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.
pnewton said:
40.png
po18guy:
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.
Click to expand...
The deportation order came under the previous administration (2008), as did the appelate court upholding the deportation order. All of that came about under the previous administration. What the appellate court DID do was do allow him to remain until 2009 to settle his personal affairs. He remained well past the time appointed by the court for him to leave.

So I really fail to see how this is the fault of the current president. Under what conditions should ICE under Trump ignore a court order, even one issued under the previous administration?
 
maybe it is not the same thing but I don’t even know this man, never met him in my life. How would I be able to show, for sure, that I have compassion? If I knew him and he lived close by I could loan him money, wire him a few bucks to mexico when he goes, ,kind of watch after his family etc. Ill gladly sign a petition to reform immigration laws for kids who came here young but what else?

I do not know or understand where you got tripped up on “fairness” so cant answer for that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Typical whataboutism deflection that is not dependent on the outcome of this case.
Click to expand...
so you don’t think all similar cases should be judged the same way? do you really care about breaking up families or is just this one family important?
LeafByNiggle said:
So you just naturally assume that the child of an illegal immigrant must be living in low-income housing?
Click to expand...
the reference wasn’t to him but to illegal immigration in general, answering LLD
LeafByNiggle said:
Shame!
Click to expand...
the shame is he didn’t follow the order of the court and now wants pity
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Typical whataboutism deflection that is not dependent on the outcome of this case.
Click to expand...
so you don’t think all similar cases should be judged the same way?
Click to expand...
Whether I do or do not is not the issue. And there are questions as to what kind of similarity you are talking about. How similar? The one you mentioned is not even about immigration, and includes a totally separate discussion - the question of how weed should be treated legally. Let’s stick to the issue of this thread, which is Jorge Garcia and his family.
LeafByNiggle said:
So you just naturally assume that the child of an illegal immigrant must be living in low-income housing?
Click to expand...
the reference wasn’t to him but to illegal immigration in general, answering LLD
Click to expand...
OK, so long as you are not using that as an argument why pardoning Jorge specifically would be harmful.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The one you mentioned is not even about immigration,.
Click to expand...
no, the question is breaking up families. the offense shouldn’t be the issue if you were concerned with families. but the families are just an emotional card for the real goal of allowing illegals to stay in the country.
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The one you mentioned is not even about immigration,.
Click to expand...
no, the question is breaking up families.
Click to expand...
But we cannot decide every question that touches on breaking up families by ignoring all other details of the cases. These other details have an impact on the decision. That is why the invitation to declare one answer for every such case is a deflection.
 
Brendan said:
Under what conditions should ICE under Trump ignore a court order, even one issued under the previous administration?
Click to expand...
In this administration? When it is an influential friend of the President. Then a complete pardon is in order.
 
Accept my apology if I came across accusatory. I tried not to do that, but I got caught up in my own thoughts. Just as wealth is dangerous to salvation, so is living in a prosperous society. It takes effort to get beyond thinking only about our life and realizing there are others that we are called to help. Our country is the rich man and the third world is Lazarus.

I know this issue is not the same as abortion, but it still is a pro-life issue. And like the woman who aborts and inconvenient child, we have to be honest with ourselves that whatever our position, we are not taking into account our own personal convenience or wealth. I know immigration is not as black and white as abortion, but the principle of putting the needs of others first is just as non-negotiable. That is what Pope Francis spoke to when he said he did not know there were negotiable moral issues.
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
These other details have an impact on the decision.
Click to expand...
yes, like staying when you had an order to leave
Click to expand...
That’s not an additional detail. It is just a restatement of the infraction. I think one of the most important details is that he has children who have never lived anywhere else, has a business, is paying his own way, is not harming anyone.
 
pnewton said:
Accept my apology if I came across accusatory. I tried not to do that, but I got caught up in my own thoughts. Just as wealth is dangerous to salvation, so is living in a prosperous society. It takes effort to get beyond thinking only about our life and realizing there are others that we are called to help. Our country is the rich man and the third world is Lazarus.

