How to Get Deported: Plan B

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:37:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Roberto Carlos is an undocumented immigrant who, after an argument with his boyfriend, decided he wanted to be deported to Mexico. His first thought, after a police officer responded to the argument, was to punch the officer.

He ... decided not to after the police told him it would not be in his best interest to do so.

Good decision. Carlos then shifted to plan B.

That was when he took off his clothes and ran down the street. He was charged with indecent exposure and was being held for immigration officials.

Need we mention that Carlos had been drinking?

< Defending Michael Hertz, et al. | Warren TARP Report Out >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

How to Get Deported: Plan B | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You have to TRY to get deported? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:04:03 PM EST

I thought ICE, INS, Sheriff Joe, etc, are so formidable that citizens-of-other-nations-purposely-residing-here-in-America-illegally routinely get deported for merely sneezing in public. Or something.

Reminds me of "Up in Smoke"... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:06:14 PM EST

when Cheech's family calls immigration on themselves to get a free ride to a wedding in Mexico.

I'm just glad somebody besides the masters of the universe is gaming this racket:)

Ah, the english language at its finest (none / 0) (#1)
by bocajeff on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:40:49 PM EST

An an undocument immigrant is an illegal alient, someone who entered the country illegally, etc...

Rape isn't unpermissioned love making.
Murder isn't voluntary oxygen depletion.
War isn't stong conflict resolution.

The English Language Allows Choices (4.00 / 3) (#6)
by TChris on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:06:36 PM EST

I choose not to use "illegal" because the word implies (to most readers, anyway) "criminal." It is not a crime to enter the country without proper documentation, or to overstay a permitted visit (although it is a crime to reenter the country after being deported). That is the choice that TalkLeft has been making for years.

Parent

but, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Bemused on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:20:11 PM EST

the probelm is that whether through lack of knowledge or intent to mislead you are entirely wrong when you say that.

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or

(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or

(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the
purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than
$250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws
shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance
with title 18, or both.

Parent

Rudy Giuliani (none / 0) (#62)
by TChris on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:55:26 PM EST

disagrees with your interpretation of the law, as does U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie.

To clarify, entering the country without proper documentation can be a misdemeanor, although it is rarely charged as one unless the immigrant used forged documents to gain entry. The entry is more commonly regarded as a civil infraction (sub. (b) of the quoted statute). Staying in the country after a visa expires is not a crime. Since 40 percent of undocumented immigrants overstayed their visas (an act that is clearly not a crime), careful journalists avoid the overbroad and dehumanizing phrase "illegal aliens."

Parent

: Not completely true (none / 0) (#63)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:14:02 PM EST

To clarify, entering the country without proper documentation can be a misdemeanor, although it is rarely charged as one unless the immigrant used forged documents to gain entry
It is a misdemeanor on the first offense. Title 18 of the US Code says for a subsequent commission of any such offense, an individual can be fined and/or imprisoned for up to 2 years.
Civil penalties are not in lieu of (but in addition to) any criminal charges that may be imposed.

Parent
: Would an undocumented immigrant (none / 0) (#64)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:29:57 PM EST

who gets work be committing a crime?

Parent
: i don't give a damn who disagrees (none / 0) (#65)
by Bemused on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 06:42:12 AM EST

because the statute is not subject to interprtation as to whether or not 1st offense illegal entry is a crime.
In my limited experience it is a crime rarely charged, but that's a matter of prosecutorial discretionary enforecement not the state of the law.
As far as enforecement, at least here, not only is the criminal entry charge rarely pursued but other offenses-- if relatively minor-- are usually bargained away as well if the person agres to submit to administrative deportation procedures. That doesn't mean that the DUIs, petty theft, simple possession, bad check etc. offenses are not crimes.

Parent

Thanks (none / 0) (#8)
by bocajeff on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:12:40 PM EST

thank you for the clarification. I always thought it was a crime, so I guess it's a civil infraction akin to a moving violation or something?

Parent

the word implies (to most readers, anyway) (none / 0) (#9)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:14:20 PM EST

the word implies (to most readers, anyway) "criminal."

Personally, I doubt that very much.

Maybe to readers who are criminal lawyers and who spend their days immersed in criminals and criminality, but not, imo, to the average TL readers for whom the majority of their contact with "illegal" behavior is stuff like exceeding speed limits, changing lanes without signalling and failing to come to a complete stop at stop signs. None of which is criminal.

