Ohio Father Of 4 Bids Farewell Before Deportation To Mexico

Discussion in 'Politics & Government' started by Frank Sanoica, Jul 18, 2017.

  1. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    "Lopez has been in the country for 16 years, and his children were born in the U.S., the Plain Dealer reported."
    "These are the darkest times I've ever seen as an attorney. When the best and the brightest that we have to offer are taken from their homes and sent away," Leopold told reporters. "The law is so broken."

    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ohio-fath...on-mexico-171004765--abc-news-topstories.html

    Personally, I just can't see it. With thousands of illegally-present gang members prowling the streets, about whom little seems to be done, govt exports a hard-working, honest man. Can't leaders make decisions based on individual circumstances? Sick and wrong.
    Frank



     
    #1
    Gloria Mitchell and Patsy Faye like this.
  2. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    Short answer no, as the law doesn't provide for that possibility.

    That is the entire problem with our current immigration policy. Most "illegals" arrived legally and then let their visas, etc. expire. People get married and think they are now legal, when the law says not. If they get caught or turn themselves in, they are required to exit the country for 5~10 years, prior to applying and obtaining another visa... even if married, etc. It doesn't say that in the article, but I think he will likely be required to stay out until 2027.
     
    #2
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  3. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    7,450
    Likes Received:
    9,810
    When I hear stories like that, I ask myself what would likely be done with an American who was living illegally in whatever country the person is being deported to, and the chances are that an American in a foreign country illegally would not have been allowed to work, to marry, and to raise a family in that country at all, let alone being allowed to continue after an encounter with the country's immigration officials. Americans are not allowed to work in Mexico and, if discovered, their fate would be something harsher than deportation.
     
    #3
    Sheldon Scott and Yvonne Smith like this.
  4. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    The company would be severely penalized and the worker would be deported. That's why the companies won't allow non Mexicans on the premises without a work visa. That includes salepersons that may only be onsite for 1 day. At least that was the way it was 10~20 years ago, when I worked there.
     
    #4
  5. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    @Harry Havens
    (bold) I don't buy that, Harry. So long as the "lawmakers" can insert, sidestep, convolute, and otherwise bend the "laws" to suit their whim, we must all know deep down that they can do whatever the hell they want to.... (almost).

    How many laws do you suppose are on the books concerning illegals? As many as pertaining to firearms, > 40,000 Laws? Does anyone even know? Do we need ever-more laws?
    Frank
     
    #5
    Ken Anderson likes this.
  6. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    Perhaps you are right. We should somehow allow immigration judges to ignore their sworn duty to uphold the laws created by the lawmakers and create their own methods and rules for handling each and every case before them, based on their own sentiments. What a wonderful world that would be.
     
    #6
    Sheldon Scott likes this.
  7. Cody Fousnaugh

    Cody Fousnaugh Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    3,117
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Have to agree with this remark, and it's sarcastic I know.

    Bottom Line: If a person is illegally in the U.S., they are illegally here.
     
    #7
    Sheldon Scott likes this.
  8. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    Back to this specific case. The law does not allow for amnesty to this individual. It is terrible that someone in his circumstances of being a taxpaying member of society with children should be deported after being here 16 years. Should he have been here 16 years, or deported 15 3/4 years ago? To ignore all of this and grant him amnesty is not something a court should be deciding. That belongs to the lawmakers or the President via executive order. Yet, the mere mention of amnesty, sets off alarm bells to a large portion of the public, which makes it a political liability for many lawmakers.
     
    #8
    Ken Anderson likes this.
  9. Chrissy Cross

    Chrissy Cross Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    14,993
    Likes Received:
    13,737
  10. Chrissy Cross

    Chrissy Cross Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    14,993
    Likes Received:
    13,737
    Reading further though, it's still up to the court I think even if he holds an American passport.

    My opinion on this is to just let the dr try to save him, if it fails he won't be any worse off then pulling life support.

    It should also be done pro bono so people can't complain that it's costing the taxpayer. I'm sure this specialist is wealthy enough and it would give him experience in this never done surgery.

    If it's a success the family can go back to the UK for the care that's probably needed in a hospital after the baby can travel. Health care is free there so it wouldn't be an issue like it is here.

