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:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you brought that up. Adverse possession is the English analogue to the Roman law of prescription. The teaching of Catholic moralists* is that prescription follows the civil law (or canon law in the case of ecclesiastical goods), and requires at least negative good faith. Thus one who has been in possession of the property of another in good faith, even for a long time, is bound to return it if the conditions required by law are not met.

Applying the analogy to immigration, even though the subject of the OP was present here for a long time in negative good faith, no injustice is done by removing him. He is a citizen of Mexico, has no legal status in America, and therefore has no right to remain here.

Source*:

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.
Click to expand...
Nothing has indicated that he is in a condition of destitution, much less that this can only be remedied by legal residency in the United States. Given that that is not a consideration, we certainly are entitled to regulate immigration for the benefit of Americans.

In any case, even the long-term good of the world dictates that America should limit third world migration, apart from a consideration of the particular good of the American people. America gives large amounts of aid to the third world, and this would cease if America were to become an impoverished nation.
 
Last edited:
The problem is there really isn’t a path to legal citizenship for those brought to the country as children, unless they leave the country to apply. And once they leave the country they’re subject to a multi-year ban on reentry before they can reapply. So once he left the country he would not be able to enter again for a decade. After a decade he could start applying to come back in, but since he’s married he’d probably be denied any non-immigrant visa, so he’d have to probably wait another couple of years for the right visa to be processed.
 
CatholicSpirit said:
Kiss these Latinos’ rear ends, you just signed the death warrant for Jose the Commando to kill your whole family when men died in 2 wars to avoid that from happening to you
Click to expand...
Your imagery is inappropriate, but that is up to moderators. Also, Jorge Garcia was not a commando.
CatholicSpirit said:
They are lucky we let them leave alive.
Click to expand...
Your “Catholic Spirit” does not sound very pro-life?
 
Last edited:
I am a Christian and believe in things like, " Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one." (Colossians 4:6)
 
My point is, if this man is innocent, he is carrying the backlog of the damage other Latinos did to this country. It is like a man accused of hitting his wife across the face to correct her. Speak of it, and he will be murdered not due to his wrongful action, but due to the bruises and broken bones of women that came before him, done by others.

The Latino community has 25 or so years minimum flagrantly belittling us all. And, how many stones can I claim were cast as the first which indicated a response would happen? In all of our suffering, it is a shock that anything would ever come at all.
 
Last edited:
Although ICE is within the law here, it’s a terrible thing for his family. I would hope he can start the process of citizenship from Mexico and eventually come back. Situations such as this make me wonder if we shouldn’t just have a North American Union of States… 🤔
 
Last edited:
Immigration law is very specialized and goes through federal courts. I understand there are enough lawyers who are not knowledgeable in immigration law, but take these type of cases.

Jorge apparently had poor representation.

I don’t see the justice on this man having to leave. I thought the focus was supposed to be on “bad hombres” not fathers of families with no criminal records.

How will his children eat now? Mom is disabled. I guess go on public assistance. Yay, maga.

God forgive us. 😦
 
So much easier to dismiss real issues of social justice by politicizing them, huh?
 
Pobreton said:
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?
Click to expand...
If Jorge was 10 years old when he was brought here, it is unlikely that he made a conscious decision to break the law.
 
Pobreton said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Common Law had such a concept too. I believe in many or most US states it has been significantly circumscribed by statute.

One problem with this is that the American people have long favored strong enforcement of immigration law. But the state and local governments have largely done all that they can to encourage illegals. There is always present the idea that current illegals will get amnesty. In fact under Reagan there was an amnesty and possibly one other one I’m forgetting.

There has been at the very least tacit encouragement to ignore the law which resulted in significantly greater numbers of people ignoring the law. This has made the problem far worse than it should be. And I don’t think the idea of leniency in the law is compatible with an intentional, systematic disregard by the people responsible for enforcing it.
 
tweedlealice said:
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.
Click to expand...
It sure won’t be easy. But we should balance the potential harm done to this man and his family by deporting him now against the (supposed) harm to our nation if he is allowed to stay. We do harm to him and his whole family. That is why we should prioritize deportations against true criminals who are already doing great harm instead of mindlessly following a script.
 
Last edited:
Destroying lives is what this country does best, if you don’t want to be forced toward suicide, find someone else to talk to, somewhere else to live, some other path in life. United Suicide-baiters of 'Merica
 
Last edited:
exnihilo said:
How is that a straw man?
Click to expand...
You characterize the opposition position as not wanting any border control at all. You have to prove that before you can take that as the position that needs to be refuted. That will be hard to do, since the vast majority of those in favor of granting some path to citizenship for the dreamers also say we should have border security. They ask for compassion on these few dreamers - not a free pass to every drug dealer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top