’m not anti-gun. Nor am I pro-Christian or pro-Presbyterian. But does their position not make sense? Was Jesus not pretty much a pacifist?
I suppose he was. But, remember, he also helps those who help themselves.
The link is not to an “article” or “news story” at all. It is a letter to the editor from two guys who are illegal alien apologists. There are no facts in that letter than can be checked, and it is written by very biased sources. We aren’t even given Federico’s last name! There is no way to verify anything that is written there. Those of you who say Greg has the facts are missing the point. The problem is the woeful lact of fact in the letter to the former MJM. The writers are engaging in a silly attempt to whip up sympathy by putting out a silly story that we are expected to swallow solely on their say so.
As Freedom said, “So, if Frederico is in fact a legal resident, if there was no assult, if his prior conviction was “conjured up” against the poor guy, if his lawyer in the prior case gave him bad advice, if there was no basis for denial of bond, and if there was no basis for the most recent arrest, he need not worry about deportation. …and you need not worry for him.”
On the other hand, the case stated by Federico’s defenders sounds very Iffy, doesn’t it? You apologists better start wailing and wringing your hands now.
BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 7 Nov 2008 at 11:53 am: Flag comment
“I stopped attending and supporting the Presbyterian Church USA twenty years ago when they established an anti-gun postion.”
I’m not anti-gun. Nor am I pro-Christian or pro-Presbyterian. But does their position not make sense? Was Jesus not pretty much a pacifist?”
Just in case you don’t know, BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears is Rick Bentley, and he is an avowed atheist. Just go to the election open thread, and you will see this. He also posted this info under a variety of other names.
This discussion will predictably deteriorate to him stating that religion is stupid, and that he hate religion because his dad made him go to church when he was a child. I would suggest ignoring him, but that usually makes it worse.
Hmm…. who exactly is the racist or shows predjudice….
I have no problem with atheists, as long as they respect my beliefs as much as their own. Faith, whether in a diety or religion or science or kismet, is a powerful force. People strap bombs to themselves for it.
I’m a rationalist, not an atheist. Inherently I respect beliefs in proportion to the amount of objective evidence that supports them.
BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 7 Nov 2008 at 2:46 pm: Flag comment
I’m a rationalist, not an atheist. Inherently I respect beliefs in proportion to the amount of objective evidence that supports them.
I would invite anyone still reading your posts to go to the election open thread, when you were posting under multiple names, to get the true flavor of what you believe. You don’t seem to respect anyone else’s beliefs, from what I have read. You also don’t have a lot of dignity or class, based on your prior posts.
Here’s a sample of how Rick respects the beliefs of others:
BothPartiesColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 6 Nov 2008 at 7:10 pm: Flag comment
Wolverine, you believe in hell?
Are you aware that the original concept of hell was not a place of eternal torment, but just a garbage dump where people put corpses to burn (GeHenna)? That when Jesus spoke of it he was speaking of corpses burning in a garbage mound, not of some underworld torture chamber?
That the whole concept some Christians have of “hell” is not derived from the original Hebrew teaching, but from a wacked-out interpretation some translators propogated?
If you care you can find out more at http://www.2001translation.com/Hell.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_Christian_beliefs
But be careful I hear you might be tortured forever by a vengeful God if you read it. Jesuria the God of Mushrooms told me this. He said the Flying Spaghetti Monster will eventually breath fire in the ears of all those who don’t believe in the hell story.
Social justice? Keep it out of the churches. I don’t want my offerings going to bail out alleged criminals. Put that money towards feeding the hungry and clothing the poor. It will be better appreciated by all!
MP : and? so?
Thanks for your opinion. I’m going to take that along with 25 cents over to the gumball machine, and with the two of them together I should be able to get a gumball.
So much for all the theories on who vandalized Virginia Oaks with anti-McCain sentiments - http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/crime/article/man_charged_in_anti_mccain_vandalism/24185/
JM, I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. You are right, the link was not to a news story. But that only creates more question of why Greg chose to consider the man an illegal alien. On what basis is he writing that? If he has more information, he should provide it. If he doesn’t have any more information, then why call him illegal when the link provided says the opposite? NOVAScout was right in questioning this. Surely Greg has enough amnunition on his issues to just tell things straight, without embellishing.
——————————————————————————–
If link doesn’t work go to numbers usa and sign the petition
http://www.numbersusa.com/petition
Its up to 50329 lets pump it up!!