But of course we are guests in your house so we won't put our feet up on your furniture...

Parent

Undocumented immigrants are people, (none / 0) (#7)
by Joelarama on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:10:06 PM EST

and not things, like rape murder, and war.

Rather than react like an officious fourth grade grammar teacher who tries to tamp down any evolution in the English language, why not call people by names that don't stigmatize them as people?

It wasn't so long ago that people like me were "homosexuals" rather than gay.

Parent

Not my point (none / 0) (#10)
by bocajeff on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:17:01 PM EST

My point is that we pick and choose what words (as TChris put it) in order to make our points.

My much larger point is that you are either for open borders or you are for an orderly immigration policy. You can't be for both. Now, if you are for open borders then that's fine. If you are for an orderly immigration process then the people who are undocumented (and for the most part knowingly doing something which can get them deported) should be dealt with in some manner.

BTW, rape and murder are not things (nouns) but they are actions (verbs) which are not innocuous since they generally happen to other people.

Parent

You need to learn the difference between (none / 0) (#11)
by Joelarama on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:19:23 PM EST

nouns and verbs. At the risk of us both sounding pedantic.

Parent

actually (none / 0) (#13)
by bocajeff on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:27:28 PM EST

they are both nouns and verbs. I was using the words to denote the act and not to minimize the acts as just "things".

But your point is well taken.

Parent

not that it matters (none / 0) (#14)
by Bemused on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:31:22 PM EST

because the whle thing has nothing to do ith grammar but "illegal" is an adjective which properly can be used to modify a noun such as "alien" or "immigrant." There is no rule of grammar which states "illegal" cannot be used to modify a noun referring to a person.

The issue is the bizarre idea of some people that their underlying position becomes more persuasive if they not only use euphemisms but criticize others for not doing so.

Parent

This issue for me is that labeling people (none / 0) (#15)
by Joelarama on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:33:55 PM EST

in respectful, non-stigmatizing terms is not a "euphemism" but basic respect, regardless of the context or argument.

Parent

so do you have a proble with: (2.00 / 1) (#17)
by Bemused on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:48:31 PM EST

illegal trespasser
illegal possessor
illegal transferor
illegal user (computer geeks lack sensitivity?)
ilegal trader
illegal seller
etc.

or what about (even worse?):

criminal co-conspirator
criminal accomplice
etc.

Shall we all now use the awkward alternatives that mean exactly the same thing such as "person who illegally..." or "person who criminally...?"

Does that sort of stuff really change anything, ecept for the respect accorded to people who think that way?

Ultimately the point here is that people decrying the use of "illegal immigrant" are trying to conceal the fact that the person is someone who is in the country illegally and in the case of ALL adults who entered illegally, in violation of criminal law.

I'm all for changing the law but I don't see any point in perverting language to obsfucate the truth, and i think it is a counter-productive strategy because it makes people appear less than honest.

Parent

There is no obfuscation of truth in (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Joelarama on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:29:50 PM EST

calling people "undocumented immigrants." Pretty descriptive.

Whereas calling persons "illegals" or "aliens" is an attempt to dehumanize.

As TChris said, language is about choices. And I choose to use language that respects a person's humanity, whether they are alleged to have done something illegal or not.

"Perverting" language. "Obfuscating" truth. Really.

Parent

: Of course there is (none / 0) (#55)
by Bemused on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 07:03:31 AM EST

The desire to compel people not to use the term "illegal immigrant" is motivated by the desire to deflect attention from the truth that the people being so described have entered the country illegally. To say that there is no attempt to obsfucate the truth looks pretty silly in a thread where the argument made by TCHris against using the term was completely untrue. Was that bald untruth also not an attempt to obsfucate the truth?
Some people DO want to dehumanize or stigmatize them.(I'll agree thet should not be called "illegals" as if illegal was personal noun) That can and should be countered but the right way to do it is not to distort the truth that they are here illegally, but to make persuasive arguments why we should change laws to legalize the presence of some or all of the people.
Look at it this way, how long do you think it would be efore you got tuned out by almost everyone if in arguing for legalization of marijana tyou began by arguing that marijuana is not cureently illegal because you don't think it should be illegal but merely an unapproved substance? I'd say about five seconds. When you begin your argument with a totally false statement people will assume you either do not know what you are talking about or are willing to say anything no matter how ludicrous and obvioulsy untrue to push your agenda.
Disingenuity is bad enough but admittedly sometimes effective. Foolish, transparent disingenuity never helps. You change no minds and actually lose the opportunity to change some minds that would be willing to listen to sensible arguments.

