Jorge Garcia, husband and father of two, deported Jan 15 2018 (MLK Day)

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Old_Maid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The_Old_Maid

Guest
Critics say this was unjust.

ICE defends its decision.

The family appeared live on The View on Thursday, January 18, with the wife and children in the TV studio and the deported husband and father appearing on screen from Mexico City, where he is staying with an aunt.

Aside from having come into the country as a 10-year-old, Garcia had committed no crimes and was a dedicated family man and productive taxpayer.

Thoughts?
 
If this situation was portrayed on The View, I rather imagine they really didn’t tell anything but the left wing liberal spin on the situation. Besides, if Mr Garcia had been here for ten years or more and was the honest, upright, tax paying citizen claimed, why didn’t he apply for legal status?
He cam illegally. He has received the fruits of that effort. Now let him attempt to immigrate legally. I am sure he can find some sponsors from the panel of The View.
Oh, and did he have his family before or after he arrived?
 
Last edited:
In the intervening years, has he made any attempt at “normalizing” his residence?

As well, I wonder if reliable news source “The View” did any exposés on the various Obama deportations - over eight years…

Crickets.
 
Last edited:
Well, I imagine that since he was ten years old when he arrived, he married his (born-citizen) wife and had his (born-citizen) children after he arrived.

I’m guessing that people won’t necessarily take The New York Times’s word for it either:

“He has no criminal record, pays taxes and has long sought legal status, according to his family.”

Or his local paper:

“He’s been trying for years to find a path to live legally in the U.S., with he and his wife spending $125,000 in legal costs and fees since 2005, says his wife.”

(As for Obama-era deportations, you’re right that that isn’t making the news, today anyway.)
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
In the intervening years, has he made any attempt at “normalizing” his residence?
Click to expand...
Yes, numerous times, according to the article.

The bottom line is this we were given just one more lie, that ICE was focusing on criminals. Our administration, and the Chief Executive is the most dishonest public figure I know outside of the prison system. I do not know why anyone would ever want to cooperate with or trust the federal government under this President.
 
Last edited:
I’m a Mexicano. I have lived in México my whole life but I have visited the United States, legally. I also went to law school for a while (so I have studied the laws of immigration and nationality, etc.)

This whole “debate” is absurd to me. If a person breaks the law, what is there to say? It’s not like people are not aware of the immigration laws of the USA. And, furthermore there are legal ways to normalize their situation, if they choose to abandon México and move to the USA. If they don’t meet the requirements a government imposes, what is there to say?

Now, if the government was to ilegally kick out a citizen of the USA (for racial, religious or political reasons), then, we would have something to argue about.
 
Last edited:
He never had any right to be here in the first place, so there’s no injustice.

The US government also isn’t separating the family. They’re perfectly free to go to Mexico with him.
 
he was supposed to voluntarily depart around 2008.

what is the rest of the story?

from nbcnews
“Mr. Jorge Garcia-Martinez, an unlawfully present citizen of Mexico, was ordered removed by an immigration judge in June 2006,” ICE’s Khaalid Walls said in a statement to NBC News, adding that Garcia “appealed his removal in 2008 to the Board of Immigration Appeals, where it was remanded back to the lower court, which subsequently allowed him to voluntarily depart.”
Click to expand...
 
My thoughts are that the segment of the population that want no border control (which is why we have this story in the first place) trot out these sympathy stories to promote the continued lack of enforcement of our immigration law.
upant said:
“Mr. Jorge Garcia-Martinez, an unlawfully present citizen of Mexico, was ordered removed by an immigration judge in June 2006,” ICE’s Khaalid Walls said in a statement to NBC News, adding that Garcia “appealed his removal in 2008 to the Board of Immigration Appeals, where it was remanded back to the lower court, which subsequently allowed him to voluntarily depart.”
Click to expand...
What a lot of people don’t know is most ‘deportations’ are voluntary. The illegal walks out of the court and can choose to leave or not. It isn’t that they are actually transported to the border and relased. This is why so many illegals never leave. They don’t really have to.
 
But why does it matter? He knew he could be deported, he didnt play by the rules of the game… its terribly sad, but we have laws for a reason.
 