Petition to President-Elect Obama: No Amnesty for Illegal Foreign Workers
Repeatedly on the campaign trail, President-Elect Obama pledged to be a strong advocate for America’s workers, particularly to help get the unemployed back to work. Yet, the Obama staff continue to proclaim support for legalizing the estimated 7 million illegal foreign workers (plus their families). These illegal workers are primarily in the construction, service and manufacturing jobs, but also in the higher skilled jobs, being actively sought by the 10 million officially unemployed Americans.
A legalization program would permanently remove 7 million jobs from being available for American workers. We the undersigned urge President-Elect Obama (1) to reject legalization and (2) to make vulnerable Americans your priority, mandating workplace verification to open up millions of jobs to U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants
YJLY — How absolutely Pecksniffian of you!!!
He is a legal alien according to the letter. Since we have no onjective evidence to the contrary, let’s stick with that.
He pled guilty to a crime in 2002. Whether he did that on advice of counsel or because he was guilty or both - who cares? Guilty is guilty. If he served his sentence then his debt to society is paid. If he should have been deported for that crime then the judge should have deported him.
He was arrested recently. The charges were dropped. Therefore, he is not guilty of that crime. Just like “guilty is guilty” when you plead that way (even if it’s just because of your lawyer’s advice) “not guilty” is “not guilty” when a court drops the charges.
So, why should this guy be re-sentenced for the 2002 crime? Isn’t that a form of double jeopardy?
That’s how I think the law should work.
Now, let’s think beyond the letter of the law. And I freely admit I am assuming facts not in evidence. What really happened here?
His wife got out of the car to take a call? Why? They are called mobile phones for a reason. Nobody stops the car to take a call. If there was sufficient link margin to get the phone ringing I am not sure why there wasn’t sufficient link margin to answer the phone. She didn’t get out of the car to take a call. They were fighting and the wife demanded to get out of the car. He was so mad at her that he pulled over and told her to get out. Then she did something he didn’t expect - she actually got out! And he “tugged at Maria” to get her back in the car? Because they were going to be late? Not likely. He pulled his angry wife back in the car because he was mad that she actually got out. But wifey ain’t all that upset about the matter so she chalks its up to being a big misunderstanding. And the court agrees.
That’s what I imagine happened.
But it doesn’t matter what I think happened. You know what matters?
Your sacrosanct “rule of law”!
And the “rule of law” is that the charges were dropped.
So, why should this guy be sentenced again for a 2002 crime?
Listen up…..liberals…..please refrain from using the word “hate” for anyone that disagrees with your position on supporting illegal immigration. I have not seen anything on here that would substantiate “hate”. You all have a crafty way of using strong terms without any kind of evidence to support what you say. So unless you can provide specific evidence, why don’t you just zip it would you please? Thank you for your cooperation.
We must NEVER allow any group of people (caucasion, black, hispanic, asian, etc.) to circumvent the law by claiming “racial profiling”. The law must be applied to ALL people equally. The second a group is given “protection” due to race, our system of laws will be degraded. Any yahoo can claim that they were “profiled” to try and avoid detection. When checking identification….I say….check ALL identification from everyone that is stopped.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1104/1225523343309.html
“Rise in number of Irish deported from US”
Equal application of the law!
Anon,
Of course there should be a correction, and I believe Greg does that pretty much everytime he realizes he has made a mistake.
I believe the individual referred to in this editorial was in fact an illegal alien despite the writer’s assertions. Until I believe otherwise, no correction is warranted.
It is very plausible that he was in the Country legally and as a result of the conviction he became ineligible.
See below and then the link:
What kinds of convictions can lead to a lawful permanent resident being placed in removal proceedings?
Most kinds of criminal convictions can lead to you being placed in removal proceedings. It is easier to explain which kinds of convictions will not lead to a person being placed in removal proceedings. You should talk with an immigration attorney to find out for sure if your conviction can lead to you being placed in removal proceedings. But, the following are some examples of common convictions that generally will not lead to a person being placed in removal proceedings:
• Most kinds of traffic violations. But, some convictions for aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) can lead to you being placed in removal proceedings. For example, if you are convicted of DUI after having been convicted of an earlier DUI, or after your license has been suspended, the government may place you in removal proceedings.
• A misdemeanor conviction for “simple” battery. But convictions for domestic battery, or aggravated battery may lead to you being placed in removal proceedings.