Parent

On second thought, I hope that (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Joelarama on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:34:32 PM EST

that the anti-immigrant crowd keeps referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegals."

Every time you do it, you piss off another Latino voter enough to vote Democratic.

Parent

Not according to my house keeper. (none / 0) (#49)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 05:28:09 PM EST

She says they really don't care.

Parent

: In fact, she says they use the term (none / 0) (#50)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 06:06:00 PM EST

among themselves...

Parent

You know it (none / 0) (#59)
by KoolJeffrey on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:00:48 PM EST

So true. And it's only going to get worse for the them. Tough economic times will cause even more finger-pointing. GOP politicians will have to feed off of conservative frustration just to stay in office.

It is going to be a rough generation (or two) for the Grand Old Racists.

Parent

Illegal receiver downfield. (none / 0) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:00:07 PM EST

Loss of down & 5 yd penalty, but no concomitant loss of dignity, respect or humanity...

Parent

Can't say I agree with your (none / 0) (#22)
by oldpro on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:53:58 PM EST

conclusion.

Depends on whether a touchdown (or even a significant gain) is called back, wouldn't you say? In which case, most fans (and some players and coaches) are royally ticked off at "the illegal receiver downfield."

Third down...fourth quarter, two minutes on the clock...your team behind by two points...

Parent

Maybe so, but most of the time it's called (none / 0) (#26)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:09:03 PM EST

it seems like the QB is under pressure and throws to an ineligible lineman out of panic, so really it's the QB who should be labeled an "illegal passer" or something...

Parent

In fact (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:16:31 PM EST

I can't recall ever hearing an ineligible receiver termed as anything other than "ineligible." A google search finds three times as many hits for "ineligible receiver downfield," and I'm pretty sure that's how you'll hear your official NFL referees call the penalty.

Now, there is such a thing as an illegal forward pass (for example, when the quarterback has crossed the line of scrimmage), so perhaps that explains the confusion. I would of course hasten to point out that just because the passer may have broken a rule, we really shouldn't stigmatize the pass itself and possibly hurt its feelings.

Parent

You're just a kid, (none / 0) (#41)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:55:27 PM EST

maybe it's an age thing?

Here's some from last season:

NCAA Game Summary - Wisconsin at Michigan
(Saturday, September 27th [2008])
Final Score: Michigan 27, (9) Wisconsin 25
Ann Arbor, MI (Sports Network) -
[...] The Badgers then converted the two-point try, but an illegal receiver downfield penalty nullified the tying score.

Rebels in luck again, clinch district title
Submitted by Bill Peterson on Saturday, 1 November 2008
By BILL PETERSON
Editor at Large
BUDA -
[...] They apparently scored a touchdown on the 14th play, when Sam Breyfogle completed a pass to Slaughter in the end zone, but the Rebels were called for illegal receiver downfield.

Parent

Heh. You're a cranky old (none / 0) (#43)
by oldpro on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 05:01:52 PM EST

codger, eh?

Parent

Cranky, yes. Old codger, no. (none / 0) (#46)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 05:07:00 PM EST

But older than Steve M, I think so...

Parent

: Well, you're certainly in the (none / 0) (#51)
by oldpro on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 07:22:13 PM EST

running for membership in the "you kids get off my lawn!" squad.
You'll be glad to know we don't have meetings or dues. Like Jason Robards' sister in "A Thousand Clowns," we communicate mostly by rumor.

Parent

Isn't the call... (none / 0) (#61)
by kdog on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:25:17 PM EST

ineligible receiver downfield?

Parent

Oh, and btw, yes, I agree. (none / 0) (#19)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:03:27 PM EST

Such word games merely help galvanize the opposition, imo.

Parent

: Right, (none / 0) (#23)
by bocajeff on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:57:02 PM EST

because it doesn't change anything but makes people feel better about themselves.
The big question is whether Joelarama is an open borders advocate or not.

