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

[Allie1]

Interesting. So, if I withdraw my own money as cash from the bank the bankers are obligated to report me to the government. But an illegal can open a bank account no problem. These incongruent facts demonstrate the conspiracy to tacitly allow illegals carried out by our government

Initially I had no idea what you were talking about. Then I found this on the internet. Apparently if you deposit or withdraw $10000 or more in cash from a bank then the bank needs to file a cash trasaction report (CTR) with some obscure government agency that I’ve admittedly never heard of before… FinCen ( Financial Crimes enforcement network). This agency detects money laundering.
First of all I had no idea that this existed so your post made me search and learn something new. But I don’t know how these 2 things (Itins and CTRs) are specifically a conspiracy carried out by illegal aliens.
rrbi.co/youre-not-allowed-to-duck-transaction-reporting-requirements

 

[exnihilo]

Actually the bank is supposed to report you even in situations where you withdraw less than $10,000. And if you have that much cash on you police can seize it.

The point is if the government will go to the trouble to have banks report on the very private financial transactions of individuals then why would it allow people who are illegal to open bank accounts. The government demands reporting on perfectly legal activity done by law abiding citizens. But at the same time looks the other way at illegals even having accounts. There is no way an illegal should be able to have a bank account. But apparently they can.

 

[Allie1]

Actually the bank is supposed to report you even in situations where you withdraw less than $10,000. And if you have that much cash on you police can seize it.

The point is if the government will go to the trouble to have banks report on the very private financial transactions of individuals then why would it allow people who are illegal to open bank accounts

You are right. It is discussed in the blog that I posted. That if people start systematically structuring their cash deposits or withdrawals to less then $10000 to let’s say, $9000 (just some random number that I pulled out of my head). To appear that you are systematically structuring your cash deposits and withdrawals to avoid the bank filing a CTR, then the bank needs to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). To this government agency. Apparently from this article, a SAR is more serious than a CTR.

But again, apparently this was started from the patriot act to detect money laundering. I don’t understand how this benefits illegal immigrants and how this is a conspiracy for them

 

[psc17]

do you think it is that easy to apply for citizenship .my indian friend ,who is a medical professional and has immigrated here legally ,since 2003, thru a working visa permit ,has not been granted yet his greencard ,yes greencard or permanent resident visa!he and his family are getting distraught of waiting, more than 12 yrs ago.forget about citizenship ,its likely they will be granted to them ,when they’re dead already.majority of the posters here are literally ignorant on how immigration works .they keep posting here , without even doing a minor research,pathetic!

 

[Maximilian75]

When did I say it was easy to apply?

I have also said

I will say, the US immigration system is broken. However, that does not overrule the rule of law and the fact that he should not be here.

 

[MonteRCMS]

I have a friend who is an attorney in his home country. He has jumped through every legal hoop in this country. It really BUGS him when illegal aliens lie, cheat and steal.

 

[pnewton]

We are bound to take care of those closest to us first, therefore immigration policy must necessarily be ‘self-interested’.

Again, the Church teaches preferential treatment for the poor, not the cousin. Rejection of this principle, if not all its applications is dissension from Catholic doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

Amnesty isn’t necessary.

There is room for middle ground here. Amnesty or deportation are not the only two options. For the majority of illegal immigrants here, those who have not entered twice or committed a criminal offense, their violation of the law is civil. For most other civil penalties a fine is assessed, often allowed to be paid over time when there is need.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Several people here have referenced the idea of “the universal destination of goods”. The earliest reference I have found to this phrae is in the 1981 encyclical of St. John Paul II: Encyclical “On Human Work”
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
September 14, 1981

I’m not totally sure how the “universal destination of goods” refers to immigration law?
…
65. Furthermore, in the Church’s teaching, ownership has never been understood in a way that could constitute grounds for social conflict in labor. As mentioned above, property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of “capital” in opposition to “labor”–and even to practice exploitation of labor–is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labor, they cannot even be possessed for possession’s sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession–whether in the form of private ownership or in the form of public or collective ownership–is that they should serve labor and thus by serving labor that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labor and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In the course of the decades since the publication of the encyclical Rerum novarum, the Church’s teaching has always recalled all these principles, going back to the arguments formulated in a much older tradition, for example, the well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas.[22]

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02le.htm

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I think that there is something that is unaddressed here - - the idea of fairness or unfairness. A lot of people wait years, do a lot of paperwork, get medical tests, get fingerprints / bio-identification done, pay hundreds of dollars in fees, to do things the right way. Sometimes it takes years, or decades, doing this the LEGAL way. Just because people APPLY is no guarantee that they will get approval.

Meanwhile, some people think that because they snuck across a border, or were snuck across by their parents, get some kind of special privilege of jumping to the front of the line.

Would some people in favor of DACA, or some sort of legal favor to the undocumented, please address this idea of unfairness?

By the way, one thing that would solve some of this problem is for the US to simply increase the allowed amount of immigrants to enter this year. It would require no change in laws, just a simple increase. Why does no one talk about this option?

 

[tweedlealice]

If they increase population allowed this year, can it be reduced next year?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think that there is something that is unaddressed here - - the idea of fairness or unfairness. A lot of people wait years, do a lot of paperwork, get medical tests, get fingerprints / bio-identification done, pay hundreds of dollars in fees, to do things the right way. Sometimes it takes years, or decades, doing this the LEGAL way. Just because people APPLY is no guarantee that they will get approval.

