That is an extremely false thing to say. It is a lie. I said nothing like that, nor have I thought that. I quoted the Pope, the Holy Father, the person that traditionally Catholics respected. This was disingenuous and uncharitable.
You’re confusing human capital with economic capital.
Plenty of children are raised by a single parent or extended family because one parent broke the law. It’s not an excuse the waive the law.
I think you are playing with a strawman. Everyone recognizes that most illegals have skills, from laborer on up, that is not disputed. The question is about whether we need to import people with those skills, not whether they have skills
And why is it that Dems are fighting tooth and nail against better border security?
Why did he ignore his review summons, where the immigration judge doles out those pardons?
This is whataboutism. The children you mentioned do suffer. Sometimes their sufferings are not alleviated - for whatever reason. That does not mean it is right to forego every other opportunity to alleviate suffering of children.LeafByNiggle:
Plenty of children are raised by a single parent or extended family because one parent broke the law.
Not so. I have seen that very argument against immigration - both legal and illegal - offered many times in this forum. I am not setting up a strawman argument. Others on your side of this debate have already done that. But if you think it is a non-issue you are free to ignore my rebuttal to it.
That might be a question for a thread about immigration in general. This thread only about Jorge Garcia and those like him who were brought here by their parents when they were young. Considerations of whether we “need” their skills are way down on the list of considerations to decide this case. The welfare of the children is a more significant one.
Nor Jorge. And now you see why the strawman argument claimed above was not a strawman argument at all. Here you are advancing that argument yourself.
I don’t know. Maybe you should ask them.
OK, I’ll bite. Why?
Jorge has had consideration, he has been allowed to stay. We can only speculate but I expect if he had not ignored his review meeting, he would not have been arrested. My analogy with people on probation is valid, we also arrest white collar criminals that break their parole terms. It doesn’t mean they go back to prison but it does teach them to honor their parole terms. Jorge will likely come away with the same lesson, as should all others on similar visas.
There is one significant difference. One is a criminal, the other is not.
I quote only the part I am responding to. If anyone wants to read your entire post they can easily follow the link to do that. I did not take your comments out of context, did I? I only deleted your supporting comments because I was not responding to them.
The reason that I did not quote “It’s not an excuse to waive the law” the first time is that I was not claiming that it was an excuse. I was responding to the idea of citing some children for whom we cannot alleviate their suffering as a reason to forego alleviating the suffering of other children. None of your supporting comments that I left out had anything to say in that regard.
I don’t dispute your speculation.
I don’t know the circumstances surrounding Jorge’s failure to report. If it were as easy as you say, I find it hard to imagine what motivation he would have not to report. Since you are relying heavily on this failure to justify his deportation, I would like to know what you think his motivation could possibly have been.
That’s because I have nothing to say on the issue. But if you say something about it I would be glad to comment on it.
So, is your point that Jorge and his wife are just extremely unconsiderate parents? So bad that the children would be better off taken away from them? I don’t get what you are driving at with all this commentary about missed chances.
You mean the case is not yet decided? Maybe I misunderstood. I thought it was.
Well, they both meet with a judge that reviews their case and the terms and conditions that allow them to roam freely. In both scenarios if you break the terms, the judge can take corrective action. For a white collar criminal, you might go to jail. For an immigration violation, you might be deported.
I thought he was detained, pending his hearing. I hope this is so and the judge is lenient.
I wasn’t commenting on your relationship with God, just using your comment as a segway to cite a general example.
You are right, he was deported.
Even the ones that were here before the US was annexed? Also, what makes you say that, are there not third-generation and further along families and folks (if not earlier than that) who have been able to be integrated and ingrained within American Society?
Indeed. I briefly dated a young adult Hispanic man who didn’t speak any Spanish and was just as “American” as the rest of us. I, a bilingual white woman, spoke better Spanish than he did and probably knew more about traditional Latino culture.CatholicSpirit:
Even the ones that were here before the US was annexed? Also, what makes you say that, are there not third-generation and further along families and folks (if not earlier than that) who have been able to be integrated and ingrained within American Society?
I’m open to arguments regarding the immigration policy debate but I am concerned about the insinuations of some posters in this forum.
What are you talking about? Honoring the American flag is not a requirement for citizenship, let alone a requirement for immigrants. And banishing all other flags is just un-American. Besides, when has Jorge or his family done this?
This is simply not true. Right to assemble does not limit free speech, but is an extension of it,whether I assemble under a banner containing a Mexican flag, or a Confederate flag.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-plans-courthouse-arrests-20180131-story.html