Parent

The Ill Eagle Fireworks stand (none / 0) (#25)
by oldpro on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:00:29 PM EST

on Hood Canal is my personal favorite 'illegal' reference!

Parent

This morning, I was doing some illegal speeding (none / 0) (#39)
by MrConservative on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:53:25 PM EST

Parent

: I am a criminal :( (none / 0) (#40)
by MrConservative on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:53:47 PM EST

Parent

Seems like a false choice (none / 0) (#27)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:13:33 PM EST

The more relevant dichotomy seems to be between people who want more immigration and people who don't. I'm sure there are people out there who are literal "open borders" advocates, in the sense that they don't even want to have an immigration process, but I don't know any of them myself nor do I think they have a lot of political power.

The people I tend to think of as "anti-immigration" generally proclaim that they're not anti-immigration, they're only anti-ILLEGAL immigration. But somehow, if I were to suggest that we raise our immigration quotas to let in a couple million extra people from Latin America every year, I suspect most of them would oppose it, even though it would be a completely legal and documented process.

I think it's kind of interesting that you decry the PC terminology "undocumented immigrants" but then you start waving around the rhetorical strawman of "open borders."

Parent

I'm pretty close to being an open borders advocate (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:19:56 PM EST

I think there should be only very few limitations on entering this country. I think you should have to be judged physically dangerous for some reason in order to be excluded.

Parent

Are you saying (none / 0) (#33)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:35:59 PM EST

that we shouldn't even take down names, or keep track of who comes in?

You could have no limits on immigration whatsoever and still have an "orderly immigration process," to my way of thinking.

Parent

: No, I think we should probably keep track (none / 0) (#34)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:43:16 PM EST

of who's who. I would have provisions for keeping out certain violent criminals, for example. But to my mind, it shouldn't be significantly more difficult to go from Brazil to California than New York to California.

Parent

which would enable the oligarchy (none / 0) (#35)
by connecticut yankee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:44:09 PM EST

of Mexico and other countries with low taxes and poor services to continually send their poor at us as a kind of pressure release valve.

In a world of limited resources, finite land and an exploding world population, how would that be good for any nation? How would public services cope?

Parent

Chapter and verse (none / 0) (#38)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:47:46 PM EST

from "boat is full" rhetoric of 100 years ago. It was false then, and it's false now. My great grandparents would likely have been excluded under such standards.

Parent

I would note (none / 0) (#44)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 05:04:46 PM EST

that we didn't have a whole lot in the way of taxpayer-funded social services 100 years ago, either. It's worth thinking about the burden that additional immigration places upon such programs.

Parent

well (none / 0) (#45)
by connecticut yankee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 05:06:15 PM EST

Your comments are chapter and verse knee-jerk egalitarianism, which is why no nation operates that way. It's just unrealistic. Even amusement parks have capacity limits. They only have so many lines and so many snow cone machines.

If you allow populations to slosh around between high and low pressure economic zones with no controls, you are just building unhealthy bubbles. You'll overwhelm systems.

What happened to being pro-regulation. It's the same as money.

Parent

We do what we can for the people who can (none / 0) (#52)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:18:50 PM EST

get here. We also do what we can for the people who can't get there. We should not shut the door, however.

Parent

Please (none / 0) (#53)
by MrConservative on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:00:59 AM EST

America has one of the lowest population densities on the planet. Besides, we need immigrants if we are to compete as a nation in the future against India and China. There is nothing better that has ever happened to the US than immigration.

Parent

: hm (none / 0) (#56)
by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 09:27:41 AM EST

Well, you should read for comprehension.
I'm not saying we shouldnt have immigrants. I'm arguing against fully open borders. The United States needs an immigration policy that serves the national interest, not the other way around.

Parent

"anti-immigration" (none / 0) (#36)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:45:24 PM EST

The people I tend to think of as "anti-immigration" generally proclaim that they're not anti-immigration, they're only anti-ILLEGAL immigration. But somehow, if I were to suggest that we raise our immigration quotas to let in a couple million extra people from Latin America every year, I suspect most of them would oppose it, even though it would be a completely legal and documented process.

So those who oppose illegal immigration and also think the present legal immigration quotas are adequate, are therefor anti-immigration?

Speaking of false dichotomies...