Meanwhile, some people think that because they snuck across a border, or were snuck across by their parents, get some kind of special privilege of jumping to the front of the line.

Would some people in favor of DACA, or some sort of legal favor to the undocumented, please address this idea of unfairness?

Certainly. Granting DACA protection to dreamers does not in any way harm those who have waited legally. I am reminded of the gospel story in Matthew 20: 1-16, the Workers in the Vineyard. Some workers were hired early in the day and worked the whole day. Some were hired at midday and some were hired near the end of the day. They all received the same wage. The ones that had worked the whole day complained that it was unfair for the late-comers to get the same pay as them. The master reminded them that they agreed to that wage, and that his generosity toward the late-comers in no way harmed them. In other words, it was not unfair to pay those that worked only one hour the same as those that worked the whole day.

Same thing here. It is not unfair to give those who did not stand in a 10-year line the same benefit as those that did, because our compassion toward those that came here the “wrong” way does not hurt those who came here the right way. It is a twisted sense of fairness that causes the workers in the vineyard who worked all day and the immigrants who followed the letter of the procedures, to think that they are being unfairly treated just because others have been shown compassion.

It is a disturbing gospel story, but Jesus meant it to be disturbing.

 

[Seeksadvice]

Mr. Garcia is a criminal. The moment he entered the country illegally, he broke the law. This isn’t a situation where somebody thought he had done things the correct way and paperwork got messed up. Sorry, but Mr. Garcia is a criminal who wound up dealing with the consequences.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Mr. Garcia is a criminal. The moment he entered the country illegally, he broke the law. This isn’t a situation where somebody thought he had done things the correct way and paperwork got messed up. Sorry, but Mr. Garcia is a criminal who wound up dealing with the consequences.

We are not disputing the fact the he was breaking the law. We are calling for compassion in spite of that fact. Either that or change the law so that he becomes legal, and therefore not a criminal.

 

[upant]

I am reminded of the gospel story in Matthew 20: 1-16, the Workers in the Vineyard.

doesn’t fit. the workers in the vineyard were all let in the vineyard by the owner (legally). there is no mention of any who stole into the vineyard without the owners permission (illegally).

nice try though

We are calling for compassion in spite of that fact.

what about all the families broken up because people commit other crimes. do they deserve to be freed because of their family? where is the compassion for them?

 

[starlady]

I think that there is something that is unaddressed here - - the idea of fairness or unfairness. A lot of people wait years, do a lot of paperwork, get medical tests, get fingerprints / bio-identification done, pay hundreds of dollars in fees, to do things the right way. Sometimes it takes years, or decades, doing this the LEGAL way. Just because people APPLY is no guarantee that they will get approval.

Meanwhile, some people think that because they snuck across a border, or were snuck across by their parents, get some kind of special privilege of jumping to the front of the line.

Would some people in favor of DACA, or some sort of legal favor to the undocumented, please address this idea of unfairness?

By the way, one thing that would solve some of this problem is for the US to simply increase the allowed amount of immigrants to enter this year. It would require no change in laws, just a simple increase. Why does no one talk about this option?

I don’t think anyone is advocating totally open borders (at least, I haven’t seen that here). In fact, I think a lot of people are still in favor of increased border security. The hard part is what to do with the millions of undocumented immigrants who are already here, many of whom have established lives and families. In these cases, to me it would seem that justice tempered with mercy would be appropriate.

It would be nice to adjust the number of certain visas available each year. Right now, people who petition their siblings from countries such as Mexico, China or India have to wait 20 years for the petition approval (and that doesn’t count the actual visa process). They aren’t the only ones. I understand wanting diversity in the make up of the immigrants who come in each year, but 20 years seems ridiculous to me.

 

[MonteRCMS]

I understand that about one million legal immigrants are admitted to the United States each year.

And that for many years zero, no, legal immigrants were admitted.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

So, you don’t think that the law should be fairly applied to everyone? Some people get a pass? This makes no sense to me.
How is that fair if the federal government applies mercy to some, but not others? It’s not a personal friendship. It’s not a family relationship. It’s a matter of law. Do you think that some people should be prosecuted for murder or other crimes, and other people deserve leniency or mercy from other crimes? I’m trying to figure out the mindset here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I am reminded of the gospel story in Matthew 20: 1-16, the Workers in the Vineyard.

doesn’t fit. the workers in the vineyard were all let in the vineyard by the owner (legally). there is no mention of any who stole into the vineyard without the owners permission (illegally).

You are picking at an irrelevant detail while ignoring the real point which was thar those who say it is unfair cannot point to any real harm done to those who waited, other than their jealously that someone else is receiving a benefit. That was the message of the gospel and that was my point too. If you disagree, please tell me what harm they suffered specifically because compassion was shown to someone else. It didn’t make their wait any longer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, you don’t think that the law should be fairly applied to everyone? Some people get a pass? This makes no sense to me.
How is that fair if the federal government applies mercy to some, but not others?

Have you ever heard of a Presidential Pardon? Trump issued one not long ago. See Matthew 20:1-16.