Lincoln Park Husband & Dad Deported to Mexico after Living in the US for 30 Years

[Bham1982]

What a terrible shame. Too bad his parents decided so many years ago, to violate United States immigration & border laws.

No, it's too bad certain Americans today can't get over their hatred of nonwhites and provide a path to citizenship for law-abiding fellow countrymen.

[Johnnny5]

No, it's too bad certain Americans today can't get over their hatred of nonwhites and provide a path to citizenship for law-abiding fellow countrymen.

There's already a pathway to citizenship for law abiding immigrants. The U.S accepts more than one million legal immigrants every year, and the majority of those are people of color. No other country on this planet even comes close!

[Wesley Mouch]

No, it's too bad certain Americans today can't get over their hatred of nonwhites and provide a path to citizenship for law-abiding fellow countrymen.

There's a basic divide between left and right on this issue.

The left feels that limitations on immigration are fuelled by racism. That immigration should be pretty much open to anyone, regardless of citizenship.

The right feels that citizenship is important. That we need to enforce immigration laws. And that illegal immigrants and non-citizens are law-breakers.

Saying that an illegal immigrant is a 'law-abiding fellow countryman' says that you don't believe in immigration laws, and that you think the everyone is a 'countryman' -- even if they are citizens of another country here without the required legal documents.

Its my opinion that the left needs to understand that citizenship has value, and should not be granted to everybody. That devaluing citizenship won't end well. Even worse, is believing that those who value citizenship are racists. Although of course some are.

[bust]

The left feels that [blah blah blah].
That [blah blah blah].

The left [blah blah blah].

I haven't added to this thread since starting it. But now it's time.

Wesley, you often come here and try to make bogeymen out of the people you disagree with. You do it through misrepresentation and exaggeration, like you just did. You take an extreme example and misapply it as a stand in for them all.

I suggest you should stick to explaining what you feel, since you don't seem to have much grasp on the feelings of others.

Do you consider me "left"? I'm sure you do. I wrote my thoughts on immigration -- legal and otherwise -- here already. How about we compare what you say I think with what I actually do?

Imma qoute me:

"I'm not a Democrat -- I don't uncritically identify with any party -- but I much more closely align with the Democrats' policies than those of the Republicans, especially lately. No one asked, but here's what I think.

I hear you that we should not simply open our borders to everyone. Of course we should not. Yet despite how the right wants to paint Democrats, I can't think of a single one who wants that. Our first responsibility is with our fellow Americans, and about this we are all on the same page.

I think we need reasonable immigration policies that benefit Americans. After all receiving new immigrants does benefit Americans, unless it is managed incorrectly.

I think we need to strongly discourage illegal immigration. And I think we must be reasonable, ethical, and humane how we handle that. Separating children from their parents at the border is a gross violation of those principles. It is a gross violation of American principles in general. I think deporting people who have built their lives here after they were brought here as children is too.

It is crucial for discouraging illegal immigration to hold employers who hire illegal immigrants accountable for breaking the law. These law-breaking employers are after all only a tiny percentage of Americans, and they are by far the primary beneficiaries of illegal immigration, aside from the illegal immigrants themselves. They do this to keep wages artificially low and working conditions illegally poor. And as you suggested, this comes at the expense of Americans who would otherwise benefit from the job.

I don't buy the argument that employers can't find Americans willing to provide that labor. Because hiring illegal immigrants willing to accept less also comes at the expense of the wages and working conditions Americans could otherwise find. And many of those jobs that today are so often filled by illegal immigrants are some of the very same jobs I worked when I was young.

I think it is our duty as a principled nation to continue to welcome asylum seekers fleeing legitimate threats. It is furthermore our duty as a self-interested nation to reasonably ensure that means of entry is not abused.

And I think it is appropriate to include perceived merit / benefit to our nation as an input into the formula used to determine who is eligible to immigrate to the United States legally. As others have mentioned, all [[or almost all -- I'm not sure) other countries with functional governments do that.

Meanwhile, I am acutely aware how difficult it is today to immigrate to this country legally.

Both the way we handle illegal immigration and legal immigration need reform.

And hell no, I don't trust the Trump administration to do that."

[Wesley Mouch]

I haven't added to this thread since starting it. But now it's time.

Wesley, you often come here and try to make bogeymen out of the people you disagree with. You do it through misrepresentation and exaggeration, like you just did. You take an extreme example and misapply it as a stand in for them all.

I suggest you should stick to explaining what you feel, since you don't seem to have much grasp on the feelings of others.

It is nice to be loved. Thanks.

Sometimes it is helpful to try and accurately distill political positions -- to better discuss them.

Do you consider me "left"? I'm sure you do. I wrote my thoughts on immigration -- legal and otherwise -- here already. How about we compare what you say I think with what I actually do?

Sure.

Imma qoute me:

"I'm not a Democrat -- I don't uncritically identify with any party -- but I much more closely align with the Democrats' policies than those of the Republicans, especially lately. No one asked, but here's what I think.

Great. I would like to hear.

I hear you that we should not simply open our borders to everyone. Of course we should not. Yet despite how the right wants to paint Democrats, I can't think of a single one who wants that. Our first responsibility is with our fellow Americans, and about this we are all on the same page.

I don't see that we all think this. I 'feel' that the left sees all comers are refugees, which the right seems many of them as economic migrants.

Sure, that's a generalization of left and right [[which was my goal). But if its not true, help me understand how the 'left' distinguishes. Are all Hatians refugees even after 5 years? Is every Somalian a refugee? If not, what's the percentage? If a Columbian or Venezuelin makes it to our border, are they all refugees? What percentage of the population of those countries would be considered refugees if they could make the journey? Sure, these are rhetorical questions. We don't expect the full population of Mexico to move to the US as refugees. But I think there are large differences between how left and right see this -- and they are worth exploring if we wish to help the world as much as we can.

I think we need reasonable immigration policies that benefit Americans. After all receiving new immigrants does benefit Americans, unless it is managed incorrectly.

There's a subtle difference between you and me here. I am also pro-immigration. Simply 'receiving new immigrants' does not always benefit Americans. The new immigrants need to be adding value to the country. Some of that value can just be the willingness to work hard in manual labor. Some of that value is a degree in advanced medicine or computer science.

And additionally there's a question of volume. As above, how many immigrants can be added to our economy in a given year. If we look at Europe, will the volume they accepted be good for Europe and the world? Or is it undermining the countries who are losing their best and brightest?

Simply saying immigration is a benefit is certainly a point of contention between 'left' and 'right'

I think we need to strongly discourage illegal immigration. And I think we must be reasonable, ethical, and humane how we handle that. Separating children from their parents at the border is a gross violation of those principles. It is a gross violation of American principles in general. I think deporting people who have built their lives here after they were brought here as children is too.

Well yes, of course. But we can err by too much compassion too. Take Trudeau in Canada. Telling the Haitian population of the US that Canada is compassionate and takes all comers is not compassionate -- and its wrong. I believe over 50% of refugee applications end up being rejected.

It is crucial for discouraging illegal immigration to hold employers who hire illegal immigrants accountable for breaking the law. These law-breaking employers are after all only a tiny percentage of Americans, and they are by far the primary beneficiaries of illegal immigration, aside from the illegal immigrants themselves. They do this to keep wages artificially low and working conditions illegally poor. And as you suggested, this comes at the expense of Americans who would otherwise benefit from the job.

Where you and Trump seem to agree that is.

I don't buy the argument that employers can't find Americans willing to provide that labor. Because hiring illegal immigrants willing to accept less also comes at the expense of the wages and working conditions Americans could otherwise find. And many of those jobs that today are so often filled by illegal immigrants are some of the very same jobs I worked when I was young.

I too have never accepted that argument. [[Although of course a desperate refugee is likely to welcome miserable conditions to improve their family -- like my immigrant grandparents certainly did.)

I think it is our duty as a principled nation to continue to welcome asylum seekers fleeing legitimate threats. It is furthermore our duty as a self-interested nation to reasonably ensure that means of entry is not abused.

As noted earlier, its not 100% clear that the best policy is to resettle all refugees. Syria deserves good doctors just as much as the USA does. While individual doctors may be justified in leaving, it may be a mistake to drain Syria of its best.

And I think it is appropriate to include perceived merit / benefit to our nation as an input into the formula used to determine who is eligible to immigrate to the United States legally. As others have mentioned, all [[or almost all -- I'm not sure) other countries with functional governments do that.
...
And hell no, I don't trust the Trump administration to do that."

There we certainly agree. I don't trust Trump to do much right. However I am fine with the pendulum swinging back a bit. We've been too accepting of immigrants, viewing too many as refugees. The idea of a refugee is a limited one -- but we seem to apply it in a more unlimited way. I think the left and right disagree here -- and the debate on refugees is needed. Yes, true refugees need compassion. But our policies have turned everyone into a refugee, it seems.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Richard]

^ and you guys get butt hurt over my spelling?

[CassTechGrad]

JUN 14 2018 06:39PM EDT

[[WJBK) - A 21-year-old undocumented illegal alien was arraigned Thursday for the fatal hit and run of Wixom teen Justin Lee.
Miguel Ibarra Cerda was in court for the death of the 14-year-old who was riding a bicycle on Potter Road Monday.
The Mexico native, who prosecutors say has a sixth grade education, had been working as a server at Burrito King and staying in Commerce. Police feared he would flee the country due to Cerda being here illegally.

[bust]

PM Trudeau's came pretty close to saying he does welcome all in his famous tweet.

Have another look at Trudeau's tweet. He came nowhere close to saying Canada would "welcome all". Nor did he welcome economic migrants. He welcomed only refugees: "those fleeing persecution, terror & war".

If this is your evidence Trudeau told the Haitian population in the US that Canada "takes all comers" then he did not.

[Richard]

Have another look at Trudeau's tweet. He came nowhere close to saying Canada would "welcome all". Nor did he welcome economic migrants. He welcomed only refugees: "those fleeing persecution, terror & war".

If this is your evidence Trudeau told the Haitian population in the US that Canada "takes all comers" then he did not.

In all fairness Canada has been excepting Haitians,not long ago they were useing a civic center to process plane loads.

A lot of long term Haitians have been leaving Florida for Canada because basically all they have to say is they are fleeing violence and they are in.

2018 53 million across the world were fleeing violence across borders,hello Canada.

[Wesley Mouch]

Have another look at Trudeau's tweet. He came nowhere close to saying Canada would "welcome all". Nor did he welcome economic migrants. He welcomed only refugees: "those fleeing persecution, terror & war".

If this is your evidence Trudeau told the Haitian population in the US that Canada "takes all comers" then he did not.

Since terror, war, and persecution are widespread, its just about the same thing.

The actual reason they arrived in Canada doesn't matter. You just have to say you are fleeing persecution. Then you are scheduled for a preliminary hearing, which will be scheduled for 12-24 month out. If you are told to leave, you can follow a very lengthy appeal process, which I understand can take as much as 10 years. In the meantime, you can enjoy Canada's benefits, rather than the economic hellhole of, say, Haiti.

All that said, I don't think Trudeau really meant to invite everyone. But he wanted his base to hear his call for open borders. It was all about optics. How it appears to his Liberal Party voters who generally favour a soft touch on illegal immigrants rather than the previous Harper tough hammer.

[bust]

More on the Non-Detroit Issues thread. Let's move this there.

[CassTechGrad]

Who is the REAL Jorge Garcia????????????????

[Richard]

Who is the REAL Jorge Garcia????????????????

Pick up a Miami phone book and there are probably 200 pages of Garcia's,Kinda like Smith.

[bust]

Who is the REAL Jorge Garcia????????????????

Wow, I hope not. What a tragedy if so.

[Richard]

I wonder if the radical far left could claim that they are politically oppressed and seek asylum in Canada,hint hint

[bust]

...I don't think Trudeau really meant to invite everyone. But he wanted his base to hear his call for open borders. [[snip)

I know Trump and his lackeys are pushing a relentless campaign to put facts into doubt so they can persuade people to believe the imaginary reality that suits them best. But words still have meaning. We can look them up.

First you said Trudeau would "welcome all comers". Now you say he appealed for "open borders". He did no such things. His words are clear.

Don't let your emotions drive you to ignore their meaning so you can believe what you want to believe. Or if you truly don't believe Trudeau meant to invite everyone, don't mislead people to believe that he did.

It's important for a rational discussion that we deal in facts.