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

[Zacha341]

^^^ Yeah, then there's the complaint toward those not working, draining resources [[EBT, Medicaid etc).

I prefer working individuals/ families who may be investing their earned money in varied ways.

[oladub]

^^^ I don't see why its a problem that immigrants are willing to work hard, to make money, and send 'a pile of it' back home.

The customers decided to buy. They weren't forced. The money went to Iraq, and was used to life family out of poverty. And then to buy an iPhone made in China with profits supporting jobs in Silicon Valley. Sounds like desirable economic activity to me

Legal immigrants have every right to spend their money legally. My grandparents used to send money to relatives in the 'old country' too. An imbalance of foreign trade erodes the dollar and reduces work for Americans but both behaviors can be addressed with legislation.

[melvindaler]

If his snowflaky family is getting so triggered, why don't they just join him and go to Mexico with him?

[Johnnny5]

If his snowflaky family is getting so triggered, why don't they just join him and go to Mexico with him?

I support the strict enforcement of our immigration laws, and have no problem with this man being deported. That said, even I can sympathize with the plight of his family. They're in a no win situation where they had to choose between staying in their own country [[The U.S) or leaving it to keep their family together. That's not what I would consider "being triggered" or being a "Snowflake", those are seriously tough choices.

[Zacha341]

I agree. It's too bad it happened. Hopefully he can find a legal way back to re-join his family.

I'd hardly call the family 'snowflakes'.

They're going thru a great deal thru this, not over-sensitive as the how term 'snowflake' is usually ascribed.

[melvindaler]

I support the strict enforcement of our immigration laws, and have no problem with this man being deported. That said, even I can sympathize with the plight of his family. They're in a no win situation where they had to choose between staying in their own country [[The U.S) or leaving it to keep their family together. That's not what I would consider "being triggered" or being a "Snowflake", those are seriously tough choices.

He didn't go through the process of trying to become a citizen, and for them to think that he can get away with not obeying the law, that's kinda snowflakey to me. It depends on what your definition of snowflake is, although I guess saying that they're getting triggered is kind of a stretch.

[aj3647]

If his snowflaky family is getting so triggered, why don't they just join him and go to Mexico with him?

You left off "libtard cucks."

[melvindaler]

You left off "libtard cucks."

I didn't want to trigger the libtards by using the word "tard" because when you trigger a libtard, you have to deal with their retarded retardation. And a cuck is someone who likes to watch his wife have sex with other men. I don't know where you got that from

[Wesley Mouch]

Legal immigrants have every right to spend their money legally. My grandparents used to send money to relatives in the 'old country' too. An imbalance of foreign trade erodes the dollar and reduces work for Americans but both behaviors can be addressed with legislation.

An imbalance of trade does not erode the dollar. There is a theory that it should, but in practice [[from investopedia):

A trade deficit means that the United States is buying more goods and services from abroad than it is selling abroad.

The word 'deficit' sounds bad, but its not necessarily bad. Surplus sounds good, but its not necessarily good. It tells us that we are importing more than exporting. Well, duh. We're the world's biggest economy, and we buy stuff from everywhere. The countries we buy from may run a trade 'surplus'. But who cares? Only those who focus on the word 'deficit'. And they should stop. [[Yes, Trump, that means you.)

The U.S. has run persistent trade deficits since the mid-1980s, but this has not translated into significant dollar weakness as would be expected. The primary reason is the U.S. dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. Dollar demand continues, as it plays a major role in global trade and reserves for central banks all around the world.
Major economies that issue their own currency, such as the European Union, Japan and England are in a similar space, where they can run persistent trade deficits. Countries that do not have the faith of the investing community are more prone to seeing their currencies depreciate due to trade deficits.

see: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...de-deficit.asp

[Jerry Van]

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

[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!

[Maof]

I didn't want to trigger the libtards by using the word "tard" because when you trigger a libtard, you have to deal with their retarded retardation.

Wow!!.....

[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.

[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.

[bust]

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

I'm going to get off to a slow start, because I think this is key.

"Accurately" is important. And impossible. No two of us think alike. Even separating people into left and right makes little sense upon inspection. Our great diversity of opinions don't organize neatly onto a straight line. Perhaps such a simplification can be useful when we consider issues one at a time. But there are pro-life and pro-choice democrats, pro-life and pro-choice republicans, democrats for and against legalizing recreational marijuana, and republicans too, deficit hawks and profligates in both parties, members of both parties who want to assertively protect our natural environment, and ones who don't. Besides, there are rarely only two possible approaches to solving a complex social problem. We are each some balance of "left" and "right". And in reality, most of our perspectives fall outside the imaginary line.

So yes, for purposes of discussion and debate we need to simplify. But let's be careful not to oversimplify so crudely we're far from accurate.

Your caricature of the left's perspective on immigration was far too far from accurate to let stand. The exaggeration was so heavy-handed I believe it was disingenuous. An attempt to discredit through misrepresentation.