    Ok...I'm done going off topic for now. :)
     
    #10
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2017
  11. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    1. Congress has not passed anything yet. The proposed amendment https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3190/text has passed out of the committee, but must still be passed by by the house as part of the Appropriations bill and then on to the Senate.

    2. The bill simply moves the parents and the child to the top of the list for filing for a permanent green card, which is not really permanent as it must be renewed periodically. However all this is not a guarantee of acceptance, as it does require legal entry, which refers back to your previous comment about the UK court.
     
    #11
    Chrissy Cross likes this.
  12. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    @Harry Havens
    What you're saying, then, is that the "Law" is a harsh taskmaster which must always and forever be used verbatim, no room for any "gray area", no matter the dubiousness or inequality of it's effects.

    I don't buy that either. For example, consider the gray area ever-present regarding citations for exceeding the speed limit. I believe it is I-44 in Oklahoma where speed limit signs state "No Tolerance". That simply cannot hold up in a court of law, because tolerances are inherent in the devices used to indicate vehicle speed. The cops know better than to issue citations for 71 mph in a 70 mph speed limit area, because the driver's speedometer might very well have been indicating 67, or 68, a not-unusual discrepancy given the tolerances involved all around.
    Frank
     
    #12
  13. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    1. The judges in state traffic courts have more leniency within the boundaries of the relevant state laws to recognize the potential for mistakes, detection devices, etc. . Being illegaly in the country cannot be considered an accident or flaw in detection devices AND falls within federal jurisdiction.

    2. Someone being in the country illegally for 16 years should not be compared to a few MPH over the speed limit. How about 160mph in a 35mph zone, while running multiple red lights, etc. Besides, you are comparing state laws and regulations to federal laws and regulations. A lot of federal laws have mandatory sentencing quidelines.

    3. The federal law stipulates anyone caught with a certain amount of marijuana must serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. If that person flees the jurisdiction, changes their name, gets a job, pays taxes, gets married and has 4 children and 16 years later, is recognized... guess what? He will serve that 5 years, plus a bunch more for fleeing prosecution, etc. EVEN if caught in Colorado.
     
    #13
    Ken Anderson and Sheldon Scott like this.
  14. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    @Harry Havens
    I am fully aware of all of your points, but think you fail in your zealous belief in "The Law" to see that the gray area I posed for consideration was for illustrative purposes, not to be compared to ridiculously extended comparisons with it.

    "Three Strikes" law has ridiculously placed relatively minor offenders in prison FOR LIFE. Do you like that law also?
    Frank
     
    #14
  15. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    Does that fit your definition of "ridiculously extended comparisons?

    The difference between you and I seems to be that I believe inadequate or inappropriate laws should be changed through legislation, while you seem to be proposing they be ignored altogether, based on some subjective "feelings" about a particular case.
     
    #15
    Sheldon Scott and Ken Anderson like this.
  16. Sheldon Scott

    Sheldon Scott Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    3,478
    A fact I haven't seen mentioned is that for sixteen years this man has been working at a job that an American citizen or a legal immigrant could have been doing, feeding his family and having one less person on the unemployment rolls. Citizens and those who come here legally should always come first.
    As for breaking up a family, there in nothing stopping his family from going with him.
     
    #16
  17. Kalvin Mitnic

    Kalvin Mitnic Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2017
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    291
    If a POTUS can pardon felons,frauds and cheats in the hundreds, * it becomes apparent that there are and can be extenuating circumstances warranting pardon or a just judgement.
    The guy should stay because it's simply wrong to do else wise.

    *President, Bill Clinton used his power under the U.S. Constitution to grant pardons and clemency to 456 people, thus commuting the sentences of those already convicted of a crime, and obviating a trial for those not yet convicted. On January 20, 2001, he pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency.[2]
     
    #17
  18. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    Yes he could do that, however the day after such a pardon... the guy would again be an illegal immigrant, as the President cannot pardon future crimes against U.S. Code.
     
    #18
    Ken Anderson likes this.
  19. Kalvin Mitnic

    Kalvin Mitnic Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2017
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    291
    Honorary citizenship can be bestowed by a POTUS or possibly by an act of congress(?) or Private bill.