• Misdemeanor assault
• A misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct.
Most other convictions can cause you to be placed in removal proceedings.
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=5109
Groveton said on 7 Nov 2008 at 8:02 pm:
He is a legal alien according to the letter. Since we have no onjective evidence to the contrary, let’s stick with that.
He pled guilty to a crime in 2002. Whether he did that on advice of counsel or because he was guilty or both - who cares? Guilty is guilty. If he served his sentence then his debt to society is paid. If he should have been deported for that crime then the judge should have deported him.And the “rule of law” is that the charges were dropped.
So, why should this guy be sentenced again for a 2002 crime?
—————-
Because the law says UNTIL you are a US Citizen, you are on probation. If you don’t behave while here, you’re subject to deportation. There is no statue of limitations - it’s whenever they catch up with you. This law has been on the book for years. To date deportations - several years later - have never been disputed.
The incident with the British woman (with a green card) who shoplifted when she was 19 and deported several years later, is just one of many justifications as to why this guy should be sentenced again for a 2002 crime.
The moral of the story is, a Green Card is not a free pass. There are strings attached.
===========
As for the Catholic Church, I can’t speak of it’s policy on domestic abuse today. I would hope it has changed from 20 years ago when it was not frowned upon and women were advised to be more submissive to their husbands and the abuse would stop.
It is for this reason I am no longer a Catholic or believe in its doctrines. With the exception a few “new generation” religious groups, I’m not terribly impressed with most “established” religions that adhere to doctrines mired in the dark ages when we were suppose to be unquestioning puppets.
Times have changed and despite the battering I’ve taken from some on this forum, I still contend the further religion is from government the better for Americans.
June:
He pled guilty in 2002. So, where did he enter that plea? It must have been a court, no? It’s not a matter of when “they catch up with you” here. They must have caught up with him when he pled guilty in court to the 2002 charge. Given that he pled guilty in court he must have been sentenced by that court. And now the tricky part - he served his sentence. If, and it is an if, he served his 2002 sentence he would still be on your informal “probation” as a legal alien. But he shouldn’t be subject to deportation - he should remain on informal probation (or even formal probation for that matter). However, as Me infers, if he was supposed to be deported for the 2002 offense but stayed in the country - that’s a different matter altogether. But let’s assume that in 2002 he did his crime and did his time (whatever punishment it actually was). In 2008, he owes no debt to society. He is arrested for domestic violence but the charges are dropped in court. Dropping the charges is the same thing as the charges never existing - legally speaking. There should be no basis in dropped charges for the state to take any action against anybody. So, we have a legal alien who committed a crime and served his sentence which did not include deportation. That’s it. Dropped charges don’t count for anything. Now, why should he be deported in 2008? What is the basis for deportation in 2008? The dropped charges? If so, I hope you are never arrested because you look like somebody else. You’d be charged but the charges would be dropped when the mis-identification was determined. However, you’d still be subject to various legal actions based on the dropped charges. Does that sound fair? Dropped is dropped.
My point isn’t whether he battered his wife by pulling her back into the car after she got out. If I had to guess he proably did that. But the court dropped the charges and that’s the “rule of law” that should count - legally speaking.
Greg contends that the man is an illegal alien. This would change everything but was not what was written in the referenced letter to the editor. In fact, if he is an illegal alien, I’d like to see the sentence handed down in 2002.
Virtually everyone on this blog contends that they are anti-illegal immigration, not anti-legal immigration. Maybe so. The letter to teh editor clearly states that this guy is a legal immigrant. Virtually everyone on this blog refers with near reverence to the “rule of law”. Yet, in the 2008 case, the charges were dropped. But somehow a legal alien should be deported based on charges dropped by the court. Do you see why people question the credibility of the people here who claim that they want to apply the rule of law to ILLEGAL aliens?
Groveton,
Let me simplify. Even if you are here legally in this country, if you are convicted of a crime (the 2002 offense), the U.S. can then revoke your legal status and deport you.
Back in 2002, we didn’t have the 287g program so this guy wasn’t flagged and his situation wasn’t brought to the attention of INS (at that time).
With 287g, he was identified and DHS will revoke his legal status and deport him.
For now, convicted criminals are not allowed legal status and are deportable. That is the case with this man.
Just because the authors of the Letter to the Editor say he was legal doesn’t mean he actually is legal. The “Letter” is obviously slanted with liberal bias and is meant to render sympathy.