You were responding to comments from Bham. His opinions are solely his own. His manner of expressing them certainly is too. If your goal was to disparage the "left" it's clear how it's a convenient rhetorical device to try to elevate him as a representative example. But he certainly isn't. Whatever the "left" is, it's a wide range of people holding a wide diversity of opinions. Just one example of that: Bham's opinions on transit and sprawl are more in line with those on the "right". Uniformity of opinion doesn't exist, even within the categories we try to create.

You don't always agree with everyone among the so-called "right", do you? Are they more "right" than you? Are they outliers? Or is it unfair to say everyone among the right feels a certain way too?

Let's get into the specifics at hand.

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.

If that's your feeling then whom you classify as left is a very small group indeed. I don't know who these people are you say believe every potential immigrant is deserving of refugee status. The vast majority of us recognize the difference between a refugee fleeing terror, violence, or war and a migrant seeking better economic opportunity. Even if sometimes it is a blend of both. Few Mexicans who arrive here are refugees, and even fewer Brazilians, while perhaps a few more Venezuelans warrant the label, and many more Syrians, Somalis, and Rohingya do too.

But thanks for agreeing yours were rhetorical questions. Determining specifically who is and who is not a valid refugee is a subjective but necessary exercise that can only be conducted on a case-by-case basis. Of course I can't estimate any percentages. And since I'm sure the reasons people come here are often complex, any analysis whether they are refugees or migrants is sure to result not just in clear black or white determinations, but many shades of grey.

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 don't see the subtle difference. As far as I can tell, we agree. I addressed the benefit issue in my words below. I also mentioned immigration must be managed reasonably. Part of that is to limit immigration to a volume we can absorb without detriment to our nation. If we disagree perhaps it's in what that volume should be. But it is far beyond my expertise to make that estimation, so I won't.

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.

I'm not sure I understand your point, probably because I don't understand your example. I don't believe Trudeau ever said anything like Canada would take all comers. But if I missed that I welcome you to point it out.

Where you and Trump seem to agree that is.

It's rare, but I do agree with Trump on occasion. After shouting about illegal immigration for so long the Trump administration finally a few months ago started increasing workplace inspections to audit whether employees are legal. I believe 7-11 was one of the first employers to fall under their magnifying glass. Let's see if that continues, and how.

The how part is important. Let's pay attention to what pattern emerges about whom is inspected. I understand most 7-11s are franchises owned by business people of relatively modest means. Many are immigrants. Is he going to subject the meat packers, the industrial farmers, the large hotel and restaurant operators, and rich people who want to pay less for a nanny to the same scrutiny? Is he going to allow them the loophole of contracting a 3rd party who hires the illegal labor for them? I wouldn't put it past him to target only businesses owned by people unlikely to vote for him, and to continue the practically non-existent enforcement at businesses owned by fat cats who much more likely are. In fact, that's exactly what I expect him to do.

And as ABetterDetroit pointed out on the other thread, the penalties for employers who hire illegal labor are ridiculously lax. Is he going to change that?

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.)

Nothing to add here, except to say that few of us descend from immigrants who settled here as refugees. Most were economic migrants, and there is nothing wrong with that.

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.

I agree it is not 100% clear. These must be handled on a case-by-case basis. And I can see two, or more, sides to the "Syria deserves good doctors" example.

But we are a principled nation. Or at least as we sometimes fail our principles, we continue to present ourselves that way. Melania Trump said in relation to another facet of the immigration issue, we should "govern with heart."

The only thing I'll add is those most deserving of refugee status often don't have the means to even arrive here to request it.

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.

There is what it may seem, and then there are facts. For the past 20 or so years we have accepted many fewer refugees than in years past.



Why is what it seems so different from the facts? Perhaps we should stop listening to all those fear-mongers and hate-mongers who have been screaming how we've been taking in too many refugees. Is the world so much safer today that we should accept a quarter as many as we did in 1980? Is even a quarter too much?

Finally, I note the one part of my post you didn't discuss was the part about the need to reform our legal immigration policies. As we address our problem of illegal immigration it is very important we make our process of legally admitting immigrants more reasonable too.

Thanks for the discussion.

Likewise.

Lots of great information here:

Migration Policy Institute: Refugees and Asylees in the United States
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...-united-states

[Wesley Mouch]

Quick response to only one point for now...

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



But I would agree that it is a conditional statement that limits it to those fleeing 'persecution, terror, and war'. I suspect that a lot of Haitians fleeing deportation could reasonably believe this was a 'welcome'.

It of course makes little difference whether this is an invitation to Canada. My point was only that we would be wise to be careful in our definition of what a refugee is. Along the right-left continuum, I think there's more disagreement about process than racial profiling.

Is the US putting out a welcome mat for economic migrants, or just for refugees from the Syrian war? The answer isn't clear to me.

[[Second small point... my grandparents not doubt had economic issues in mind too, but their stated motivation for immigration to the US was to avoid involuntary induction into the Russian army from non-Russian soil around 1917. I think refugee is more appropriate than economic migrant. But it is certainly hard to draw the line.)

[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.

[bust]

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

[CassTechGrad]

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

[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.

[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.