[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

Idk if this is a state-level issue or federal but it would be interesting to know CT's deportation/illegal immigration policy. Undisputedly, most illegal immigrants are allowed to stay. We just don't seem to have the framework set up for deporting millions of people. I do think it's interesting though that this woman garnered a news headline when, even with a low deportation rate, families elsewhere get deported without much attention.

Immigration laws and policy are federal, not state

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Does it matter to you those numbers are made up of whole cloth? The study cited didn't even ask that question. Might want to check sources before you copypasta a hate website.

Not every county in the Muslim World is SA, Afghanistan, and Iran.

lol, regurgitating the news much? Because the question you claim doesn't exist (no doubt heard on MSNBC), is question #18 if you actually read the study, which you clearly did NOT. Good try though.

I cannot think of a muslim country that's not, although I'm sure there's ONE....maybe...but one thing is certain, syria IS just like Iran and pakistan and SA, so not sure what you point is there...

As far as the OP is concerned, deporting this woman with a family here in the US doing nothing wrong is both extreme and "out of the norm" as evidenced by earlier comment. It's also bizarre when presented in the context of a voluntary syrian influx.

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by Lalalally

Immigration laws and policy are federal, not state

But there are state or city-level laws that can interfere. Like the sanctuary cities and whatnot. It seems CT has something at the state level:

"According to the Bulletin, in January 2014, Connecticut made history by becoming the first state to enact legislation that prohibited law enforcement agencies from holding people simply because they had a civil immigration detainer put on them.

The measure was touted as a way to strengthen immigrant families, the newspaper reports, but the law was clear on who was exempt from its protection: Convicted felons and people with a "final order" of deportation from the federal government were chief among them."

Source: Jean Jacques, Haitian immigrant accused in Norwich, Connecticut killing, was spared deportation after prior violent felony - CBS News

[erjunkee]

Originally Posted by wtby4000

She is a criminal. She came here on a crewman visa and a fraudulent passport.

The outpouring of sympathy is because she is white. Were she Mexican, there would be no NPR article.

The fact the article was written makes me sick, to be honest.

This.^^

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

lol, regurgitating the news much? Because the question you claim doesn't exist (no doubt heard on MSNBC), is question #18 if you actually read the study, which you clearly did NOT. Good try though. Oops, thats embarrassing...

I cannot think of a muslim country that's not, although I'm sure there's ONE....maybe...but one thing is certain, syria IS just like Iran and pakistan and SA, so not sure what you point is there...

Oh I thought they were cutting the Pew Center from the article (why they cited it is beyond me) but here's tge thing: sharia doesn't mean what you think and nor does jihad. If they provided a good questionnaire the terms should have been "Islamic fiqh" and "harab" (Islamic law and violence respectively).

Oh and yeah that site is a clear hate website... should I trust Stormfront too?

It's hard to post on my phone but the BBC just posted a scathing review of that study.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by wtby4000

She is a criminal. She came here on a crewman visa and a fraudulent passport.

The outpouring of sympathy is because she is white. Were she Mexican, there would be no NPR article.

The fact the article was written makes me sick, to be honest.

and if the "ghetto" themed frat party were hosted by Phi Iota Alpha, would that be in the news? Works both ways, yet that doesn't make you sick...

Consistency.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Oh I thought they were cutting the Pew Center from the article (why they cited it is beyond me) but here's tge thing: sharia doesn't mean what you think and nor does jihad. If they provided a good questionnaire the termsshould have been "Islamic fiqh" and "harab" (Islamic law and violence respectively).

Oh and yeah that site is a clear hate website... should I trust Stormfront too?

Not sure what Stormfront is, but you're questioning the validity of one of the most widely used and cited survey research method protocols available without any sound data to suggest otherwise.

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jib.../8400000a.html

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

EmeraldInsight

Sampling for Internet surveys. An examination of respondent selection for Internet research - ProQuest

I can list about 2,000 more if you'd like. Just because the results are not in line with your agenda or beliefs or what you would LIKE to be true, doesn't mean the integrity of the research is flawed. Not sure how this is a "hate website". Although "hate" and "race" are the left wing response to...any and everything when no meaningful response exists...
Center for Security Policy | About Us

We are also deviating greatly from the topic. My comment was posted to provide context to the absurdity of this deportation. I then responded twice to rectify some misinformation, but if this continues our posts are going to start getting deleted and my obligatory warning points will be issued...peace...

[Csiko]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Does it matter to you those numbers are made up of whole cloth? The study cited didn't even ask that question. Might want to check sources before you copypasta a hate website.

Not every county in the Muslim World is SA, Afghanistan, and Iran.

Those are not the only 3 countries where you get the death penalty merely for being gay, either.

The issue is not so much the basis of their religion, merely that reformation is haram. Christianity has had a couple of them to become a little more modern, a little more palatable to the general population wherever they happen to be, and a bit less barbaric. And it took a thousand years or so, but it got done.

Rather than reform, their solution is to convert others by force. Not really reasonable, in my book.

Keep in mind, being an apostate is also punishable by death, so the idea of "secular" or "westernized" Muslims is also a bit like stretching the truth.

So it's not just that the woman in OP's post is European, it's that the fear of immigration is actually somewhat founded in reason. The US historically has been exceptional at absorbing these other cultures and its immigrants have historically adapted to the US way of life without issue, save for some "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS" tension here and there. I'd say that this has changed in maybe the last 15-20 years. People immigrate here now, have no ambition to learn the language or adapt to any standard here, and (perhaps due to poor/intentional real estate segregation) they live in enclaves of others just like them, therefore never actually having a need to adapt in their day-to-day lives.

I think all of us agree that preserving culture should be done, but such that these immigrants identify as much as "being American" as they do with "being Syrian/Mexican/Polish/etc." Consider the food culture in this country (especially in CT!) right now built on the backs of these former Italian, Greek, and Chinese immigrants. No one 40-60 years ago came here because they wanted to bring Italy to the US. They came here because they wanted to become US citizens and make a better life for themselves. I do not doubt that this Polish woman is similar. But can we say the same about most of the immigrants many Americans are so afraid of?

I doubt it.

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

But there are state or city-level laws that can interfere. Like the sanctuary cities and whatnot. It seems CT has something at the state level:

"According to the Bulletin, in January 2014, Connecticut made history by becoming the first state to enact legislation that prohibited law enforcement agencies from holding people simply because they had a civil immigration detainer put on them.

The measure was touted as a way to strengthen immigrant families, the newspaper reports, but the law was clear on who was exempt from its protection: Convicted felons and people with a "final order" of deportation from the federal government were chief among them."

Source: Jean Jacques, Haitian immigrant accused in Norwich, Connecticut killing, was spared deportation after prior violent felony - CBS News

Yes but in this instance the woman has been ordered removed by a federal judge, and state policy cannot intervene. The federal ruling trumps when it comes to federal immigration laws

[Henry10]

The only rational outcome of breaking the law is punishment. It can't be any other way. Otherwise society disintegrates.

Illegal entry or stay in the country is law-breaking. The idea that we are supposed to punish only the 2nd violation, but not the first -- this argument is asinine.