Parent

...and, that is the position of most people (none / 0) (#42)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:57:20 PM EST

who are anti illegal-immigration?

Speaking of rhetoric...

Parent

Shrug (none / 0) (#47)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 05:09:32 PM EST

I think it is usually a rhetorical dodge. I find it hard to believe there are many people who think that illegal immigration causes serious social and economic problems, but that legal immigration is 100% hunky-dory and they wouldn't reduce it one bit.

Parent

: Shrug. Believe whatever suits your agenda. (none / 0) (#48)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 05:19:55 PM EST

I believe I'll take off early from work today.

Parent

I take it (none / 0) (#2)
by Jen M on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:51:24 PM EST

This wasn't the old Brazilian pop singer?

ROFLMAO (none / 0) (#4)
by SeeEmDee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:04:30 PM EST

Oh, Jeez, thanks, I needed that. Oh, man...

the real question is (none / 0) (#20)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:51:55 PM EST

does assault and battery of a police officer have a greater negative impact long term than being a registered sex offender for the rest of his life?

and by no means (none / 0) (#21)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:53:29 PM EST

am i condoning, encouraging or advocating assaulting the men and women in blue. Just throwing it out there as a red herring for hte sex offender database.

Parent

: I think (none / 0) (#54)
by MrConservative on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:02:42 AM EST

He'd probably go to prison for a pretty long time if he hit him. Also, I'm not sure all states require you to register as a sex offender for public exposure. IMHO there should be a federal law prohibiting the practice.

Parent

I can't decide if it's creative (none / 0) (#24)
by oldpro on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:57:55 PM EST

or beyond dumb.

I usually tend to think of life as an IQ test which increasing numbers of people aren't passing...but in this case...hmmm...I tend to agree with the commenter recalling the Cheech movie!

eh (none / 0) (#28)
by connecticut yankee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:16:19 PM EST

Probably cheaper than hiring someone to sneak him back across. I wonder if they actually have reverse-coyotes, or if they just walk right over.

I've nothing against Mexican (none / 0) (#37)
by SOS on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:45:54 PM EST

people but the macho male bravado in their culture goes way over the edge sometimes.

One thing humanitarians (none / 0) (#57)
by Bemused on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 09:53:35 AM EST

probably should think about when considering wht U.S. immigration policy should be is the impact our polices will have on emigre nations.

"Open borders" would most likely exacerbate the brain drain in many nations. If well eeducated people in foreign countries were completely free to come to the United States what would be the result in the countries they leave behind?

As just one example, should we ameliorate the costs of our adavanced health-care system by further increasing the labor pool of doctors, nurses, technicians and the like with immigration if that policy would further ravage the already weak health-care systems in developing nations? Many now argue our restrictive policies still have that effect because immigration law favors those with skills needed here.

What about the effect if the family members abroad who now receive money earned by relatives in the U.S. and then circulate that oney in the local economies, pack up and join the relatives in the U.S.?

This is a hugely complex issue with global impact and interrelated consequences. We must have a policy that is rational and structured to account for as many of the consequences here and abroad as can be anticipated.

Empty slogans and proclamations of moral superiority by any side in the debate do nothing but allow for some people to cloak themselves in an undeserved aura of virtue.

Reform is obviously needed and I believe a central components of that reform should to legitimize the presence of many people who have established lives here and to allow for greater freedom for unskilled people in need of work to enter to provide labor needs that are would be unmet without their presence. That needs to be balanced though by careful and thoughtful consideration of the impact here especially on those who are unskilled and under or unemployed or paid low wages and on the impact abroad.

We also need to think about the dangers of overwhelming our capacities in terms of infrastructure and ability to provide services and at the same time retarding the ability to build such capacities abroad.

Interesting (none / 0) (#58)
by catmandu on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:40:33 PM EST

That guy must have had quite the headache the next morning!
I'm glad he didn't hit the police officer, and I'm sure he didn't get much more punishment than the streakers of the 1970's received. Anyone here remember streakers?
The man's legal description would be illegal alien. When I travel out of the country, I usually have to fill out an alien application.
In Mexico, I am a legal alien on a visitor Visa.
It's printed on the top of the form--in Spanish.
LOL

: How dehumanizing. (none / 0) (#60)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:04:30 PM EST

Parent

How to Get Deported: Plan B | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment