B
billsherman
Guest
Which have now been ended because of this policy change.
If this policy change stands, this woman, and people like her will be deported to their deaths.
- Status
If this policy change stands, this woman, and people like her will be deported to their deaths.
V
Victoria33
Guest
No, they can once again apply for a deferment, they must contact ICE on this.
One of the articles above I posted states that.
One of the articles above I posted states that.
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
ICE will not grant them. I will eat my hat if they do.
These deferments are discretionary, non-reviewable, and non-appealable.
“Zero tolerance.”
Last edited:
It is sinful, but not evil…?
D
dvdjs
Guest
It is sinful to hate people, but it is not sinful to hate evil behavior.
IOW hate the sin not the sinner.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-ice-grants-immigrant-grandpa-d
I am sure there are many more cases.
So, false.
Jimmy al Douad with a record of 20 convictions skipped out from ICE non-custodial supervision, that is another topic as well but somewhere, there has to be some respect for the law and help from the migrant.
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
Ah, it was in 2017, so more than two years before this change in policy. Also, it appears to have nothing to do with migrants in this program. So, I stand by what I wrote before. ICE will deny any request, and I will eat my hat if I’m wrong.
The correct link: https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-ice-grants-immigrant-grandpa-deportation-stay-reports
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
Union City man facing deportation given extension
Catalino Guerrero walked out of his meeting with ICE officials and must report back May 22.
amp.northjersey.com
Same story. If one is now saying in regards to this program that would seem to make sense, since apparently this policy just began and even then, we do not know if it has not happened.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Sinful behavior too is being against law enforcement and seeing innocents killed because laws are not enforced. There seems to be a blindspot about Americans who die per lax immigration, per fentanyl and heroin and per violence. That is evil, these people are our neighbors too. Love thy neighbor.
Also, it is very evident the asylum processed is greatly abused and good applicants may be denied or have to wait much, much longer.
Don’t tell me that the immigration system has no fraud, no matter what kind.
Also, it is very evident the asylum processed is greatly abused and good applicants may be denied or have to wait much, much longer.
Don’t tell me that the immigration system has no fraud, no matter what kind.
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
It’s not sinful to be opposed to unjust laws. Saying that it is a sin to be against that, or against unjust enforcement of laws, is a very slippery slope.
A
Annie
Guest
The difference is that withdrawal of extraordinary care differs from withdrawal of ordinary care.
Terri Schiavo died from dehydration, which was caused by the prohibition that she receive any hydration. Her nutrition was also prohibited.
Ordinary care is generally food, water, and comfort care.
Extraordinary care is most other medical treatment. There are some simple medical treatments which in certain circumstances would fall under ordinary care, such as use of antibiotics for a minor infection like a UTI [ETA] in a place where antibiotics are easily obtained.
Medical care can be ended or not started, knowing the patient will die, per the CCC:
Allowing someone to die of the underlying medical problem because the medical care has become burdensome is a different matter. The person dies from medical problem, not because of a condition caused by human action or inaction.
@dvdjs
FWIW: altho it seems that what might be happening is a switch from CBC to ICE, if indeed this is an attempt to deport people who have been here on medical visas, I think it is wrong to do so. My point here is to clarify what constitutes euthanasia.
Terri Schiavo died from dehydration, which was caused by the prohibition that she receive any hydration. Her nutrition was also prohibited.
Ordinary care is generally food, water, and comfort care.
Extraordinary care is most other medical treatment. There are some simple medical treatments which in certain circumstances would fall under ordinary care, such as use of antibiotics for a minor infection like a UTI [ETA] in a place where antibiotics are easily obtained.
Medical care can be ended or not started, knowing the patient will die, per the CCC:
Thus, euthanasia is causing the death of someone by omitting some care, such as food, or by taking an action with the intention of causing death.
Allowing someone to die of the underlying medical problem because the medical care has become burdensome is a different matter. The person dies from medical problem, not because of a condition caused by human action or inaction.
@dvdjs
FWIW: altho it seems that what might be happening is a switch from CBC to ICE, if indeed this is an attempt to deport people who have been here on medical visas, I think it is wrong to do so. My point here is to clarify what constitutes euthanasia.
Last edited:
F
F_Marturana
Guest
If Isabel dies it is surely by human action taking away the treatments keeping her alive.
My son was on a ventilator due to being premature. They expected him to live and grow. Taking a ventilator away from him would have been immoral.
My grandfather was on a vent at the end of his life . His vent was disconnected and then he passed away shortly after.
With treatment Isabel will live, and her doctors are also helping other children by using treatments developed on Isabel.
My son was on a ventilator due to being premature. They expected him to live and grow. Taking a ventilator away from him would have been immoral.
My grandfather was on a vent at the end of his life . His vent was disconnected and then he passed away shortly after.
With treatment Isabel will live, and her doctors are also helping other children by using treatments developed on Isabel.
A
Annie
Guest
Taking away the ventilator from your son would not have necessarily been immoral. It seems immoral to us because it is not an uncommon treatment, and it was not posing an undue burden on anyone.
However, removal from ventilators happens all the time. I knew a man who had himself removed because he had been extensively injured in an accident, and knew his care would pose an enormous hardship on his family with very little benefit. This was not immoral, according to the Church.
I would say that discontinuing the medical treatment of the people described would, on the face of it, be immoral because there is no undue burden on anyone.
However, before I get caught by an outrage-producing article, I want to know more. Just earlier this week, I was initially caught by such an article, but when I found out more, discovered that the original article was deficient in facts.
I do regret the apparent abruptness of the announcement, which provided a completely unnecessary stress for people who already have enough.
However, removal from ventilators happens all the time. I knew a man who had himself removed because he had been extensively injured in an accident, and knew his care would pose an enormous hardship on his family with very little benefit. This was not immoral, according to the Church.
I would say that discontinuing the medical treatment of the people described would, on the face of it, be immoral because there is no undue burden on anyone.
However, before I get caught by an outrage-producing article, I want to know more. Just earlier this week, I was initially caught by such an article, but when I found out more, discovered that the original article was deficient in facts.
I do regret the apparent abruptness of the announcement, which provided a completely unnecessary stress for people who already have enough.
T
Theo520
Guest
You aren’t reading carefully
It’s not their first deferrment
B
billsherman
Guest
The policy has now changed. There will be no further deferments.
ICE has the discretion to provide what they call “deferred action” or “prosecuturial discretion,” but under the Trump Administration they never do the later, and probably no longer the former. This case is a great example of how a zero tolerance policy is a poor idea.
Also, ICE’s decisions in these cases is final. No judge, no appeal, no review, no court.
T
Theo520
Guest
programs come and go, but deferments continue.
Immigration judges are still involved.
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
No they aren’t. Deferred action is an administrative action taken exclusively by ICE. It does not involve immigration judges at all. IJ’s work for the Department of Justice, not ICE. Since it is handled internally by ICE, there is only the review that ICE determines it should have - and ICE determines it should have no review. And Circuit Courts do not review such holdings because of the Chevron Deference to executive agencies.
You don’t seem willing to allow that this program is gone, so the people benefiting from it will be gone too. They will die because this program is gone. Sometimes a policy is just bad, and there is nothing you can do to make it sound good.
This policy will kill people. Full stop. Jesus wouldn’t deport this woman, so why should we?
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Bravo. Well said. Thank you.
T
Theo520
Guest
You clearly don’t live in the USA.
The courts here have full jurisdiction over the legislative branch, it’s called ‘checks & balances’. They have the ability to stop a deportation.
What Authority Do Immigration Courts Have?
Immigration courts generally decide if an alien is deportable. View full legal information from LegalMatchs online law library today.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Well said, QFT, qouted for truth.
Last edited:
- Status