Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They can be rehabilitated by their own country however. It really isn't our problem if they are or are not. Mexico actually has a program for it's returning farmers. They are provided some livestock and a means to get started back up.
An illegal guy in my neighborhood got into a bar fight and the bar owners called the police and border patrol on him (even though it's a bar that caters to illegals) and he was deported. He went back to where he was from and got in on this program and he has told people that he prefers being a rancher in his own country, working his own farm over being a servant or hired hand in the USA where he will never own a farm.
I'm more in favor of getting illegals back home quickly to their families and way of life -- but I know many will just come right back if deported quickly, they think it's all a big joke. In fact it can give them time to visit friends and families, take a vacation, reconnect with those back home including children they haven't seen in years but coming back is too easy.
If simply returning them worked then most of us would want that but it hasn't worked so deporting them 1000 miles from where they came in might be the better solution.
Who could not agree with this theory. Most of us would love seeing them sent home and quickly to their love ones and friends.
But you said a moutful because so many find this to be a joke, they will be right back here if they are deported quickly.
And as you say, if returning them was that freakin easy, and worked, most of us would want them deported, but this solution thus far has not worked. What's the answer!
There has to be an answer, but so far no one has come up with one, and the Feds, don't seem to care. Nor this administration.
Unless they are in sanctuary cities, Cook County comes to mind with Mrs. Preckwinkle. Then it would be Progressives with their ideology placed above all else, even the safety of the rest of the citizenry of the US.
Well that article refers to illegals who have pending criminal proceedings. I was referring to illegals already in ICE custody awaiting their removal hearing.
Who could not agree with this theory. Most of us would love seeing them sent home and quickly to their love ones and friends.
But you said a moutful because so many find this to be a joke, they will be right back here if they are deported quickly.
And as you say, if returning them was that freakin easy, and worked, most of us would want them deported, but this solution thus far has not worked. What's the answer!
There has to be an answer, but so far no one has come up with one, and the Feds, don't seem to care. Nor this administration.
Well people who get deported and return are really stupid because returning to the US after you've been deported is a criminal offense and if you're caught you'll probably end up doing time in federal prison.
Also- a lot of illegals apprehended at the border actually are subject to expedited removal. There are Constitutional considerations, however, because if people are claiming certain things like asylum or US citizenship, then we have to give them a hearing so they can make their case.
The AZ law is a bust? I don't recall SCOTUS making its ruling yet. Illegals are very limited in their right to privacy, once they are determined to be illegal they lose what little of it they may have possessed. Yes, the State can set policy as long as it is within the federal guidelines, how do you think AZ got E-Verify required by employers through? Arizona immigration law ruling: You can't rely on E-Verify - Los Angeles Times
Okay - bust isn't a good word. And did not mean to imply the whole law will be struck down. But to the extent that the law goes beyond the scope of federal law, then that's a problem. There are at least two parts of the law that do appear to go beyond the scope of federal law:
(1) making it a state crime for aliens not to carry documents
(2) making it a state crime for illegals to look for work
So we'll see how SCOTUS rules but both Kennedy and Roberts were highly skeptical about the Constitutionality of these provisions.
Well that article refers to illegals who have pending criminal proceedings. I was referring to illegals already in ICE custody awaiting their removal hearing.
This was in reference to It's the sneaky ones who evade the law that don't get deported. Merely showing that it is also the Progressive ideology that doesn't allow even some of those held for criminal charges to not get deported.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 06-09-2012 at 02:53 PM..
I know quite a bit about waivers. I am not aware of any waiver for an illegal who has committed a crime and does not otherwise qualify for a visa.
Like you using "bust", waiver was the wrong word. I do enjoy the word games though.
Administrative and Expedited removal are 2 ways that a hearing is not required.
In this particular case, it says he was dropped off in Mexico "weeks" after he was first arrested. Weeks is kinda left hanging, i.e. 2 weeks, 3 weeks, etc. What it does not say is months. I would venture to say it was 2 - 4 weeks after he was first picked-up before he was actually deported.
As a side note, Washington is one of only a couple states that do allow illegals to obtain DL's.
Okay - bust isn't a good word. And did not mean to imply the whole law will be struck down. But to the extent that the law goes beyond the scope of federal law, then that's a problem. There are at least two parts of the law that do appear to go beyond the scope of federal law:
(1) making it a state crime for aliens not to carry documents
(2) making it a state crime for illegals to look for work
So we'll see how SCOTUS rules but both Kennedy and Roberts were highly skeptical about the Constitutionality of these provisions.
I wouldn't say they go beyond the scope of Federal Law, as Federal Law does require aliens to carry their documentation with them at all times it's just simply not up to a State to determine ones status. It's also not the responsibility of the employer other than documenting the required work documents as per an I-9 form. However the state of AZ has required E-Verify to be implemented by all business throughout the state which has been allowed by the courts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