I know this issue is not the same as abortion, but it still is a pro-life issue. And like the woman who aborts and inconvenient child, we have to be honest with ourselves that whatever our position, we are not taking into account our own personal convenience or wealth. I know immigration is not as black and white as abortion, but the principle of putting the needs of others first is just as non-negotiable. That is what Pope Francis spoke to when he said he did not know there were negotiable moral issues.
Click to expand...
Maybe some people have the political opinion that Mexico would be better off if the population stayed home, instead of running off to the USA. Why is that the assumption, that the best thing for Latin and South Americans is to immigrate to the US? Why would you say that immigrating to the US is a pro-life issue? Is it some latent racism?
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
Why would you say that immigrating to the US is a pro-life issue? Is it some latent racism?
Click to expand...
That was the Pope, several bishops, and my priest that say immigration is a pro-life issue. No, it is not latent racism. I do not begin to know what is best for any individual, nor would I suggest actively seeking people to immigrate to the United States.

I will give you kudos for the oddest use of a race card I have seen played in a long while.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I think one of the most important details is that he has children who have never lived anywhere else, has a business, is paying his own way, is not harming anyone.
Click to expand...
did he have these children when he was originally ordered to leave? he knew what he was doing. you ignore his personal responsibility in all of this. he made choices and must live with the consequences as we all do.

he could have left when he was supposed to and raised his family in mexico and that is all they would have known.

you keep saying he has a business, are you willing to kick the illegal immigrants who don’t have a business out? is the business, etc. really important to you or just a hook to hang on to.

the harm is the same under the past amnesty, it encourages more illegal immigration.
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I think one of the most important details is that he has children who have never lived anywhere else, has a business, is paying his own way, is not harming anyone.
Click to expand...
did he have these children when he was originally ordered to leave? he knew what he was doing. you ignore his personal responsibility in all of this. he made choices and must live with the consequences as we all do.
Click to expand...
Do his children deserve to suffer now when we could easily prevent that suffering? Regardless of what you think about Jorge not going back to country he hardly knows either, his kids should not suffer. This decision to deport him is harming his children - who, I might add, are US citizens - not that it should matter.
you keep saying he has a business, are you willing to kick the illegal immigrants who don’t have a business out? is the business, etc. really important to you or just a hook to hang on to.
Click to expand...
I gather it is important to your side because one common argument is the illegal immigrants have no employable skills and end up sucking off the government teat for their whole lives. It is important to point out that such is not the case for Jorge, which is why I mention it.
the harm is the same under the past amnesty, it encourages more illegal immigration.
Click to expand...
Better border security is the way to prevent more illegal immigration. Besides, the situation with Jorge’s family is partly our fault for letting him stay so long and raise a family. Once that happened, we have an obligation to alleviate a situation that we allowed to develop.

Are you opposed to pardons generally, or just to this potential pardon?
 
I get it. I think there should be more charitable immigration laws. But right now, there is not. So I think that it’s not right to blame the government when someone knows the possible consequences for their choices. And that’s what people do all the time. I have heard people say that they are against the government because the government won’t give their family legal status. The government still does not owe anyone amnesty just because they really want it. They can be as unfair as they want and until the law changes, one must weigh the consequences of their choices and deal with the consequences. I see illegals all the time. I’m in southern California. Im not in favor of deporting every one of them. I won’t report any. I’m just saying if one gets caught, they played the game and they lost. I have no problem if a illegal comes here and works their whole life and never gets caught and dies here. Good for them. They were law abiding and just tried to make a better life for themselves. But if they get caught I won’t raise a fist at the government for saying “you came in illegally. Please leave in a year” they still have to uphold the law while trying to be charitable. It’s not easy I’m sure because people on both sides are angry for them either being too lenient or not lenient enough.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top