Salutations
Illegal immigrants commit a crime and a sin. We are to follow the Rule of Law. Render to Caesar, etc.
The church has embraced this sin, as if Jesus would encourage them to sin. Jesus brings us home to heaven. How will their countries not improve if they don’t stay and fight for it. We had to. We’re fighting for other countries. Our CIA is in Mexico and Central America, clandestinely.
Mistakes will be made in our transition. He can challenge this from his home country. His family should go with him. He needs to register to come in legally. Just don’t live in cities. Live in country. Farm the land. It won’t be easy.
Rule of Law.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
 
tweedlealice said:
Illegal immigrants commit a crime and a sin.
Click to expand...
I’ve made my opposition to illegal immigration very clear, but this proposition can hardly be defended. Many civil laws are purely penal, meaning that they do not directly bind in conscience (at least prior to a judicial sentence), and I see no grounds for holding that our immigration laws would be different.

Our government certainly needs to do a better job removing them, but it does not seem that illegal aliens can be accused of sin prior to a removal order from a judge.

 
The argument is made that he have plenty of time to become legal. That is a crock of fertilizer. There is no path to citizenship for all. Someone above said that anyone in this situation should normalize their situation. Yet then the same people will throw a fit if you suggest that all who want be given an opportunity for citizenship.

So which is it? Should all be able to gain citizenship? If one does not believe this should be available to all, then the argument that he had time to normalize his status is invalid.

Our bishops have come out against rescinding DACA. Though that does not apply to this man because of age, the principle behind it is exactly the same. He has committed no crime, and this is the only country he knows. He is a contributor to society. Pope Francis stated yesterday, “If he is a good pro-life believer, he must understand that family is the cradle of life and one must defend its unity.” Separating children from their parents “isn’t something that bears fruit for either the youngsters or their families.”
 
Last edited:
apply for citizenship at the Consulate like everyone else… from the Albanians to the Zimbabweans.
 
pnewton said:
this is the only country he knows
Click to expand...
If a family began squatting in a house while the children were too young to have a say, would that give the children a right to remain after being caught?
Separating children from their parents “isn’t something that bears fruit for either the youngsters or their families.”
Click to expand...
His kids are dual citizens. He’s perfectly free to take them to Mexico with him.
 
Adverse possession. It is a real thing, based in English common law and still legal today. More to the point, it is based in the Catholic doctrine of the universal destination of goods. That is also why this deportation is immoral, in my opinion. Americans, particularly the right, think of America for Americans, and forget that all things belong to God and are destined for the good of all mankind. That is Catholic doctrine, not something that is a matter of politics.

“You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.” - St. Ambrose

There was a Joe Walsh song with this line"
I have a mansion. Forget the price.
I’ve never been there. They tell me it’s nice.
Click to expand...
This would be an example of someone living contrary to the doctrine of universal destination of goods.
 
Last edited:
In the case of México and countries whose laws are based on the Derecho Romano (Roman Law) we have a legal “concept” called: Usu capio or Usucapión. In certain situations, illegal habitation or constant use of a “tangible good” can be regularised after several years if the rightful owner does not claim ownership, even if the person who habitated there or used said item was technically breaking the law when he “acquired” those rights (as long as he was acting in good faith).

Actually, I would see American law as something in line, not opposed, to this line of legal reasoning. That is: sometimes the illegal immigrant has a right to apply for legal residence, and the number of years he’s been illegaly in the country and his conduct (as well as other factors, such as his motives for entering the country) determine his chances to stay. If he fails to demonstrate he has a LEGAL right to stay, that’s it. Which brings us pretty much to what I opined above.

The problem from a philosophical perspective (of Law) is: It’s very hard to argue in favour of someone who broke the law with full knowledge of what he was doing. Add to that the fact that opportunities were given to mend that situation, that the individual can not be considered “apátrida”, nor a “refugee” nor was he granted “political assylum” (none of those legal “concepts” apply). In layman’s terms: the person had (and continues to have) choices, as has been pointed out by others, above.

Oh, and there’s the problem of “soberanía” (sovereignty) and the fact that “nationality” is not to be taken lightly (In view of the legal, fiscal, etc. ramifications). (That’s all I’ve got, it’s very late and I’m half asleep already 😃 )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top