    Wiki
    "Honorary citizenship should not be confused with citizenship or permanent residency bestowed by a private bill. Private bills are, on rare occasions, used to provide relief to individuals, often in immigration cases, and are also passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. One such statute, granting Elián González US citizenship, was suggested in 1999, but was never enacted."
     
    #19
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  20. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    272
    As your 2nd paragraph states, an honorary citizenship is mostly hocum. Naturalization of any immigrant is strictly within the domain of Congress, per... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. Art. I, Sec. 8.4

    Congress really needs to address immigration, as there are probably 10s of thousands (or more) with similar issues as the one presented. However, a lot of Americans seem to think the term illegal as being synonymous with gangs, crime, etc. and react accordingly when any type of proposed amnesty or change in law is made.

    Imagine the outcry if a proposal were made to change laws allowing any illegal to start the path to citizenship if they have lived, worked and paid taxes the past 16 years and were married and had 4 children. The screams of amnesty would be heard everywhere.
     
    #20
  21. Kalvin Mitnic

    Kalvin Mitnic Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2017
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    291
    I maintain there can sometimes be exceptions made. If none scream when POTUS pardons felons by the hundreds I doubt that the pardon or act on behalf of an individual or two would cause meaningful ripples in the outcry of the vox populi.
     
    #21
    Patsy Faye and Frank Sanoica like this.
  22. Sheldon Scott

    Sheldon Scott Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    3,478
    So who is going to choose which individual or two should be the exceptions? It wouldn't be fair to make exceptions for some and not others, so here we are back to letting everyone disregard our laws.
     
    #22
    Harry Havens likes this.
  23. Kalvin Mitnic

    Kalvin Mitnic Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2017
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    291
    Fair? You expect fair? Life ain't fair. Cancer isn't fair. Laws ain't either. Some guilty get convicted some not. Some cheat on welfare some not.Some get pardoned some not. Who would choose ? The same authorities that choose now but with defined exceptions, on merit.. Reason should choose not draconian principal.
     
    #23
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2017
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  24. Bill Boggs

    Bill Boggs Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    For many years we invited Mexican workers over to work the crops, and hold job s with small businesses, work not offered to American citizens because Americans demanded higher wages or considered this work beneath them. There is/was not a large farmer or any size rancher in south or west Texas that didn't hire what used to cue called wetbacks. They preferred them. They considered them harder workers, they could pay them much less and they often violated US laws to do so. They allowed them to assimilate in this country and helped them do so. This was done all along the border with Mexico from California to Texas. I grew up in Texas worked there all my working life and have never worked for one company that didn't hire illegals, and have some unofficial plan in place in case immigration people raided. When immigration caught someone and deported them, most often they would be back in a week or two and would get their job back. We brought much of this illegal immigration upon ourselves. Word was put out what illegals needed to do to stay in the U. S. Not by the illegals themselves but by white business owners seeking cheap labor. It just got out of hand.I have seen it all my working life in the state of Texas. Lawmakers have talked about this since forever, influenced by American business, American Farmers and ranchers, and hoodwinked it. We sort of brought it on ourselves. Mexicans didn't drift across the border for no reason. They had to have work and we gladly provided it and in many places, still do. We ourselves are much to blame for this individual and are now betraying him. We cannot however, admit to our own sins.
     
    #24
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
    Kalvin Mitnic and Frank Sanoica like this.
  25. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    @Bill Boggs
    How much I appreciate your thoughts, as well as content from your own experience! I see things in a similar light: good, hard-working folks just trying to make a living to raise families, most religiously inclined, not willing to break ANY laws except those which kept them bound in, basically, servitude in their birthplace. They broke U.S. law by coming here, found employment, stuck to it, earned far more money here under "servitude conditions" than they would have below the border, hurt no one really, as Americans CAN NOT, and WILL NOT, work in a field 8 hours in 110` temperatures pulling out invasive weeds from between cotton plants. I've seen them doing it, marveled at their tenacity, their resilience, the fact that 8 hours similar drudgery would kill me. Felt sorry for them. Nonetheless, they were far better off, far happier, than they had been in Mexico.

    Give these people a BREAK, for Christ's sake! Frank
     
    #25
    Bill Boggs and Gloria Mitchell like this.

Share This Page