If they guy was a legal resident with a green card then he has to be on his best behavior at all times. Back in 2002 I wasn’t living here but I think we all know that the immigration laws were not being enforced like they are in 2008. I think that the courts, police, whoever looked at this recent arrest as an opportunity for a “do over” and since they should have or might have deported him in 2002 because he’s a convicted felon they are taking the opportunity to correct their mistake in 2002.
Who knows, perhaps he had a deportation order on him from 2002 after he finished his jail time?
DPortM:
If the letter is wrong then it is wrong. If it says he is legal but he is illegal, then the whole matter is changed.
He was convicted in 2002. If the judge wanted to deport him then, for that offense, why didn’t he/she deport him?
The climate in this country has changed since 2002. When the illegal and legal immigrants marched in our streets waving their home countries flag and shoving that in our faces they woke us up and now a judge might enquire into immigration status unlike in 2002. That’s the difference. He pleaded guilty, he did the crime now he should lose his legal status. It’s as simple as that.
[Ed note: comment edited.]
Protip: If you’re still trying to figure out why your party lost, it’s because of magical thinking like this.
McCain Failin’, your use of the gratuitous insult undermines any point you have to make and is entirely irrelevant. Why are you drawing from the playbook of Chicko aka Elvis? It’s deplorable.
McCain Failin’,
My party? Oh that’s rich and revealing. You think someone who objects to your use of insults against Greg has to be Republican? The issue is how Greg looks or doesn’t look has no relevance to his politics. You show yourself without class using such insults. You are at the same level as Chicko aka Elvis and others. It is not an issue of format, it is an issue of irrelevance, and it isn’t trivial. If you were actually an Obama voter you might have noticed that the candidate was far more civil in tone than his opponents. Grow up.
Ann -e
Dave:
So, you’d go back and add to a sentence he has already served because the climate in the country has changed? The charges on the current arrest were dropped. There is no current crime - legally speaking. If he’s alegal alien - that seems pretty harsh. Re-sentencing for old crimes because the climate has changed. I guess I am glad I was born here. I’d hate to deal with you guys after having migrated here legally. Maybe it’s a good thing that our forfathers didn’t face random deportation based on changes in political climate. I’d be writing this in Gaelic or Italian.
Groveton, Green Card Holder Deportations are not like illegal alien deportations. A Green Card Holder can be deported many years after the crime is committed. The judge who accepted his guilty plea in 2002 was not authorized to deport or forward to immigration.
Green Card Holder Deportations are the result of background checks by ICE Agents or their designees for either a criminal or suspected criminal act, or a naturalization application.
There is no Statute of Limitation. The “rules” are spelled out quite clearly when an immigrant is given a Green Card.
He may not be a Green Card holder, but still be legal. He may be TPS or in process or something else. Who knows.
It’s true it doesn’t matter as June says. That creates some ludicrous situations. For example, if ICE authorities suddenly find out that a legal non-citizen immigrant committed a crime (felonies and some misdemeanors) in the United States 20 years ago, it won’t matter if the person was punished and has lived an exemplary life ever since. That person can be deported. It’s happened, especially when the person has re-entered the country on trip from somewhere. I don’t see this as justice or good sense, but I assume some people on this board would applaud it.
americangal4ever said on 7 Nov 2008 at 5:08 pm: Flag comment
——————————————————————————
If link doesn’t work go to numbers usa and sign the petition
http://www.numbersusa.com/petition
==============
I just signed the petition - it’s up to 73,000 - but needs to be MUCH higher.
I am totally convinced if Americans are given back their jobs, they will take care of getting America back on track.
Both McCain and Obama said only illegal aliens who have committed no crimes will be considered for legalization. If they are true to their word (which is a rarity among politicians), any illegal alien who falsified an I-9 (committed a felony) will not be eligible and should be shown the door.
I do not believe there is a need for mass deportation - letting them know that any company that hires them will face steep fines and possible jail sentences = that will be followed through = should be sufficient to send them packing on their own dime.
Unfortunately, it was reported in the Boston Globe today that Obama’s aunt is not only still in the country, she is is now with relatives in Cleveland awaiting a new asylum hearing.
To his credit though, he has done nothing to give her preferential treatment. Unlike our Senator Webb who stepped in and “encouraged” ICE to waive deportation of a Springfield illegal alien just days before his deportation.
Groveton,
I guess I didn’t explain my thinking very well. June pretty much stated what I was thinking about the judge not having the power to do anything about a potential green card holder being deported, that would be up to INS (I believe they were called at the time).
I’ve read many a story about someone committing a crime and years later having immigration consequences whether they were an illegal trying to become a legal citizen or just a green card holder, or maybe someone who is/was a seasonal worker trying to become a citizen.
If you’re not born here being allowed to be here should be a privilege not a license to commit crimes and even if you serve your time dependent on the crime losing your privilege to be here
Junes:
Thank you for the explanation. I kind of understood the situation based on the letter to the editor but you have made it clear.
But the clarity you provided regarding the facts seems to open the door to some ambiguity regarding fairness - at least to me.
I have read many times on this blog that the issue is illegal immigration, not legal immigration. And I have read the posts of critics (so called illegal alien apologists) saying that the process is too long, hard and bureaucratic. Few on this blog argue about the extreme level of bureacracy to become a legal alien. Many say that the red tape should be thinned. All say that the law is the law and everybody who wants to be a legal immigrant must go through the process.
Yet, red tape is not the only issue. Even if you go through the buracracy to become legal, you still are at the whim of bureacrats. You can be deported even 6 years after you pled guilty to something and after you served the sentence. Shouldn’t the level of effort required to become legal entitle you to some level of fairness regarding how you are treated while in this country? Shouldn’t there be some limit as to when you can be deported based on a prior act? Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on such things? It seems to me that part of the problem is that the benefits of becoming legal are relatively small. You can still be deported for something that happened 6 years ago. You can be deported because you came to the attention of authorities through an arrest where the charges were dropped.
If the majority of people on this blog really cared about legal vs. illegal immigration they would champion the granting of more rights to those who are here legally. Instead, I hear the people who post on BVBL say that this guy should be deported because he was arrested and the charges dropped. You’ll understand if I begin to wonder whether this is really a question of legal vs. illegal. It sounds like “we don’t like Hispanics” and we’ll take any chance - fair or unfair - to get rid of them.
Sorry, but this incident of a preseumably legal alien and the comments it engendered from those on this blog has been very telling.
Groveton, think of this in terms of simple contract law. An immigrant who is given Green Card status avows (s)he is a model immigrant worthy of American Citizenship.
Just as we check the box that we are insured when we renew our drivers license or tags, a Green Card Immigrant checks the box that (s)he has committed no crime prior to their Green Card Status.
If, during an ICE background investigation, it is learned (s)he lied on this form (a felony), (s)he loses all rights to ever becoming a citizen or remaining in the country legally.
Many Green Card Holders never apply for citizenship, not because they do not want to become citizens, rather because they have a skeleton or two in their closets. Living in the US as a legal Permanent Resident without citizenship rights is safer than revealing their past and risk being deported. They know how to work the system.
Now however, as ICE becomes more involved with local law enforcement, it may not be so easy to hide their past and some will be exposed and deported.
The bottom line is, when an immigrant accepts that Green Card (s)he knows it is with restrictions of the “contract”. Those restrictions are clearly defined in the contract, and as with any contract, when you sign on the bottom line, you agree to the terms. Failure to abide by the terms voids the contract and, in the case of a Green Card holder, legal residency.
June:
He did not violate his contract in the 2008 matter. The charges were dropped.
And if he violated his contract in the 2002 matter (and if he sentence was insufficient) it should have been dealt with years ago.
This matter (as related in the letter to the editor) shows great unfairness toward a legal immigrant.
To me, people who subscribe to the policy of opposing illegal immigration while supporting those who immigrate legally need to do two things. 1) Demand that political leadership enforce the borders and the law 2) Demand that political leadership provide fair an appropriate treatment for those who follow the rule and immigrate legally. I see the former from people on this blog. I do not see the latter. And that dichotomy calls everything into question.
Groveton, he viiolated his contract by lying on the form, saying he had no prior convictions. His past sentence is irrelevant.
As others have said, and what you apparently do not understand, is not all judges can decide immigration cases. If the 2002 case was not related to immigation or national security, the judge had neither the authority nor obligation to refer to a Federal Court. This is how the system works.
There is no “unfairness” to the immigrant. He knew exactly what was expected of him and he was aware of the consequences if he was caught for lyng on the form.
It’s all about choices. He took a chance and he lost!